Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[logician]

You're kind of misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that any of these other death and resurrection stories have any specific tie to the jesus stories. But what I think is more likely, is that these type of resurrection stories were very prevalent during that time period. And jesus is just one of many gods to be resurrected.

Fallingblood seems to have some kind of fixation that the Jesus character was unique, when in actually there a many, many equlivalences between Christianity and other mythologies. It's the old my way or the highway routine. If you think your religion is the one true path, it isn't.:sleep:

 

[sojourner]

I can see how this can be viewed as a sacrafice rather than an act of martyrdom, however I AM curious if he actually stated that it was for our sins or if it was just interpereted as such, and I am also curious why a god would have to die in order for us to be forgiven. I am not nocking the religion, this is just a question that I never got explained to me while I was a young christian(perhaps because of my age at the time)

I don't believe in substitutionary atonement. I'm also curious why God would have to be appeased by a blood sacrifice. I don't think that the passion narratives, themselves, are clear that the crucifixion was anything more than an act of terrorism.

 

[jmvizanko]

Yes, God may have known man would sin and he would need to send his son to die for us but he also gave us freewill to decide to accept him and gain eternal life or not.

Actually he gave us no such free will. I do not have the ability to choose to believe that the bible and its contents are true, much as I do not have the ability to choose that 1+1=3. You cannot choose what you think is true or not. Why is your god so bent on us accepting something based on ancient books and the baseless arguments that people use to support the ludicrous claims in them?

 

[fallingblood]

Fallingblood seems to have some kind of fixation that the Jesus character was unique, when in actually there a many, many equlivalences between Christianity and other mythologies. It's the old my way or the highway routine. If you think your religion is the one true path, it isn't.:sleep:

I have a fixation on historical accuracy, and the fact that Jesus was a historical person.

I've never stated that Christianity and paganism did not have similarities. What I've stated is that Jesus did in fact live and was not based off of other supposed rising dying god men.

Also, I've never proclaimed that I was a Christian in these forums. I've clearly stated that I do not subscribe to any religion. Yes, I believe in a god/s, but that has nothing to do with my view point here. It is not a religious matter with me. It has to do with being historically accurate. But please, if you want to continue with your attack on the idea of Jesus not existing, create a thread and prove it.

 

[fallingblood]

You're kind of misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that any of these other death and resurrection stories have any specific tie to the jesus stories. But what I think is more likely, is that these type of resurrection stories were very prevalent during that time period. And jesus is just one of many gods to be resurrected.

I don't know if I could even say that they were very prevalent. Of all of the supposed resurrected god-men, I have seen little support for any of them. I'm not saying that a belief in them did not exist, but I'm saying that a belief that they were resurrected per se was not in existence.

 

[Tristesse]

I don't know if I could even say that they were very prevalent. Of all of the supposed resurrected god-men, I have seen little support for any of them. I'm not saying that a belief in them did not exist, but I'm saying that a belief that they were resurrected per se was not in existence.

I'm saying that these types of stories were prevalent, I mean Hercules was half man half god, kind of like jesus. I mean, we're dealing with a very superstitious period of time.

 

[sojourner]

Actually he gave us no such free will. I do not have the ability to choose to believe that the bible and its contents are true, much as I do not have the ability to choose that 1+1=3. You cannot choose what you think is true or not. Why is your god so bent on us accepting something based on ancient books and the baseless arguments that people use to support the ludicrous claims in them?

Methinks it's not so much God as it is overbearing fundigelicals that demand we believe this stuff.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm saying that these types of stories were prevalent, I mean Hercules was half man half god, kind of like jesus. I mean, we're dealing with a very superstitious period of time.

I would partly agree with that. One can loosely relate Jesus with other gods. But much of it isn't even very close.

Let's look at Hercules. He was half man, half god. Hercules had traits of a god as he was half god. Jesus was not such. Jesus didn't have the power of God. He was able to do miracles, but it was always God working through him, as happened with other prophets. Jesus also was never considered half God. He was either considered fully human, or fully God.

