It's said Jesus' sacrificed himself to save us...

[melk]

1. What I really don't get is why all the pantomime. Surely the creator of the universe has it within his power to just forgive without all the death and pomp!

   . Yes, I believe God could and can just forgive us with no need of sacrifice. The question is: would we plainly feel His forgiveness this way? The sacrifice of His beloved Son was more than a God's request for Himself. It was a way to make us sure of His love and forgiveness, when we come back to Him.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Yes, I believe God could and can just forgive us with no need of sacrifice. The question is: would we plainly feel His forgiveness this way? The sacrifice of His beloved Son was more than a God's request for Himself. It was a way to make us sure of His love and forgiveness, when we come back to Him.

On the contrary, it alienates far more people than it reassures. Nobody wants someone's death on their hands like that, least of all as a demonstration of reconciliation. People prefer their olive branches without blood on them. And a whole lot of people are going to be turned away from the whole thing by this theory of sacrificial atonement, as it constructs a view of God that people are simply incapable of admiring.

 

[Thanda]

Dying and then coming back to life three days later to become an immortal superbeing ain't no sacrifice. Sacrifice requires loss, not gain.

This is quite false. Sacrifice involves a temporary loss followed by a gain. If your child steals and you take the blame for him, you might go to jail. But your jail term is temporary. It will have an end. But your satisfaction from knowing that you saved your child from an experience that could have ruined his life will last forever.

 

[Vishvavajra]

None of those modern usages of the word "sacrifice" remotely resemble how people understood the concept in antiquity. Back when the books of the Bible were written, a sacrifice was a kind of meal shared with the god. If you look at the actual form of the rite, you'll see that it the food has to be prepared a certain way, and then the ones making the offering actually consume most of the food, usually the edible parts. Inedible parts are usually burned along with fragrant herbs. Nothing is lost that would not have been lost in a normal meal of that sort.

In fact, sacrifices were the main context in which meat was consumed by most people. But there were bloodless sacrifices too, such as the offering of first fruits (another metaphor that Paul uses to refer to Jesus, but people somehow miss it because it's talking about vegetables instead of slaughtered animals). Even then, the offerings were not left there and allowed to rot; they were eaten by the celebrants. The god doesn't literally eat the food, he just shares the experience with you as you invite him to your table.

The modern usage of "sacrifice" probably comes from the sense that slaughtering animals for sacrifice was costly, which it was (and which was precisely why it was the most prestigious form of sacrifice). So yeah, you don't have that animal anymore, but the same would be true if you cooked it at home. The sacrificial context isn't what robbed you of the animal. But it's likely that people seldom slaughtered animals or ate meat outside of the context of sacrifice, since it was so costly and you'd want to save it for the important occasions. In other words, if you're going to slaughter an animal, might as well make a sacrifice out of it, as long as it meets the specifications.

People don't have sacrificial cult anymore, and they see lots of individually-wrapped meat at the supermarket from huge factory farms, so the ancient attitude towards these things doesn't resonate anymore. That's just one more reason why the sacrificial metaphor just doesn't work in the modern day. It's something ancient people were intimately familiar with and modern people tend not to have a clue about. Consequently, modern people also miss the most problematic aspect of taking the sacrificial metaphor literally: since sacrifices were understood to be meals, human sacrifice necessarily implies cannibalism. Note that the "long pig" is not on the list of ritually clean animals according to Judaic law (and that's not just because I used the word "pig").

 

[atpollard]

None of those modern usages of the word "sacrifice" remotely resemble how people understood the concept in antiquity. Back when the books of the Bible were written, a sacrifice was a kind of meal shared with the god. If you look at the actual form of the rite, you'll see that it the food has to be prepared a certain way, and then the ones making the offering actually consume most of the food, usually the edible parts. Inedible parts are usually burned along with fragrant herbs. Nothing is lost that would not have been lost in a normal meal of that sort.

