Jesus Dying for Our Sins

[Domenic]

Then, why is there so much emphasis on the spiritual man? You seem to disregard the purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

I disregard what religions teach as to why Jesus had to die. Jesus was dead for two and a half days. The Jews count a half day as a full day...that is where the three days comes from. Two and a half days is not a long time to be dead, and it is really nothing when you know God is going to bring you back to life...
Because of what Adam and Eve did, the whole human race would age and die. Jesus came to reverse that. Here is a truth you won't learn in any religion. Jesus was a perfect man. if he had not been murdered, he would not have aged or died. If he had children they would also have been perfect.
Here is a medical fact. When a man dies, it takes two to three days for his sperm (seed) to die. That is why Jesus had to be dead for two and a half days. What was given to save the human race was a perfect un-born race within Jesus. I suggest those who want to know the truth, read, and prove out the scrolls.

 

[Brian Schuh]

If God killed His own son, what the hell is He going to do to us!

 

[Skwim]

If God killed His own son, what the hell is He going to do to us!

That's where the trinity comes in. Jesus wasn't really god's son, but god in the guise of a human. So when he, as Jesus, was crucified and all, it didn't really bother god because that's how he set up the whole thing to play out. God can't die, which is why Jesus wasn't really killed. It was all a shadows and mirrors sort of thing. Before god even "impregnated" Mary with himself the whole story was in place. All that was left was for the events to unfold. At least this is how the Bible factors it.


.

 

[blue taylor]

The following came to mind when I was reminded that Easter was approaching. It got me thinking. . . . .

If I remember correctly, Jesus was put on Earth to save sinners from Hell and insure they could go to heaven.

And, as I recall, Jesus was one of three consubstantial expressions (a term I took from the definition of the trinity) of god.

So, in fact, god put himself on Earth to save sinners from the Hell he had created for them, or at least permitted it to exist.

God therefore went about his work on earth in the guise of a human, and being omniscient knew what lay ahead---the impending betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection from his human form.

Knowing how his earthly life was to play out, and purposely orchestrating the whole thing, insuring that he would be betrayed, arrested, crucified, etc. why do people find his "suffering" on the cross and his resurrection so admirable? I don't get it.

First of all, he created Hell (or if you prefer, exclusion from Heaven), but why? The only answer I've been able to come up with is that he wanted his creatures, us, to need him. Need him to get us out of the predicament he set up for us. However, he didn't need it for quite a few years, during which time he sent millions of people to his Hell. Then he comes along and offers a way out to some of his creatures, but only if they sing his praises for being a good guy who had himself killed.

In light of the foregoing, isn't Christianity simply an insurance policy that demands that one buy into the notion that the crucifixion and all was some kind of true sacrifice, when, in fact, it appears there was no actual sacrifice at all? It is all a ploy to get people to praise him, and those who don't can go to H - E - double hockey sticks.

If I've missed some critical aspect of the story please bring me up to speed.


.

Original sin does not exist in the bible. If it did the bible would teach reincarnation. Which it does in places.

 

[Skwim]

Original sin does not exist in the bible.

I believe Christians use the term "original sin" to label the sin Adam brought into the world.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Original sin does not exist in the bible., If it did the bible would teach reincarnation. Which it does in places.

Want to rephrase this so it makes sense?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Jesus did not die for my sins- 1. Jesus died for his own sins, including blasphemy as well as making a stupid comment that he would destroy the Temple (and rebuild it in 3 days) and 2. My sins had not even been committed yet. As in the Temple, a sacrifice could not be brought until a sin had been committed and the person had repented. If Jesus died for all sins, past, present and future, wow I think I'm going to be a glutton, a drunk and hang out with whores and I'm not going to pay my bills- I can do whatever I want cause someone died for my sins before I even commit them. Get the point?

 

[First Baseman]

If God killed His own son, what the hell is He going to do to us!

God "killed" His own Son as a sacrifice for you. So His death gives you eternal life if you believe. It isn't like God is some horrible idiot that kills His own Son and everybody else.

Most people know these things are what Bible believers believe. Why do you twist it around like that? Do you hate God for some reason?

 

[Brian Schuh]

God "killed" His own Son as a sacrifice for you. So His death gives you eternal life if you believe. It isn't like God is some horrible idiot that kills His own Son and everybody els

God "killed" His own Son as a sacrifice for you. So His death gives you eternal life if you believe. It isn't like God is some horrible idiot that kills His own Son and everybody else.

Most people know these things are what Bible believers believe. Why do you twist it around like that? Do you hate God for some reason?

Moses taught that animal sacrifice atoned for sin, not human sacrifice. God's people never sacrificed humans. And when the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, the animal sacrifices will continue.

 

[First Baseman]

Have you never read the New Testament? Are you familiar at all with the writings of St. Paul? He goes into great detail about how the sacrifice of Christ relates to the animal sacrifices in the OT and explains it rather well.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Sorry about that, somehow I messed that post up.

Look, what I was saying is that animal blood atoned for sin, not human blood. God's people never did human sacrifices. When the Temple is rebuilt, animal sacrifices will continue.

 

[First Baseman]

Sorry about that, somehow I messed that post up.