The similarity that they definitely had was the idea of being a son of a god. That was common. Even Augustus was considered the literal son of a god.

That's pretty much my point. Many of the supposed similarities really aren't there.

 

[Evandr]

Here is the way I see this whole question of mercy and justice. The most basic law of creation is that there is that which acts and that which is acted upon. There is a level of intellegence assigned to every level of creation, not just what we would call a live entity. It is all creation that demands justice to sustain orgainization. It simply has to be, not even God can change that because the nature of God is orgainization. Somehow, in a manner we cannot comprehend, Jesus was able to tilt the balance in His favor causing that portion of all creation that would demand justice to became endebted to him because He paid a price He did not owe. That is why only a sinless person could accomplish such a thing and only a God could suffer it.
Now, justice must still have its due but it must also extend to all what it extends to one. Because Christ paid a debt He did not owe He was allowed to create a path around the hard core demands of justice, (being those that can tolerate no sin), thusly being able to extending mercy to those who merit the mediating actions of Jesus Christ. The catch is that keeping the commandments of Christ becomes the manditory course else a person must suffer even as Christ suffered. Now, given that a sinner cannot satisfy the hard core demands of justice, such suffering becomes eternal in nature and by the way - eternal suffering is mental in nature not physical.

In short there are only two paths to God - be sinless or keep the commandments of Christ. If you fail in both of these respects then eternal forward progression is halted - which is, figuratively speaking, being refered to as being damned, much like a river can have its forward progress stopped or altered by being damned. One more thing to consider, a person's final judgment does not happen aftert they die, it will happen much latter when we are all judged after all is said and done for this chapter in God's eternities.

 

[McBell]

Yes, God may have known man would sin and he would need to send his son to die for us but he also gave us freewill to decide to accept him and gain eternal life or not. I don't know about the rest of you but I think we are all taking the thread question too far!!

To far?
Seems like it is not being taken far enough.

I understand though.
Once the question starts becoming uncomfortable, most people run tail tucked.

 

[McBell]

The point that you obviously do not understand is discipline - not for personal aggrandizement but for the good of someone other than self.

Hey, feel free to rationalize it however you have to.
No skin off my nose.

There was nothing in it for him.

I disagree.
It was completely, 100% for him.

The sad thing is not that you do not care but that you do not recognize or care for the power of discipline.

You do not know jack **** about me.
How about you stop trying to tell me what I do and do not understand and or care about?

I understand you need this strawman in order to continue, but it is rather rude and un-Christian like to dictate to others what they think, feel, and or understand.
Especially when you do not know jack **** about them.

And so you pretend that discipline is a charade –to accomplish what? Without discipline, you will gain nothing and lose everything - sadly without discipline you will lose even your most trusted friends; if you ever had any.

This is nothing more than you attempting to divert the topic from god to me.
Nice try.
But I am not the least bit interested in your strawman or your attacks on said strawman, your ad hominems, or even your worthless sermon.


Care to try again, only staying on topic this time?

 

[McBell]

Fine. You let yourself be beaten to within an inch of your life, and then hang nailed to a cross in the hot sun without pain-killers, and we'll see how quickly you cry "sacrifice." Even with the knowledge of an imminent resurrection. When you've done those things, then come back and I'll happily cry you a "whoop-dee-freaking-doo river."

Jesus died. Death is peril. And danger. Can you overcome death?

Are you seriously that desperate?
I am not god.

Your analogy is nothing more than an epic fail.

 

[fallingblood]

Fine. You let yourself be beaten to within an inch of your life, and then hang nailed to a cross in the hot sun without pain-killers, and we'll see how quickly you cry "sacrifice." Even with the knowledge of an imminent resurrection. When you've done those things, then come back and I'll happily cry you a "whoop-dee-freaking-doo river."

Jesus died. Death is peril. And danger. Can you overcome death?

