The Atonement of Jesus Christ and Why It Needed to Happen.

[viole]

Again His death and resurrection is not what is so special in the end. What is special, is having all these run of the mill Joes and Janes follow what his legacy left behind. In doing so, obtaining a life, dying, and coming back able to kick it and become rulers of the Universe. He was just the first one that showed us how. Which if you really think about it, it is pretty dang impressive, especially if you thought it wasn't possible to begin with.

That is not what I meant. Of course it is impressive to observe resurrections of dead people.Although it was sort in the mainstream at that time, wasn't it? . For sure He was not the first one, as you claim. Not even the second.

What is not so impressive is the sacrifice. If I knew from the beginning that my death will only take the weekend, then, well, I would easily sacrifice it. I mean, why not? It is like paying all debts of people in need by emptying my own bank account, knowing that it will be full again on Monday.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Harel13]

What is not so impressive is the sacrifice. If I knew from the beginning that my death will only take the weekend, then, well, I would easily sacrifice it. I mean, why not? It is like paying all debts of people in need by emptying my own bank account, knowing that it will be full again on Monday.

I highly agree. I wrote something along these lines in @Jacob Samuelson's previous thread, before it was deleted and this was started - how can Jesus's torture and subsequent death, as violent as it may have been, possible equate to all of mankind's sins? After all, one cannot say that Jesus faced the worse of everything - unfortunately, as we all know, there have been people over the millennia who have suffered much more - both in quality and in quantity. Even more so when considering what @viole points out - Jesus supposedly knew this was a one time thing - a few days of pain and that's it. It's much easier to go through something when knowing it will soon end and everything will be much better afterwards.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

That is not what I meant. Of course it is impressive to observe resurrections of dead people (although it was sort in the mainstream at that time). SO, for sure He was not the first one. Not even the second.

What is not so impressive is the sacrifice. If I knew from the beginning that my death will only take the weekend, then, well, I would easily sacrifice it. I mean, why not?

Ciao

- viole

Hmm, Interesting? I'll pose a question in this case, if its alright. So if you knew that your death will only last a weekend, you would go through all that pain being nailed to a cross, bleeding through every pore in your body, spit at, yelled at, lashed in the back with metallic cords until you no longer had a back, betrayed by one of your friends, sun baked for hours while you literally suffocate on collapsed lungs having a crown of needle sharp thorns pressing against your temples, removing any self dignity you had as you hung amidst thieves and criminals, with a mockery sign that you are the king of the people who are killing you.

You would do all that just so you could just resurrect from the dead the next weekend revisiting the world that so passionately rejected you?

I don't know where the sacrifice would begin and were it would end in that scenerio, but it would have to take unhuman amounts of love for Christ to even want to come back, which if you have I think you should go straight to heaven right now, cause that's crazy.

Another question if I may. Let say you did have that love for mankind to come back to such a messed up world, in order to change it and make it better. Let say instead of going through all of that pain, all you had to do was live a good life, believe in Christ, who went through all of that so you don't have to, experiencing the hardships that occur like most humans do and resurrect anyways. It might take a little more than a miserable weekend, but the outcome is the same? Why not sacrifice that life for the betterment of man? What's keeping you from doing that (I'm sure you are just a hypothetical)? It seems like a better way out than the first one I mentioned, don't you think?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I highly agree. I wrote something along these lines in @Jacob Samuelson's previous thread, before it was deleted and this was started - how can Jesus's torture and subsequent death, as violent as it may have been, possible equate to all of mankind's sins? After all, one cannot say that Jesus faced the worse of everything - unfortunately, as we all know, there have been people over the millennia who have suffered much more - both in quality and in quantity. Even more so when considering what @viole points out - Jesus supposedly knew this was a one time thing - a few days of pain and that's it. It's much easier to go through something when knowing it will soon end and everything will be much better afterwards.

For Christians, it is not the extent of the sacrifice, but the Sacrifice itself that determined whether it would equate to the sin's of mankind. The way Christ died didn't have to be the most gruesome in order for the Sacrifice to be acceptable and significant to God. It's who Christ was and is that qualified him to be the sacrifice. Like a sacrificial lamb, during the ancient times, Christ was the First Born, He was without Blemish, or in this case, Sin. He went willingly to the slaughter, and He was without broken bone. All of which are attributes of a lamb for a sacrifice according to Jewish tradition of the Passover. He also was born of a Virgin which gave him attributes beyond a mortal man. I am sure there are a few worse ways to kill someone, but not any of would according to scripture would God accept as the atoning Lamb as Christ was, According to Christians.

 

[viole]

Hmm, Interesting? I'll pose a question in this case, if its alright. So if you knew that your death will only last a weekend, you would go through all that pain being nailed to a cross, bleeding through every pore in your body, spit at, yelled at, lashed in the back with metallic cords until you no longer had a back, betrayed by one of your friends, sun baked for hours while you literally suffocate on collapsed lungs having a crown of needle sharp thorns pressing against your temples, removing any self dignity you had as you hung amidst thieves and criminals, with a mockery sign that you are the king of the people who are killing you.

