Where is the sacrifice?

[1213]

When a Soldier sacrifice his life by defending the country, he does not get that life back; he remains dead. To temporarily use your life to help others is akin to volunteering at the soup kitchen to help feed the homeless; you never get that time back, but that is not the same as sacrificing your life

I think it is the same as sacrificing ones life. Jesus didn't get back his life, he got new life. It does not mean he didn't sacrifice his life on earth for other people.

But, don't worry, I don't think you have to think Jesus is a sacrifice, or that he sacrificed.

 

[Kfox]

If we're assuming the story has any validity at all (which is a stretch), then the idea is that everyone lives eternally in some kind of afterlife. If true, then no one ever sacrifices their life, since the assumption is that they will live eternally.

So according to your perspective, there was no sacrifice?

 

[Kfox]

The 'sacrificing his life' are the all the events leading up to and including an experience of rejection, torture, death which is, for lack of better words, always and forever occuring. Maybe think of it like groundhogs day? Or eternal damnation? Or any other eternal punishment? In this case it's the experience of being rejected, then tortured, then death, all of which the individual has volunteered.

The challenge is, trying to understand that this is an all powerful being, which is adopting these human characteristics, these human death and torture experiences and feeling them just as a human would.

And then, if one applies the consequence of being eternal, then all of these awful experiences are happening continuously without end. Even the last moments where a human would be succumbing to their physical demise, losing concsiousness, everything going black, the fear of the unknown, all of the things that person would feel, if they were hung up by the romans, all of those awful feelings would never end.

It seems that your objection is, "but he rose again, so, it's not a sacrifice of life, because, he could do **stuff** after that", right?

The problem with this objection is that it assumes a linear sequential time-line experience that finite time-bound human would experience. That doesn't work for an eternal being. It's not a linear sequential time-line experience. So there is no 'before', there is no 'after'. Saying "but he rose 3 days later, so there was no sacrifice", doesn't work here. There's no 'later', that doesn't apply here.

So according to your perspective, when it comes to eternal beings, all events; good or bad are experienced simultaneously; no experience ever ends?

 

[Kfox]

I think it is the same as sacrificing ones life. Jesus didn't get back his life, he got new life. It does not mean he didn't sacrifice his life on earth for other people.

But, don't worry, I don't think you have to think Jesus is a sacrifice, or that he sacrificed.

So if I understand you correctly, Jesus was given a new life in order to live on Earth, he did his thing with the new life, then at the end he sacrificed this new life and went back to his original life? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Kfox]

I think it is the same as sacrificing ones life. Jesus didn't get back his life, he got new life. It does not mean he didn't sacrifice his life on earth for other people.

But, don't worry, I don't think you have to think Jesus is a sacrifice, or that he sacrificed.

So if I understand you correctly, Jesus was given a new life in order to live on Earth, he did his thing with the new life, then at the end he sacrificed this new life and went back to his original life? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Stevicus]

So according to your perspective, there was no sacrifice?

My perspective is that it's unlikely that any of the events presented in the Bible happened at all. However, my point here is made within the context of hypothetically assuming the story to be true, in which case, there's no such thing as "sacrificing one's life," since (according to the story) everyone lives forever.

Of course, if taken to its logical conclusion, then the same theology would suggest that there can't be any such thing as murder, since no one ever really dies.

If your underlying point here is that "religion is illogical," then I agree with you.

 

[dybmh]

So according to your perspective, when it comes to eternal beings, all events; good or bad are experienced simultaneously; no experience ever ends?

Not just my perspective, there are philosophers and theoretical physicists which have come to that conclusion as well. Hypothetically.

 

[syo]

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?

Sir, you are correct. There isn't a sacrifice in that. Maybe the story these abrahamics yell about is problematic?

 

[Kfox]

My perspective is that it's unlikely that any of the events presented in the Bible happened at all. However, my point here is made within the context of hypothetically assuming the story to be true, in which case, there's no such thing as "sacrificing one's life," since (according to the story) everyone lives forever.

