Sure Jesus died for me, but what has he done for me today?

[Squirt]

I agree with your statements here, for the most part. I would clarify what I believe about what you said thusly: Christ's atonement does not make us perfect, it makes us forgiven. And in this forgiven state, we are able to stand before God.

I can go along with this -- with one qualification. We are forgiven when we make an effort to repent. Jesus never said He would forgive the person who makes no effort whatsoever to repent.

I think the reason why Christ's death atoned for our sin is basically twofold: Christ's death was a self-sacrificial act of love. In fact, the greatest act of love ever done. Love conquers all things, even the sting of death.

Second, while maybe it wasn't particularly the physical agony that was any worse than any other earthly suffering, I think it was the spiritual anguish that was the worst. First, At one point, God had forsaken Jesus. Jesus knew what no none else has ever really known: What it means to be completely bereft of Spirit. Second, Jesus took upon himself the sin of the whole world -- not just one person's sin. These two spiritual agonies were far, far worse than any other human being has experienced.

Agreed.

 

[sojourner]

I can go along with this -- with one qualification. We are forgiven when we make an effort to repent. Jesus never said He would forgive the person who makes no effort whatsoever to repent.

Agreed.

Well, again, you know where I stand on the issue of "conditional grace." But, again, on the whole, I agreed with your post.

As an aside, I respect your position. I think you're sincere, and I think you have a great spirit of love, yourself. And I generally like debating with you.

 

[Squirt]

Well, again, you know where I stand on the issue of "conditional grace." But, again, on the whole, I agreed with your post.

As an aside, I respect your position. I think you're sincere, and I think you have a great spirit of love, yourself. And I generally like debating with you.

Likewise, Sojourner. I've got to say that I'd far rather debate you than I would a person who is at the opposite end of the sprectrum, the one who believes in a Heaven that will be populated only by those who believe exactly as he does.

 

[Squirt]

I'm certainly not going to accept it, but I think I can understand it.

I do think that even if one accepted the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, there might be other ways of looking at -- especially since your own belief, as you say, is not found in scripture. Might there not be other people who accept the doctrine but don't find the same implications in it that you do?

I'm sure there are, but I'm not so sure that any other interpretation is explicitely stated in the scriptures either.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

http://www.alislam.org/library/dcross.html
http://www.alislam.org/books/jesus-in-india/contents.html
http://www.alislam.org/library/jesus.html

Regards.

Ok, I went to your first link and immediately found this bit of claptrap, "It is a matter of common experience at the time of a severe dust-storm accompanied by an earthquake." there is nothing in the Biblical account of a duststorm.

Next there are the accounts, Biblically, of Christ's death andd the people who attended to it.

There is also non Biblical references to the death of Christ such as this report: Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . .

​

"What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus."

Or this from the Talmud:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Or this from Lucian of Samosata from the second century:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

​

So there is evidence of the death of Chist. You then are just following what someone else made up.

 

[Anastasios]

Well, I think it is quite normal to for us to follow some other's ideas. In origin, we both follow some other's ideas as our religious construction naturally. The problem is not to follow, but not to understand. Still it is a problematic issue for many to understand resurrection. did you know that the Greek verbs which were used for the Christ's death don't give an exact death meaning? That is why they are translating as "to give up the ghost", which seems in Greek text as "afihmi to pneuma" (Matthew), "ekpneuw" (Luke and Mark), "apodidwmi to pneuma" (John). None of them gives an exact meaning of "to die" which is "apothneskw" in Greek. And it seems to me they wrote just what they knew about. Gospels are in concord in many aspects, as was seen in the uncertainty in the verbs used, with Quran, which says "And for their saying, 'We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.(4.158)"
But there are many problems other than this, such as:
"The scenario of Jesus’ revival from the dead presents many problems. Some of them have already been discussed in the previous chapter. Now we turn to other elements and complexities.

What we have in view is the nature of the ‘mind’ of Jesus, prior to the Crucifixion and after his revival from the dead. His mind was brought to life again, after a loss of function for three days and nights. The question is, what actually happens to the brain at the time of death? On one point at least there is a consensus among both the Christian and the non-Christian medical experts: if the brain remains dead for more than a few minutes, it is dead and gone forever. As soon as the blood supply ceases, it begins to disintegrate.

