Christians believe God sent his son Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but 3 days later he was resurrected. Where is the sacrifice in that? Sacrifice is something you lose permanently; to lose your life only to regain it later does not seem to be a sacrifice IMO; am I missing something?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where is the sacrifice?
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I'm not a Christian, but my take on it is...
I'd say that Jesus' sacrifice was not only about his death. It was also about his obedience to God's will and his love of humanity.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Not only that, but - depending on your perspective and interpretation of scripture - Christ then got to ascend and literally become God. So, not only did he not lose anything, he technically gained infinitely.
Yes, there does appear to be a number of plot holes in the overall story. Sacrificing for the sins of mankind seems odd, since the central expectation is that each individual is still responsible for their own sins and must atone and repent.
On the other hand, being crucified doesn't seem very pleasant, even if one knows that one will be resurrected in three days. To have to go through that process at all might be somewhat of a sacrifice. He gave up a whole weekend.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Jesus never taught atonement or that he was a substitute sacrifice. The Christian religion adopted pagan ideas as it evolved after Jesus left.
Jesus taught repentance, receiving forgiveness for sins and in turn forgiving others.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Which pagan ideas would those be?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
In my opinion, it's a powerful idea, a meditation, which cultivates a change of heart for those who are inclined. Try to imagine a monarch sending their first born as an emissary to a foreign nation to save you, little insignificant you, knowing they would be tortured and killed in the process, but the monarch sends them anyway out of their love for you. Imagine the first born knows this will happen and volunteers anyway; volunteers for the mission, the torture, and the death out of their love for you.
From the human perspective, the sacrifice is what happens in the heart of the monarch sending their first born knowing what will happen. From the human perspectve, the sacrifice is what happens in the heart of the first born knowing what will happen when they get there.
From the divine perspective, no one ever dies, nothing ever dies, so it's true there is no divine sacrifice. But that's not the point. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a monarch who is willing to suffer as any parent would, sending their first born to save the rest of their children. Virtually any parent can relate to ths idea. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a first born volunteering for torture and death to the save the rest of their siblings. Virtually any human being can relate to this. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a comforting spirit of truth which will not leave the remaining siblings/children stranded after these events occur.
The sacrifice is a revelation of the divine, it's the execution of a divine plan, it's the divine establishing a relationship with those who are willing and able.
From the human perspective, the sacrifice is what happens in the heart of the monarch sending their first born knowing what will happen. From the human perspectve, the sacrifice is what happens in the heart of the first born knowing what will happen when they get there.
From the divine perspective, no one ever dies, nothing ever dies, so it's true there is no divine sacrifice. But that's not the point. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a monarch who is willing to suffer as any parent would, sending their first born to save the rest of their children. Virtually any parent can relate to ths idea. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a first born volunteering for torture and death to the save the rest of their siblings. Virtually any human being can relate to this. The point is the divine is revealing itself in human terms as a comforting spirit of truth which will not leave the remaining siblings/children stranded after these events occur.
The sacrifice is a revelation of the divine, it's the execution of a divine plan, it's the divine establishing a relationship with those who are willing and able.
Last edited:
Before Christ no one went to Heaven after death. A few people were taken to heaven alive before death. Jesus sacrificed himself to death and then was allowed to rise and ascend into heaven, this opened heaven to all those who have died yet lived a holy life.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Hebrews 9:22
King James Version
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Again, what pagan ideas would that be?
Check your assumptions.
Why do you believe sacrifice must be permanent to have meaning? Further, in the moment, do you assume you have knowledge of whether or not your sacrifice will be permanent or impermanent? Would that change how you assess the situation?
A few case examples to consider for yourself:
- If you sacrifice (donate) some of your own money to charity, you do not get that money back. But you can earn more money. Is this not a sacrifice of income, in your view?
- If you sacrifice (donate) your time as a volunteer to serve your community, you do not get that time back. But you have more time in the future. Is this not a sacrifice of your time and energy, in your view?
- If you sacrifice (downsize) your ecological impact on the world by selling your car, moving into a smaller house, and no longer buying meat, those are significant lifestyle changes that fundamentally alter how you live. But you could get all those things back any time you want. Does this mean the person has not made a sacrifice?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
One of them was the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine's cult of Sol Invictus had a triad of deities, and two of the verses from the Bible that support that doctrine are late additions.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The doctrine of vicarious atonement originated with Caiaphas and the Pharisees (especially Paul).
And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51
Yeah; he lost the whole weekend; but sacrificing your life is much more than a weekend.
Yeah; but I would hardly call that sacrificing your life.
If you continue living, you haven't sacrificed your life
I don't plan to sacrifice my life.
No.
Even though I can earn more money, I will always have less due to my sacrifice.
No.
I didn't sacrifice all of my time, just some of it.
Once I get all of those things back, I am no longer making a sacrifice to my lifestyle.
He was temporally inconvenienced. To die for 3 days, then come back to life is more of a temporally inconvenience of your life; not a sacrafice of your life IMO.
True, although since he didn't stay around too long after the Resurrection, he did give up a potential life where he could get married, have children, grow old, play with his grandchildren, etc.
Or, if he wasn't a family man, he could have gone on, traveled the world, performed miracles, preached his word - until he got old and died of natural causes.
For one's life to be cut short and miss out on all that could have been if one lived a natural lifespan into old age, is that not a sacrifice?
Sacrificial offering has long been a part of religious ideology and a big part of Hebrew theology.
I presume this was carried over to both account for OT ideology and to justify removing the need for them.
Maybe Paul didn't like the idea of animal sacrifice and used this thinking to remove the requirement.
I think the correct way to understand this is, Jesus used his life for other people, similarly as a soldier can sacrifice his life by defending his country. Jesus could have used his life for himself, but instead of that, used it for us. He didn't get that time back, so it can be said he sacrificed it.