Of course, if taken to its logical conclusion, then the same theology would suggest that there can't be any such thing as murder, since no one ever really dies.

If your underlying point here is that "religion is illogical," then I agree with you.

I was kinda hoping from a response from someone who actually a part of the religion.

 

[1213]

So if I understand you correctly, Jesus was given a new life in order to live on Earth, he did his thing with the new life, then at the end he sacrificed this new life and went back to his original life? Am I understanding you correctly?

Jesus sacrificed his life on earth for people, because he used it for the benefit for others, not for himself. After he was murdered, God raised him from death and so he got life with God after his death.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

am I missing something?

On a mundane (as in “worldly”) level: the suffering of public judgement and crucifixion.

On a spiritual level: the human experience of ego and all that comes with it; including the sacrifice of divine perspective and innocence.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

I’d say that there certainly is loss in Christ’s experience. But yes, there is also gain - as there often is in sacrifice: one sacrifices something for something else.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[viole]

esus sacrificed his life on earth for people, because he used it for the benefit for others, not for himself. After he was murdered, God raised him from death and so he got life with God after his death.

The problem with that is that Jesus knew it before "sacrificing" Himself. At least, according to the NT.

It would be like me paying a million to redeem the debts of a friend, knowing that I will magically get my million back on Monday.

Big deal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

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?

I'm not sure that is the definition of sacrifice. I can sacrifice today's pleasures but remaining debt free to enjoy the same pleasures for the time of retirement. One can sacrifice time in studying for a different benefit - a better job. There are all types of sacrifices. Are these types of sacrifices? What is your definition?

If Jesus took on the sin of mankind, he also took on the results of sin. Some say his body was unrecognizable - "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind" (Is 52:14). We know that he bled blood from the pores of his forehead - an effort beyond comparison. Beaten, beard plucked, whipped and so much more... all part of the sacrifice. Then there is the theological position that he also suffered for a time tortured by demons (we will never know) while gone for the three days.

Of course, his coming to the earth was a sacrifice in and of itself.

I see that as a sacrifice--one that we will never have to go through or want to go through.

His sacrifice opened the door for us to be one with God.

 

[Ebionite]

while gone for the three days

The sign of Jonah speaks of three days and three nights, but the timeline in Luke only has two nights and one day. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the Christian doctrine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Your not missing anything.

its one of the biggest and most glaring contradictions in this man made story.

They should have written it as Jesus died and never came back to properly call it a sacrifice, but they didn't. Yet people still call it one anyways, which is bizarre.

But like all man made lore and mythology, it's clearly full of errors and contradictions and one of many.

 

[dybmh]

The problem with that is that Jesus knew it before "sacrificing" Himself. At least, according to the NT.

It would be like me paying a million to redeem the debts of a friend, knowing that I will magically get my million back on Monday.

Big deal.

Ciao

- viole

Nah, it's not like that at all. That's what it would be like for a finite human.

 

[Ebionite]

They should have written it as Jesus died and never came back to properly call it a sacrifice, but they didn't. Yet people still call it one anyways, which is bizarre.

Unwrapping it involves taking a look at the origin of the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement. From Paul it goes back to the High Priest Caiaphas. At that time the priesthood opposed the Messianics, and they had problems with their deity.

[There is] a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.
Zechariah 11:3

Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
Zechariah 11:8

And YHWH said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of YHWH.
Zechariah 11:13

 

[Kenny]

The sign of Jonah speaks of three days and three nights, but the timeline in Luke only has two nights and one day. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the Christian doctrine.

Not really... people don't realize that there was a High Sabbath that year... two Sabbaths that week. Timeline fits.

 

[viole]

Nah, it's not like that at all. That's what it would be like for a finite human.

So, as a finite human, do you think that was awesome?

Ciao

- viole