If Jesus died during the Crucifixion it can only mean that his heart ceased functioning and stopped supplying blood to his brain, and that his brain died soon after. So his entire life support system must have stopped to operate or he could not have been declared dead. That being so we are faced with a very intriguing problem in relation to the understanding of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

The death of Jesus Christ, as has been demonstrated, would mean a final departure of his astral body, or soul as we may call it, from the physical cage of his human body. If so, his revival would have to mean the return of the same astral body to the same physical body that it had left behind three days earlier. Such a return of the soul would restart the clock of physical life and set it ticking once again. For such a thing to happen, the disintegrated and dead brain cells would have come to life suddenly and the chemical processes of rapid decay would have been reversed entirely. This involves an enormous problem and will ever remain a challenge for the Christian biochemists to resolve. Describing the reversal of the entire chemical processes of decay within the central nervous system is beyond the reach of the farthest stretches of scientist’s imagination. If it ever happened it would be a miracle indeed, defying science and making a mockery of the laws made by God Himself, but a miracle that would still fail to solve the problem at hand.

Such a revival would mean not just the revival of the cells of the central nervous system, but actually their synthesis. Even if the same cells were reconstructed and brought to life exactly as they were before, they would, in fact, be a new set of cells devoid of any previous memory. They would have to be re- manufactured, complete with all the data relevant to the life of Jesus that was wiped out of his brain after the death of his mind.

Life, as we know it, comprises of a consciousness that is filled with information held by billions of neurons within the brain. That information is then subdivided into far more complicated and interrelated bits of computerised information received from each of the five senses. If that data is wiped out, life itself would be wiped out. Therefore, the revival of the brain of Jesus would mean the construction and the manufacture of a new brain computer with a completely new set of software. This complexity also relates to the chemistry of the rest of the body of Jesus Christ. To revive the body, a colossal chemical reconstruction process will have to be put into operation after retrieving all the material lost in the process of decay. With such a great miracle having taken place the question would arise as to who is revived and with what effect? Is it the man in Jesus or is it the god in him? This is why we are emphasising the importance of understanding the person of Jesus."
continue on http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_5.html

 

[sojourner]

Well, I think it is quite normal to for us to follow some other's ideas. In origin, we both follow some other's ideas as our religious construction naturally. The problem is not to follow, but not to understand. Still it is a problematic issue for many to understand resurrection. did you know that the Greek verbs which were used for the Christ's death don't give an exact death meaning? That is why they are translating as "to give up the ghost", which seems in Greek text as "afihmi to pneuma" (Matthew), "ekpneuw" (Luke and Mark), "apodidwmi to pneuma" (John). None of them gives an exact meaning of "to die" which is "apothneskw" in Greek. And it seems to me they wrote just what they knew about. Gospels are in concord in many aspects, as was seen in the uncertainty in the verbs used, with Quran, which says "And for their saying, 'We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.(4.158)"
But there are many problems other than this, such as:
"The scenario of Jesus’ revival from the dead presents many problems. Some of them have already been discussed in the previous chapter. Now we turn to other elements and complexities.

What we have in view is the nature of the ‘mind’ of Jesus, prior to the Crucifixion and after his revival from the dead. His mind was brought to life again, after a loss of function for three days and nights. The question is, what actually happens to the brain at the time of death? On one point at least there is a consensus among both the Christian and the non-Christian medical experts: if the brain remains dead for more than a few minutes, it is dead and gone forever. As soon as the blood supply ceases, it begins to disintegrate.

If Jesus died during the Crucifixion it can only mean that his heart ceased functioning and stopped supplying blood to his brain, and that his brain died soon after. So his entire life support system must have stopped to operate or he could not have been declared dead. That being so we are faced with a very intriguing problem in relation to the understanding of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

The death of Jesus Christ, as has been demonstrated, would mean a final departure of his astral body, or soul as we may call it, from the physical cage of his human body. If so, his revival would have to mean the return of the same astral body to the same physical body that it had left behind three days earlier. Such a return of the soul would restart the clock of physical life and set it ticking once again. For such a thing to happen, the disintegrated and dead brain cells would have come to life suddenly and the chemical processes of rapid decay would have been reversed entirely. This involves an enormous problem and will ever remain a challenge for the Christian biochemists to resolve. Describing the reversal of the entire chemical processes of decay within the central nervous system is beyond the reach of the farthest stretches of scientist’s imagination. If it ever happened it would be a miracle indeed, defying science and making a mockery of the laws made by God Himself, but a miracle that would still fail to solve the problem at hand.