You would do all that just so you could just resurrect from the dead the next weekend revisiting the world that so passionately rejected you?

I don't know where the sacrifice would begin and were it would end in that scenerio, but it would have to take unhuman amounts of love for Christ to even want to come back, which if you have I think you should go straight to heaven right now, cause that's crazy.

Another question if I may. Let say you did have that love for mankind to come back to such a messed up world, in order to change it and make it better. Let say instead of going through all of that pain, all you had to do was live a good life, believe in Christ, who went through all of that so you don't have to, experiencing the hardships that occur like most humans do and resurrect anyways. It might take a little more than a miserable weekend, but the outcome is the same? Why not sacrifice that life for the betterment of man? What's keeping you from doing that (I'm sure you are just a hypothetical)? It seems like a better way out than the first one I mentioned, don't you think?

Well, point taken. Maybe not me, since I am not particularly brave. I can't even watch normal injections at the movies. If I had been Jesus I would have probably miraculously created some internal anaesthesia so that it does not hurt too much, while keeping a face full of pain, for the show, you know. So that people are impressed and get the message, whatever that is.

But there have been many examples of "secular" heroism in history. For examples of people ready to sustain torture from Nazis, or during wars, etc. for their country, family, comrades, freedom, or whatever. And performed by people that did not know to have an important father in heaven that will resurrect them on Sunday.

They are remarkable for their courage. Your Jesus is not. Sorry. I am thrilled that you find it awesome, but you cannot reasonably expect that others can share that feeling.

As I said, it is like being very generous knowing that your bank account is always full.

In any case, if you move to physical pain, you guys should not say "He died for our sins", as if that was impressive, given that it was more like a short absence for our sins. You should say "He suffered for our sins". That would be more accurate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MJFlores]

Everyone benefits from Jesus Christ. The sinner. the saint. The black. The white. The Atheist. The Jew. Everyone benefits from the Atonement. 1 Corinthians 15: 21-23. Everyone will be resurrected because of Christ overcoming physical death and met the demands of death.

Everyone benefits from Jesus Christ? Wow, even the Atheist?!?
I believe you should make a soul search, ponder about where to find the truth, maybe ask questions further from your brethren, don't mind if you ask my brethren - not from their naughty minds but from the Bible which is the true basis of faith.

The Atheists benefits from the Atonement?

It must be your own personal opinion, I believe we should look for answers in the Bible.
Does every body benefit from the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ?
This is what Christ said:

Matthew 7:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So if someone says everyone is going to heaven, maybe you should check what the Bible says.

If this is more a critical notion that my religion or Church is not using the Bible as a weapon. I concede. I believe that the double edged sword you are referring to is not to be used against other humans, but against the demons inside all of us. My Church teaches from the Bible and benefits from the Bible, but not to attack what others may not fully understand, but to help them grow what they already understand, if that makes sense?

Maybe your church does not teach the Bible because you have another Bible on hand [remember the golden plates with hieroglyphics given by Metatron or something during the Old days of the West?]

What does the Book of Mormon teach? Well, it made me dizzy when I tried to read it a long time ago. It contains some stories about four ancient tribes who allegedly settled in the Americas.

Anyway, the Scripture records what the Bible is good for:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
You have known the Holy Scriptures since you were a child. These Scriptures are able to make you wise. And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

Are we doing the right thing?
Look it up in the Bible
Do you want to know about Jesus Christ?
Look it up in the Bible.
Is this doctrine right or wrong?
Look it up in the Bible.

I believe it is time to question, unlearn things and learn from the Bible.
The Mormon Church is a nice topic to explore - I have read and watched videos about your beliefs
Is it Biblical? That is another thing that we could discuss extensively.

 

[Spartan]

Who do you know that interprets Isaiah 53 as Jesus except Christians?

Try your question this way: Who do you know that interprets Isaiah 53 as the Messiah except Christians?

Answer: Various Jews and probably others.

 

[Harel13]

Answer: Various Jews and others.

I assume you're talking about Jews who converted to Christianity, because that's certainly not what's on that list you keep bringing.

 

[Spartan]

*Sigh*. Look. I'm not debating with you whether or not Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 or not. I only ask that you don't use that list of supposed rabbinical sources to prove your point because the entire list is made up of quotes that were quote-mined. An intelligent, observant person that takes the time to look into all the sources will not find any arguments that help your view but rather utterly decimate it. For your own good, it would be best that you stopped using that list.
You don't have to listen to me, of course, but know that if I see you post that list again, I will likely repost the full explanations of those sources that I wrote, as well.

Here's another former Jewish Rabbi who figured out that Jesus is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. The rabbi also quotes other rabbis and Jewish writings affirming Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah.

The Rabbis' Dilemma: A Look at Isaiah 53

 

[Spartan]

I assume you're talking about Jews who converted to Christianity, because that's certainly not what's on that list you keep bringing.

Lots of Jews figured out Jesus is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They're known as MESSIANIC JEWS.

