Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[fallingblood]

Many more people that you refer to are not God. Jesus's sacrifice was significant because it was a righteous God dying to redeem a lost world as a result of sin. There's no comparison!

How can that even be shown? Jesus failed and then after his death was considered to be something special.

The whole reason Jesus's sacrifice was deemed a sacrifice was simply because it was a blood sacrifice.

 

[Evandr]

So basically you're saying you're wrong than? If no one can know, then everything you've stated is basically useless as you only think it.

Dealing with historical figures, one can not know for certain. Even looking at the source material, one can not know for sure. That is part of history. What I've stated is based on what I believe most likely happened as shown from source material, history of the time, anthropological research, cultural research, etc. Now I may claim that I know what I'm saying to be the truth. However, there is a chance I am wrong. Yet, it is illogical to state that just because one says they think it means they do not have a firm foundation. I personally find that to be quite arrogant.

Try to keep things in perspective. You just took a very focused statement and tried to blanket my whole thought with it. No man can know the details of the atonement but they can be made to understand that it was accomplished and what the basic results of it are and how they pertain to humanity.

Your reference to historic figures and certain knowledge is simply another assumption based on your lack of experience. If what you say is true then even a verbal, face to face testimony of an event has no merit worth depending on, only an eye witness can say something for sure and then, considering that the eyes can be fooled even that is only marginal at best as a source of understanding.

The only way a person can know something for sure is to discover it for themselves to a point of omnipotent understanding OR they can get the information impressed upon them by an omnipotent person. Such an impression transcends mortal logic because it is becomes a sure knowledge leaving no room for any doubt even though there is no accompanying evidence beyond the impression itself.

When it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ the importance attached to our understanding certain points contained therein make such impressions critical although they are never forced. Many have had such revelations but not all, many are given to be able to discern what they are told and differentiate between truth and falsehood. This is the gift that I believe most people have, the ability to recognize the truth, form beliefs based on that truth and the wisdom to act on those beliefs.

 

[fallingblood]

Try to keep things in perspective. You just took a very focused statement and tried to blanket my whole thought with it. No man can know the details of the atonement but they can be made to understand that it was accomplished and what the basic results of it are and how they pertain to humanity.

However, that understanding is based solely on interpretation. That interpretation can and does change over time, and from one group to another. You may claim to know what it actually means, but that means very little.

Your reference to historic figures and certain knowledge is simply another assumption based on your lack of experience. If what you say is true then even a verbal, face to face testimony of an event has no merit worth depending on, only an eye witness can say something for sure and then, considering that the eyes can be fooled even that is only marginal at best as a source of understanding.

How do you even come to this conclusion? So my research on the topic shows that I have a lack of experience? A lack of experience in what?

I'm not following your logic here. So because I did actual research on this subject, I lack experience?

The only way a person can know something for sure is to discover it for themselves to a point of omnipotent understanding OR they can get the information impressed upon them by an omnipotent person. Such an impression transcends mortal logic because it is becomes a sure knowledge leaving no room for any doubt even though there is no accompanying evidence beyond the impression itself.

What you are explaining is a belief that you know something. Believing you know something, and having actual facts is very different. Without evidence that this omnipotent entity exists, everything you said is then questionable at best. And again, it is nothing more than faith, which is not evidence, and does not qualify as being factual.

When it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ the importance attached to our understanding certain points contained therein make such impressions critical although they are never forced. Many have had such revelations but not all, many are given to be able to discern what they are told and differentiate between truth and falsehood. This is the gift that I believe most people have, the ability to recognize the truth, form beliefs based on that truth and the wisdom to act on those beliefs.

My truth comes from an actual understanding of the Gospels, an understanding that they do not agree with each other, and actually contradict each other. An understanding of the history behind the Gospels and their composition. An understanding of Early Christianity and how it played a part in the creation of the Gospels. And an understanding of the general historical period that Jesus lived in, the time preceding it, and the time around the writing of the Gospels.

What you are describing is nothing more than faith. That does not qualify as factual truth, and really is irrelevant in any credible discussion on the subject in my opinion.

 

[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.

Did you miss my request Mestemia?

And again you conveniently forget that he gets to be god 3 days later. I don't see how that's a sacrifice at all. One day of pain to bring an eternity of power? That's like saying if you give up 5 dollars to become a millionaire you're making a sacrifice. Really a weak argument...

Seems to me that no matter how Jesus was going to die on earth he would remain the son of God and hence would still keep the power that He had. Further since he knew he was going to be betrayed unto death and he still choose to accept this it reveals that he was purposely sacrificing himself.

If you sacrifice something that is valuable or important, you give it up, usually to obtain something else for yourself or for other people.

 

[Caladan]

Considering that many people throughout history have undergone much worse and longer forms of torture and killing than did Jesus, what makes his death such a sacrifice?

There is no sacrifice in Jesus' death, he started a self idolizing cult, and the Roman authorities together with support of the Jewish religious elite put an end to it, he was one of thousands of Jews to be crucified, no different than the rest of these unfortunate people.
further more, he was'nt the only self proclaimed 'miracle maker' in the empire at the time.

 

[averageJOE]

Seems to me that no matter how Jesus was going to die on earth he would remain the son of God and hence would still keep the power that He had. Further since he knew he was going to be betrayed unto death and he still choose to accept this it reveals that he was purposely sacrificing himself.