Such a revival would mean not just the revival of the cells of the central nervous system, but actually their synthesis. Even if the same cells were reconstructed and brought to life exactly as they were before, they would, in fact, be a new set of cells devoid of any previous memory. They would have to be re- manufactured, complete with all the data relevant to the life of Jesus that was wiped out of his brain after the death of his mind.

Life, as we know it, comprises of a consciousness that is filled with information held by billions of neurons within the brain. That information is then subdivided into far more complicated and interrelated bits of computerised information received from each of the five senses. If that data is wiped out, life itself would be wiped out. Therefore, the revival of the brain of Jesus would mean the construction and the manufacture of a new brain computer with a completely new set of software. This complexity also relates to the chemistry of the rest of the body of Jesus Christ. To revive the body, a colossal chemical reconstruction process will have to be put into operation after retrieving all the material lost in the process of decay. With such a great miracle having taken place the question would arise as to who is revived and with what effect? Is it the man in Jesus or is it the god in him? This is why we are emphasising the importance of understanding the person of Jesus."
continue on http://www.alis
lam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_5.html

A couple problems with your post. First of all, Jesus was not "brain dead" for the three days between his death and his resurrection. If he had been, how could he have descended into hell to release the prisoners there?

Second, Jesus didn't die of heart failure that led to brain starvation. The scriptures plainly tell us that Jesus "gave up his Spirit." He died long before he was "supposed" to. Crucifixion usually takes days to kill its victims. Jesus died in less than one.

 

[Anastasios]

A couple problems with your post. First of all, Jesus was not "brain dead" for the three days between his death and his resurrection. If he had been, how could he have descended into hell to release the prisoners there?

Second, Jesus didn't die of heart failure that led to brain starvation. The scriptures plainly tell us that Jesus "gave up his Spirit." He died long before he was "supposed" to. Crucifixion usually takes days to kill its victims. Jesus died in less than one.

First, who says that I accept that Jesus descended into hell to release the prisoners there?
I am sorry but this later inventions are quite absurd for me.

second, I did not try to explain the Jesus's way of death, the main thema was the impossibility for a person to resurrect physically.

Regards.

 

[michel]

Now, this may seem like a silly subject, but I promise, I have a point.

Many people argue the following...
"If you want to see how much Jesus loves you, look at how he was tortured and crucified for your sins."

This statement bugs me, probably more than it should. Lets say some fun rich business man decides to give money to Arabia. Does this mean he cares for each individual person of Arabia equally, or does he care about the nation?

People say Jesus died for ME, well, for all of humanity, but can it be both? With everyone being an individual, can someone really do something that is best for all of humanity and something that is best for each person that makes up humanity?

Lets say some fun rich business man decides to give money to Arabia. Does this mean he cares for each individual person of Arabia equally, or does he care about the nation?

I think I get what you are trying to say, but I think to compare a rich businessman who is trying to help a country move on to Jesus' entire life teaching, and his final sacrifice is a bit 'strange'.

When I saw the title of the thread " Sure Jesus died for me, but what has he done for me today ?", I felt like answering "He has made me aware of what I owe him, that I love him, and that I am so glad to have been able to 'get to know him' through prayer. I don't think life would mean much without knowing about him".
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...but-what-has-he-done-me-today-post356980.html

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, I think it is quite normal to for us to follow some other's ideas. In origin, we both follow some other's ideas as our religious construction naturally. The problem is not to follow, but not to understand. Still it is a problematic issue for many to understand resurrection. did you know that the Greek verbs which were used for the Christ's death don't give an exact death meaning?

This is the kind of pointy headed intellectuallism that one must go through in order to disprove the obvious. So your saying that the translators were so bumblingly inept that they forgot to mention that Jesus never really died and that every other mention or prophecy of the death, burial, and resurection of Christ is just so much incompetence? Maybe this kind of deception works on people who really don't want to believe the Bible but I think your just making yourself look a little silly with this type of thought.

 

[Anastasios]

This is the kind of pointy headed intellectuallism that one must go through in order to disprove the obvious. So your saying that the translators were so bumblingly inept that they forgot to mention that Jesus never really died and that every other mention or prophecy of the death, burial, and resurection of Christ is just so much incompetence? Maybe this kind of deception works on people who really don't want to believe the Bible but I think your just making yourself look a little silly with this type of thought.

Well, I can easily answer your question "yes". But in any case, I can understand you,

May Allah bless you.

Regards.

 

[Smoke]

This is the kind of pointy headed intellectuallism that one must go through in order to disprove the obvious.

It's amazing how much polemic and apologetic is dedicated to trying to disprove the obvious.