Look, what I was saying is that animal blood atoned for sin, not human blood. God's people never did human sacrifices. When the Temple is rebuilt, animal sacrifices will continue.

I understand that. And that is because the bulk of the Jews do not believe the NT.

But if you read the writings of St. Paul you will understand Christian doctrine much better than you do now.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Have you never read the New Testament? Are you familiar at all with the writings of St. Paul? He goes into great detail about how the sacrifice of Christ relates to the animal sacrifices in the OT and explains it rather well.

Yeah I've read St. Paul and yes I know what he claims. But that doesn't change the fact that God commanded that animals be sacrificed, not humans.

 

[First Baseman]

Yeah I've read St. Paul and yes I know what he claims. But that doesn't change the fact that God commanded that animals be sacrificed, not humans.

Okay, you obviously reject NT teaching. That is why you think and feel the way you do about it.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't see it as being God's fault either, as I don't believe God has faults.

However, I do believe that with power comes responsibility;
therefore, one who is all powerful would be all responsible.

I also don't believe in free will, at least in the absolute sense.
Humans have a limited range of choices they can make, but until
one can, through sheer force of their will, change who their birth-
parents are or their nationality, their will is limited.

This is a rational and logical stance to hold on the subject. I can't argue your logic.

I don't think that innate conditions as a generality require free will.

As it is, even when we feel we're making free choices, those
choices are being influenced by a number of external and
internal factors which lie outside of our immediate control.
Once one realizes this, the notion of "free" will is less easy
to accept.

I do view free will differently. Though circumstances and innate conditions may influence the choices that are presented before me, I'm still making personal decisions daily. I'm still faced with morality and required at times to decipher and choose from right and wrong.

I certainly acknowledge that there are people denied of freedom and the ability to choose. Still, I think most people if faced with a moral dilemma, make a conscious choice to take one path or the other. If one has the ability to justify an action or choice - there exists free will.

What's interesting is that if this were a creationism-vs-evolution
thread, few believers would have any problem with the idea that
all that exists comes from God as the one and only Designer. Yet,
it's interesting how this shifts a little when discussing where things
like hell and the devil come from. -

I subscribe to the concept of creationism AND evolution, so I don't know what to tell you, there.

 

[dawny0826]

Criminals aren't tormented pointlessly for all eternity with no hope of rehabilitation. -

My thoughts on this change frequently as I'm sure a lot of Christians struggle with the concept of a literal fire and brimstone hell.

If I have no problem accepting that heaven is eternal, why should I struggle with the concept of hell (whatever that translates to) being eternal?

It's heavy stuff to ponder. At the center of it, I do believe that God is just. If there is a literal hell and brimstone, torturous type of hell, I don't believe that anyone sent there isn't deserving of it.

Additionally, I believe that most good people at heart, whether they are God fearing or not, have a repenting and loving spirit to them. If they do wrong, they are bothered by it. If they have the ability to be a light to others - they do so. An all knowing God sees good in HIs creation.

 

[dawny0826]

I disregard what religions teach as to why Jesus had to die. Jesus was dead for two and a half days. The Jews count a half day as a full day...that is where the three days comes from. Two and a half days is not a long time to be dead, and it is really nothing when you know God is going to bring you back to life...
Because of what Adam and Eve did, the whole human race would age and die. Jesus came to reverse that. Here is a truth you won't learn in any religion. Jesus was a perfect man. if he had not been murdered, he would not have aged or died. If he had children they would also have been perfect.
Here is a medical fact. When a man dies, it takes two to three days for his sperm (seed) to die. That is why Jesus had to be dead for two and a half days. What was given to save the human race was a perfect un-born race within Jesus. I suggest those who want to know the truth, read, and prove out the scrolls.

The problem is that Jesus never told us that he came to reverse death. He told us that through him we could conquer death in spirit.

How is what you've described any less challenging to accept/believe than the concept of sacrificial Christ sent to save us from our sin?

 

[dawny0826]

According to

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.​

Yup, and many more. Like those who simply don't believe in Jesus. Here are the terms for staying out of hell . . . . .or else:

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.​

It that's all it was that would be fine, but there's more. The wrath of god awaits (see above).


Think anyone who's truly wicked is sane? I don't. At the very least they would be mentally unstable---true wickedness is not normal, stable behavior---and we don't treat the mentally unstable like we treat the sane. We recognize that they aren't in complete control of their actions, which is why our courts make allowances when judging them. God doesn't do this does he? For god, someone who is truly wicked: insane or unstable, say for 70 years, deserves to be punished for it by suffering for all eternity. Personally, I find this highly unjust. Down here on earth we put people like this in asylums where they can be cared for.


.

Do these verses negate Romans 13:10.?

Does love not prevail over death in a spiritual sense? I think that it does.

I understand why you find hell to be an unjust concept.

 

[Skwim]

Do these verses negate Romans 13:10.?

Does love not prevail over death in a spiritual sense? I think that it does.

This would imply that being effeminate is unloving. After all, as we read in

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,​

Do you feel that being effeminate is unloving?


.

 

[dawny0826]

This would imply that being effeminate is unloving. After all, as we read in

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,​

Do you feel that being effeminate is unloving?


.

Depends on the individual.

 

[Skwim]

Depends on the individual.

All the individual has done to miss getting into heaven is to be effeminate.


.