If you sacrifice something that is valuable or important, you give it up, usually to obtain something else for yourself or for other people.

He accepted his death???

All humans die from one thing or another, what's your point? The difference with jesus is that he cheated, he knew from the very begining that he would be crusified and always knew he would bring himself back to life. That is not a sacrifice.(assuming the myth is true)

 

[dogsgod]

Many more people that you refer to are not God. Jesus's sacrifice was significant because it was a righteous God dying to redeem a lost world as a result of sin. There's no comparison!

Thank goodness this God forsaken madness is not true.

 

[blueman]

How can that even be shown? Jesus failed and then after his death was considered to be something special.

The whole reason Jesus's sacrifice was deemed a sacrifice was simply because it was a blood sacrifice.

For you to deem His sacrifice a failure is a flat out denial of the historical record. His glorius resurrection represents victory not failure over death and the penalty applicable to the sin.

 

[blueman]

Thank goodness this God forsaken madness is not true.

Thanks be to God for you and for me that it is the central truth!

 

[blueman]

What makes setting up the 613 rules he knew before hand could not be met righteous?

Sorry, I'm not following you at all? Please clarify

 

[Tristesse]

For you to deem His sacrifice a failure is a flat out denial of the historical record. His glorius resurrection represents victory not failure over death and the penalty applicable to the sin.

How is that denial of history? The resurrection is not a historical fact, it's a theological assumption.

 

[blueman]

How is that denial of history? The resurrection is not a historical fact, it's a theological assumption.

When you weigh all of the circumstances surrounding Jesus's death and resurrection, you can only come to one conclusion, He was raised from the dead and their were historical witnesses (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15) to said event. The Jewish Talmud also makes reference to the "empty tomb".

 

[dogsgod]

When you weigh all of the circumstances surrounding Jesus's death and resurrection, you can only come to one conclusion, He was raised from the dead and their were historical witnesses (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15) to said event. The Jewish Talmud also makes reference to the "empty tomb".

That's nice.

 

[McBell]

Did you miss my request Mestemia?

My apologies.
I did miss it.

God set up 613 rules he knew man could never keep up with.
Man could not keep up with the 613 rules.
But then, god knew that before he set them up, right?
Then god sends himself to earth to be the ultimate sacrifice.
To help out with the 613 rules he set up already knowing that man could not keep up with them.
So then god "dies" on the cross and is resurrected three days later.
For what exactly?
For our sins?
Sins that we could not help but commit because we we are just as god made us?
Sins that god knew before hand we could not keep but he went ahead and set up the 613 rules HE KNEW could not be kept?

There is something seriously flawed about this whole "all knowing god sending himself to save humans from his rules" scenario that so many people are buying into.

 

[McBell]

For you to deem His sacrifice a failure is a flat out denial of the historical record. His glorius resurrection represents victory not failure over death and the penalty applicable to the sin.

what a load of bull ****.
It was a sham from get go.
You got conned, big time.

The best possible light you can put on the crucifixion is that it is a half arsed apology from god.
But then, you have to take off the special helmet and glasses...

 

[McBell]

Sorry, I'm not following you at all? Please clarify

God is all knowing correct?
He knew everything that was going to happen before he even started creating the Earth, right?
There is nothing that god does not know, right?

If this is true, then god knew before he even started that his 613 rules could not be followed and yet he set up those 613 rules anyway.
What part of this is "righteous"?

 

[McBell]

When you weigh all of the circumstances surrounding Jesus's death and resurrection, you can only come to one conclusion, He was raised from the dead and their were historical witnesses (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15) to said event. The Jewish Talmud also makes reference to the "empty tomb".

This is nothing but a sad attempt at presenting belief and opinion as proven fact.

 

[blueman]

what a load of bull ****.
It was a sham from get go.
You got conned, big time.

The best possible light you can put on the crucifixion is that it is a half arsed apology from god.
But then, you have to take off the special helmet and glasses...

Your opinions tend to be anecdotal and rely very little on any in depth research you perform on your own.

 

[blueman]

This is nothing but a sad attempt at presenting belief and opinion as proven fact.

There's nothing sad about it. I would beg to argue that you're severly in denial.

 

[Tristesse]

When you weigh all of the circumstances surrounding Jesus's death and resurrection, you can only come to one conclusion, He was raised from the dead and their were historical witnesses (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15) to said event. The Jewish Talmud also makes reference to the "empty tomb".

How is that the only conclusion you come too? A miracle is the most least likely scenario for any given situation. If it wasn't it wouldn't be called a miracle. The gospels are not contemporary to the events they narrate, you have no one writing the gospels who was an eyewitness. And if you read the gospels they don't agree with each other on the aspects of the resurrection. For instance, who went to the tomb on the third day? was it mary magdalen by herself or with other women? Well, depending on which gospel you read, you'll get a different account. And if it was with other women, how many were there and what were there names? Depends which gospel you read. Was the stone rolled away before or after the women got there, depends what gospel you read. So, what we have are a collection of stories from non eyewitnesses about stories. They were stories that were in circulation for decade after decade before they were written down in greek, but jesus and his followers didn't speak greek, they spoke aramaic. So, there is another obstacle, a language barrier. And the period of time these stories were written was a very superstitious era. So, I reiterate the resurrection is not a historical fact, it is a theologic assumption.