In fact, sacrifices were the main context in which meat was consumed by most people. But there were bloodless sacrifices too, such as the offering of first fruits (another metaphor that Paul uses to refer to Jesus, but people somehow miss it because it's talking about vegetables instead of slaughtered animals). Even then, the offerings were not left there and allowed to rot; they were eaten by the celebrants. The god doesn't literally eat the food, he just shares the experience with you as you invite him to your table.

The modern usage of "sacrifice" probably comes from the sense that slaughtering animals for sacrifice was costly, which it was (and which was precisely why it was the most prestigious form of sacrifice). So yeah, you don't have that animal anymore, but the same would be true if you cooked it at home. The sacrificial context isn't what robbed you of the animal. But it's likely that people seldom slaughtered animals or ate meat outside of the context of sacrifice, since it was so costly and you'd want to save it for the important occasions. In other words, if you're going to slaughter an animal, might as well make a sacrifice out of it, as long as it meets the specifications.

People don't have sacrificial cult anymore, and they see lots of individually-wrapped meat at the supermarket from huge factory farms, so the ancient attitude towards these things doesn't resonate anymore. That's just one more reason why the sacrificial metaphor just doesn't work in the modern day. It's something ancient people were intimately familiar with and modern people tend not to have a clue about. Consequently, modern people also miss the most problematic aspect of taking the sacrificial metaphor literally: since sacrifices were understood to be meals, human sacrifice necessarily implies cannibalism. Note that the "long pig" is not on the list of ritually clean animals according to Judaic law. Taking Jesus literally as a sacrifice creates all sorts of horrifying implications that don't arise if it's understood as a loose metaphor.

I don't think that anyone ever ate the dove or the Red Heifer.
Some sacrifices are to be eaten and some are not (IIRC, it has been a while since I read the Law.)

 

[JoStories]

On the contrary, it alienates far more people than it reassures. Nobody wants someone's death on their hands like that, least of all as a demonstration of reconciliation. People prefer their olive branches without blood on them. And a whole lot of people are going to be turned away from the whole thing by this theory of sacrificial atonement, as it constructs a view of God that people are simply incapable of admiring.

Agreed. The entire notion has never appealed to me. I just can't accept a version of God as so bloody.

 

[melk]

Agreed. The entire notion has never appealed to me. I just can't accept a version of God as so bloody.

Me too am against a version of a bloody god. It is curious how you managed the contrary arguments in a way to get this result. Maybe it is the reflex of a society that has desvinculated love from any kind of self sacifice.

 

[leibowde84]

It is most especially hard to understand when Christendom makes a complete mess of the whole thing. There are so many introduced ideas that all conflict, so how can anyone get to the bottom of it...talk about confusion!



There is no logical connection in any of it. People are so busy gorging themselves on chocolate and hot cross buns that they have no idea what it's all about.

"Atonement" is literally "at-one-ment"...one action cancels out the other.
How does the sacrificing of Jesus' life "atone" for the life that Adam forfeited?

Simple. The law of God stated that equivalency was required to settle a debt or to pay for a crime. God's law was "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life".....so when Adam lost his perfect life by disobeying his Creator, only another equivalent life could be offered in "atonement". Since Adam's sin resulted in imperfection or defects in his genetics, (the original word for "sin" was an archery term meaning to "miss the mark") only an equivalent (perfect, sinless) life could be offered in exchange to cancel the debt and fulfill the law, thereby rescuing Adam's children, subject to sin (imperfection) through no fault on their part. This is why "the flesh is weak". The strength of our spirit is the only thing that can conquer the weakness of the flesh.



Time is our enemy here on earth. When we understand that the Creator and those who inhabit the spirit realm are timeless beings, not bound by earth's time limitations, we can begin to comprehend that because the first rebel was not human, that the issue is a universal one, fought on universal ground in universal time.

We are not the primary objects of this issue. The first rebel was a powerful spirit being who challenged God for sovereign rule over the earth and mankind. He claimed that God was not the right one to tell us how to live...that he would be the better choice as god and ruler. In order to settle the issue once and for all, God allowed the devil a free hand to prove himself as a god and also as a ruler over mankind, promoting independent thinking and self determination. We are living in the end result of the devil's rulership. Can we not see his stamp on everything? Can we not see the evil in the earth growing steadily as time goes on. Are we not appalled that the heinous acts of inhumanity are demonstrating evil on a scale that should not exist in this age of knowledge and civilisation?