I have a couple of problems with this post. First, Jesus was never beaten within an inch of his life. He had underwent 40-1 lashing in practice. Meaning, he was condemned to 40 lashings, but in practice this subtracted one just in case they miscounted. This is something that could be survived, and one was meant to survive it. It was a common ordeal prior to the crucifixion. It was not meant to kill, just hurt. The Romans did not want a person to die during the lashings, they wanted them to suffer on the cross for an elongated time.

Luke does not have Jesus complaining or anything. He is seen as quite tranquil. He is even talking about being in paradise later on. So in at least that account, I don't see too much taken away (now, I would say that account is a fraud, but that is besides the point). Either way, Jesus fully knew it was a temporary thing. He knew he would overcome death. So he had nothing to fear.

Logically, yes, it would be painful. But it was a relatively short time according to the Bible, Luke has him not really suffering at all, and according to the Bible, he knew would be alive once more, and be in paradise quite shortly. Personally, looking at the pay off, I would have done the same thing.

 

[Peacewise]

It was completely, 100% for him.

G'day Mestemia would you please explain why you think that Jesus sacrifice was completely 100% for him.

 

[sojourner]

Are you seriously that desperate?
I am not god.

Your analogy is nothing more than an epic fail.

Hey, you're the one saying there was no sacrifice here, not me. The question is, are you seriously that desperate?

 

[sojourner]

I have a couple of problems with this post. First, Jesus was never beaten within an inch of his life. He had underwent 40-1 lashing in practice. Meaning, he was condemned to 40 lashings, but in practice this subtracted one just in case they miscounted. This is something that could be survived, and one was meant to survive it. It was a common ordeal prior to the crucifixion. It was not meant to kill, just hurt. The Romans did not want a person to die during the lashings, they wanted them to suffer on the cross for an elongated time.

Luke does not have Jesus complaining or anything. He is seen as quite tranquil. He is even talking about being in paradise later on. So in at least that account, I don't see too much taken away (now, I would say that account is a fraud, but that is besides the point). Either way, Jesus fully knew it was a temporary thing. He knew he would overcome death. So he had nothing to fear.

Logically, yes, it would be painful. But it was a relatively short time according to the Bible, Luke has him not really suffering at all, and according to the Bible, he knew would be alive once more, and be in paradise quite shortly. Personally, looking at the pay off, I would have done the same thing.

Have you ever seen a crucifixion? Or anyone who has been beaten 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails? Or are you just going by what you see in the movies?

 

[McBell]

Hey, you're the one saying there was no sacrifice here, not me. The question is, are you seriously that desperate?

You claim that there is a sacrifice by god.
You have not supported said claim.
I claim there was no sacrifice by god because god gave up nothing.
He suffered nothing.

In fact, god knew before he even started that man could not keep with the 613 laws he set down, yet he set them down anyway.

 

[McBell]

Have you ever seen a crucifixion? Or anyone who has been beaten 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails? Or are you just going by what you see in the movies?

Where in the Bible does it even hint that he was beaten to "within an inch of his life"?
Or are YOU just going by what you see in the movies?

 

[fallingblood]

Have you ever seen a crucifixion? Or anyone who has been beaten 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails? Or are you just going by what you see in the movies?

I'm basing my judgement on a historical look at the crucifixion, and what the Bible says. I've also seen modern day crucifixions; however, they can not truly be compared to the ancient form. That is all besides the point though and really irrelevant to what I posted.

 

[Evandr]

Funny, everyone here is trying to define the sacrifice of Jesus Christ by applying nothing more than what they understand about what others say they heard and saw as Christ went through what He did. In the final analysis we do not have the slightest idea of what Christ went through in order to accomplish what He did. Christians are told by God and His appointed prophets that it was very much a sacrifice on the part of God and, for me and many others, that is good enough. I do not need to understand the gory details of it even if I was capable of understanding it (no man is) so why even try? The only thing that that can accomplish is a convoluted and distorted concept of a rather simple statement - "Christ made it possible for all mankind to be resurrected and for those who keep His commandments, to be able to return to the presence of God." All the debate in the world is not going to change that and any conclusions of such debate are irrelevant.