 

[Harel13]

Lots of Jews figured out Jesus is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They're known as MESSIANIC JEWS.

Yeah, heretic Jews (in Jewish terms, that is), in other words. AKA converts to Christianity.

The Rabbis' Dilemma: A Look at Isaiah 53

This is the same misguided "analysis" as that list you brought - mostly the same quotes, too. Look, again, an intelligent, observant person that actually looks into the sources will find that they do not help your argument one bit. If I were you, I'd stick to the Christian sources.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are suggesting that Christians created their idea of atonement based on Creationism in Genesis, it might be easy to say that every idea was created due to the events of the Garden, so no complaints. Penal Substitution is not a great phrase to describe the Christian Atonement either. I would use something like Penal Interference maybe. Jesus wasn't a scapegoat for sin, rather an mediator between Justice and Mercy. Just as in a legal system, if a man were brought before God to answer for his sins. Christ would be his defense attorney, not a whipping boy. If this man believed in Christ, doing all He could to follow His teachings and obey God's word, than Christ would advocate with the Faither, stating that He paid the price that allows this man to be forgiven of His sins and enter his Kingdom.

Without Christ and the price of his blood, according to Chrstians and the Law of Justice, no one could obtain salvation, for we would all be subject to the strictness of the law, without any redemption made.

This a bit of a side step of the historical issues of the basis for the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It remains a problem with the belief in Original Sin and the Fall, the belief in OT atonement by physical sacrifice, and the belief in the inherited sin over generations.

 

[Spartan]

Yeah, heretic Jews (in Jewish terms, that is), in other words. AKA converts to Christianity.

"heretic" Jews? Nope. Spiritually enlightened Jews.

This is the same misguided "analysis" as that list you brought - mostly the same quotes, too. Look, again, an intelligent, observant person that actually looks into the sources will find that they do not help your argument one bit. If I were you, I'd stick to the Christian sources.

LOL. Now the Jewish rabbis are lying! Whatever floats your boat.

Now you know that the Israelites / Jews constantly rebelled against God in both the Old and New Testaments. They even killed their own prophets. Why in the world should we think they'd treat their own Messiah (Jesus) any different?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Try your question this way: Who do you know that interprets Isaiah 53 as the Messiah except Christians?

Answer: Various Jews and probably others.

But they do NOT interpret it as being Messianic, not Jews and not secular scholars. I know it must come as a shock to you, but Isaiah 53 is just not Messianic. ONLY Christians read it this way. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is identified in earlier chapters as being Israel, not the Messiah.

 

[Harel13]

LOL. Now the Jewish rabbis are lying! Whatever floats your boat

I'm sorry it seems that you don't know how to read.
Never have I stated rabbis are liars. The missionaries you bring, however, are liars, for quote-mining and presenting rabbinical sources in a false way, as if rabbinical viewpoints actually prove their point, which they don't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"heretic" Jews? Nope. Spiritually enlightened Jews.

No, heretical Jews. Seriously. This is why Chrisitans (along with other heretics) were kicked out of the synagogues 2000 years ago, and are still not part of Judaism to this day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lots of Jews figured out Jesus is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They're known as MESSIANIC JEWS.

Not lots.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of Jews figured out Jesus is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They're known as MESSIANIC JEWS.

Lots of people figured out that Baha'u'llah is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They known as Baha'is.

Regarding Isaiah 53:3, Jesus was despised and rejected by certain Jews who wanted Him executed, but He was not rejected by most men. Jesus was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, but He was esteemed by many men.

Certainly, Isaiah 53:4 and Isaiah 53:5 can apply to Jesus. However, Isaiah 53:8, Isaiah 53:9, and Isaiah 53:10 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment, Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made his soul an offering for sin, but He did not see his seed and His days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus, and that is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the end times.

 

[Spartan]

Lots of people figured out that Baha'u'llah is the Messiah of Isaiah 53. They known as Baha'is.

Regarding Isaiah 53:3, Jesus was despised and rejected by certain Jews who wanted Him executed, but He was not rejected by most men. Jesus was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, but He was esteemed by many men.

Certainly, Isaiah 53:4 and Isaiah 53:5 can apply to Jesus. However, Isaiah 53:8, Isaiah 53:9, and Isaiah 53:10 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment, Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made his soul an offering for sin, but He did not see his seed and His days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus, and that is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the end times.

I don't have the time to write about your objections in depth. They are refuted, though, in the 5 volume series, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Volume 3)," by renowned scholar Dr. Michael L. Brown. For instance, when speaking about the seed of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, it's commonly argued that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah / suffering servant because he didn't have any (physical) offspring. Those skeptics need to do their homework, as "seed" (Hebrew "zera") can be used in a metaphorical sense (i.e. seed of 'evildoers', seed of adulterer, and a seed of falsehood - see Isaiah 1:4; 14:20; 57:3-4). Other explanations for the identification of the "seed" are in the following article. Whose Seed Shall the Messiah See?

 

[Spartan]

Not lots.

What? You've done a census throughout the world? LOL. Nice try.