At the end of this time period, all living beings who are endowed with free will, will have made their choices about who they accept as their god and who they will accept as ruler over them.

If you know what's going on, you can see clearly that now the world is in the same state now as it was in the days of Noah. Jesus said that just as people refused to listen to Noah's warning back then, they would do so again before he comes to end the devil's rulership once and for all. (Matt 24:36-39; Dan 2:44)

What is accomplished by God's permission of satan's rulership?

Humans get to see firsthand what happens to the world when they reject God's laws and refuse to surrender their own will to his. The abuse of free will is what got us into this mess. Doing things "our" way has never worked. We have tried every conceivable form of self rule, but none of them work for the benefit of all......why? Because power corrupts, every time. We are not designed to rule ourselves.....we are designed to be ruled by God. (Jer 10:23)

All intelligent creatures are given opportunity to make choices about whom they will obey and whom they will serve as sovereign over them....both in heaven and on earth. The outcomes for both positions is clearly stated so no one can cry foul. We are given the choice....obey God and live...disobey God and lose your life.

Legal precedents are created by allowing things to come to their natural conclusion. No one can accuse God of not allowing humans and angels enough time to see the folly of trying to do things their way. This will mean that no intelligent being will ever be able to rebel against the rightness of God's proven rulership, ever again. Precedents create the basis for all future judgment. No rebel will ever disturb the peace of others again.

Free will is retained as the wonderful gift it was meant to be, rather than the curse it became when humans and angels abused it....and God can get on with his purpose for the rest of forever unhindered.

If God has to follow his own Laws, wouldn't that mean that his power would be limited?

 

[Awoon]

Me too am against a version of a bloody god. It is curious how you managed the contrary arguments in a way to get this result. Maybe it is the reflex of a society that has desvinculated love from any kind of self sacifice.

The old Prophets and Priests demanded Sacrifice, AKA (BBQ) in the name of the local God/Goddess. Moses set up his family to be fed by the people. They had Cook Outs everyday. No God ever gets to eat anything.

 

[arthra]

...but then it says in the bible that on the 3rd day he rose into heaven.


So where the hell is the sacrifice?

One might argue that he sacrificed his earthly body and yet...

"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." - Mark 14:38

So god clearly didn't think that much of the flesh to make losing it a sacrifice.

I think the "sacrifice" of Jesus ... His martyrdom on the cross occurred on the Passover...which was a major Holy Day in Jerusalem... Earlier Jesus had driven out the money changers and released the animals from the Temple precincts which were being sold to people for them to sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem...by doing this Jesus was saying to the people that their sacrifices in the Temple through the priesthood were no longer acceptable to God.. Jesus Himself became the sacrifice for their sins...not through a sacrificial animal.

See:

Passover sacrifice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Isaiah it says God is tired of the sacrifices of animals:

1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD:
I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;
and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

(King James Bible, Isaiah)

The Resurrection in three days was symbolic..of the spiritual triumph of the Cause of Christ.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Christian religion wants people to be Christ- like, but on the other hand they make sure you know Christ had an advantage because he was God and you aint. It doesn't make sense and its just a money making Guilt Trip.

Soooo....you are expected to be like christ...but it's made explicit that you can't live up to that expectation...and it ain't a guilt trip? Emmmmmmkaaay!

 

[Awoon]

Soooo....you are expected to be like christ...but it's made explicit that you can't live up to that expectation...and it ain't a guilt trip? Emmmmmmkaaay!

"Dear people be good." Preachers and Priests every Sunday.

 

[sojourner]

Soooo....you are expected to be like christ...but it's made explicit that you can't live up to that expectation...and it ain't a guilt trip? Emmmmmmkaaay!

No, Xtians are expected to love, as per the example Jesus set, as best they can.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, Xtians are expected to love, as per the example Jesus set, as best they can.

Love...like jesus...as best they can...but not quite as good? Or just as good?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Christian religion wants people to be Christ- like, but on the other hand they make sure you know Christ had an advantage because he was God and you aint. It doesn't make sense and its just a money making Guilt Trip.

A lot of people these days think that way. However, if you look at Paul, he constantly uses Jesus as a model of what people can do. He never says Jesus was utterly unique and nobody else could be like that. Nor does Jesus talk that way in the Gospels. He's constantly using language that puts him on the same level as other people, while exalting humanity generally. Yes, he says God is in him, but we are told that the same is true of us. Jesus didn't have a monopoly on the divinity.

There's no reason to believe that everyone isn't equally capable of universal love. In fact, I'd rather say that's the point.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

A lot of people these days think that way. However, if you look at Paul, he constantly uses Jesus as a model of what people can do. He never says Jesus was utterly unique and nobody else could be like that. Nor does Jesus talk that way in the Gospels. He's constantly using language that puts him on the same level as other people, while exalting humanity generally. Yes, he says God is in him, but we are told that the same is true of us. Jesus didn't have a monopoly on the divinity.

There's no reason to believe that everyone isn't equally capable of universal love. In fact, I'd rather say that's the point.

So true! And here is were we seperate the theological hypocrites from the practice hypocrites!

 

[sojourner]

Love...like jesus...as best they can...but not quite as good? Or just as good?

As best they can. No one expects perfection.

 

[InChrist]

Why is there a penalty to be paid? Why is there need for any of that? And most importantly, why is there need for horrible suffering and death? Why is it necessary for God to solve problems with violence? It was barbaric when ancient people did it to animals (and sometimes each other), and it's barbaric to imagine that Jesus is just one more example of a blood sacrifice. I don't think he would be pleased by that at all.

According to the scriptures there is a penalty because the Creator's laws have been broken. I don't find this too difficult to understand, yet many people seem to trivialize sin and think God should simply wink at it or sweep it under the rug. The scriptures show that He takes sin very seriously because it is sin that has marred His creation and continues to cause damage and violence everywhere and has throughout human history. God does not compromise on sin, nor is He solving problems with violence. He is dealing with the root of the problem and violence in this world by putting sin to death. Death is a graphic picture and physical death should be a stark reminder to everyone of the serious and terrible nature of sin and the eternal spiritual death that will be the end consequence of sin.

The blood and sacrifice may seem barbaric to our modern sensibilities, but the reason for the blood is very important. In Leviticus 17:1, it is stated that the life of a living creature is found in its blood. Blood represents life. The death and shed blood are a twofold reminder that the penalty for sin is death and also that when an innocent life was taken, and its blood shed as a sacrifice, it represented new life for another. It made atonement for their soul. The sacrifices of the OT pointed to the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who alone as God in the flesh could be the Savior and pay for the sins of the world, a purpose for which Jesus was well aware of and pleased to do this for the love of His creation.

The scriptures leave no doubt that He viewed His own death as a sacrifice for sin ( Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28; Mark 14;24; Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20; John 1:29, 36; 1 Cor. 11:25; Rev. 13:8). He gave His “life a ransom” and said, “My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for remission of sins”. Just before He died on the cross His words were, "It is finished".

Stand to Reason | Why Does God Require a Blood Sacrifice?

 

[InChrist]

As best they can. No one expects perfection.

Except God requires perfection.

 

[Awoon]

A lot of people these days think that way. However, if you look at Paul, he constantly uses Jesus as a model of what people can do. He never says Jesus was utterly unique and nobody else could be like that. Nor does Jesus talk that way in the Gospels. He's constantly using language that puts him on the same level as other people, while exalting humanity generally. Yes, he says God is in him, but we are told that the same is true of us. Jesus didn't have a monopoly on the divinity.

There's no reason to believe that everyone isn't equally capable of universal love. In fact, I'd rather say that's the point.

Well my next question is, when are you going to demonstrate the same as Jesus did? ie raising the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine? It's easy to poo poo his divinity (if he had any). If he was a regular Joe then the regular Joes should be able to demonstrate his abilities also.