Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

[syo]

So what exactly did Jesus achieve?

he gave hope to people and he set rules of how we will live our lives and find god. and how we will be rewarded in the afterlife.

 

[RabbiO]

jesus came to earth on a mission from god, that is to free humans from sin. the greatest punishment for our sins is death (after adam and eve ate the apple). so jesus had to die so that he will resurrect thus defeating death.

An apple? Why would you think that?

 

[Rival]

An apple? Why would you think that?

How dare you question recieved wisdom!

 

[Rival]

he gave hope to people and he set rules of how we will live our lives and find god. and how we will be rewarded in the afterlife.

The Noahide Code already does that though.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How dare you question recieved wisdom!

Blasphemy, blaspho-you, blas-for ev'rybody in the room!

 

[RabbiO]

How dare you question recieved wisdom!

I'm not sure it fits the definition of either.

 

[74x12]

Now all you need is evidence. The tasks Adam was given (Eve doesn't get a job, does she?) and how they act during the fruit scene make them sound like 7 years old. Naming animals (something God could've done when He, you know, MADE them) is not exactly rocket science.

You do know the brain continues to develop as people grow up? Adam and Eve were adults.

But the only reason he doesn't stick to his word is that God hardens his heart. The entire plot could've been avoided had God just butted out.

It was as I've explained the judgment of God on Pharaoh and Egypt.

Then why continue to blame Pharaoh when the texts are clear God made him a jerk?

Because Pharaoh is a jerk.

Spider-Man met Obama. That makes Peter Parker real.

So the Jews just made it all up.

God's armies can be defeated with chariots of iron.

Yes the children of Israel ran into difficulties with enemies that had "chariots of iron". However, this was the same Israelites that killed Og the giant. (Deut. 3:3) There really was no problem for God; He was just taking His time.

And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. (Deuteronomy 7:22)

By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. (Exodus 23:30)

 

[74x12]

Because way back in Post #91, you claimed that I know that your god doesn't make mistakes. To which I replied that I know the opposite; he makes many mistakes, the Garden of Eden being among them.

Alright so? You failed to prove that the garden of Eden was a mistake.

With the mentality and wits of newborns. Their "knowledge level" is laid out; they did not even know right from wrong. There's no assumption about it, as that's the whole point of the myth.

A toddler's brain continues to develop as it grows. They were adults. They did not have the mind of a newborn. Innocence was a state of being but it didn't mean they were mental handicaps. It only says their eyes were opened. Their spiritual sight was blinded from some things but not all things.

Quite what it says; there were two trees in Eden. A Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge. A&E were not only denied Eden, but also access to the Tree of Life, which would have granted them eternal life. In denying them this, they were condemned to mortality.

God can't lie. The Word of God had to be fulfilled. They were cut off from the tree of Life which guaranteed they would die. All of these things get off into much deeper esoteric meanings. You're funny because you've been arguing only about the most obvious surface meaning of the scriptures. The mystical quality of the verses is where we learn great truths.

Any way you slice it - regret, repentance, sorry for the situation, sorry for the generation - it is still your god acknowledging a mistake that he made.

Well, I believe you're mistaken(pun intended). Maybe you misunderstood my previous post.

Good, glad we're on the same page. So your statement in Post #137 that the serpent and his evil was necessary so that good could be made was incorrect. After all, good is a virtue even when describing physical objects.

Yes good would be one single virtue when describing a physical object. Yet, it isn't all the virtues. There are many virtues that would be ignored by such "good" as you are speaking of. I meant all good things coming into existence. Sorry, this is all so obvious to me I forget other people might have a hard time understanding it because they have not thought about it as much as I have.

"He unleashed against them his hot anger, his wrath, indignation and hostility- a band of destroying angels." ~Psalm 78:49. No mention of evil spirits.

Angels are spirits. (Psalm 104:4)

That's heavy assumption on your part.

No offense, but maybe it's just reading comprehension.

And as I said before, you asked what I made of it. Don't ask for something if you're just going to ignore it.

That verse comes from the poem of the Hávamál, the same poem that says

"Over beer the bird | of forgetfulness broods,
And steals the minds of men;
With the heron's feathers | fettered I lay
And in Gunnloth's house was held"

If we trust your interpretation of riddle-laden figurative poetry, we'd be petrified of brain-snatching birds looming over our alcohol, and read Odin as being imprisoned by feathers.

It remains that Odin hanging upon Yggdrasil was not a sacrifice, but you're so intent on assigning it as such so you can sniff out hypocrisy in my statements that Jesus' hanging on the cross was not a sacrifice. Problem being that a) I don't believe Odin's actions on the World Tree were a sacrifice either, and b) you're ignoring the actual sacrifice that Odin made in his quests for knowledge and wisdom.

I'm not trying to "sniff out hypocrisy". Yes you get to have an opinion. My opinion is that it would be a sacrifice. Even though I now think some ritual offerings are not necessarily sacrifices; yet in this case it does seem to be a sacrifice to me. However, you can disagree with that.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Alright so? You failed to prove that the garden of Eden was a mistake.

The Garden of Eden was not the mistake. Placing the tree there was. This is clearly shown in that Adam and Eve could not rationally nor reasonably been blamed for their actions, and placing the possibility for the marring of paradise was as putting a self-destruct button on a submarine.

They were adults. They did not have the mind of a newborn.

And yet they didn't know anything. Not until that fruit. Your objections on grounds of biology are also meaningless, as they were formed "fully grown" from clay and ribs. Mythically speaking - as their entire existence is - they had the minds of infants, and were as newborns.

God can't lie. The Word of God had to be fulfilled. They were cut off from the tree of Life which guaranteed they would die.

Of course he can. It's perpetually ridiculous that your god is all-powerful, can do anything, except shameful and bad things. Despite admitting to being the author of evil and woe as well. Your god told a mistruth in that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge didn't kill them; they were told if they ate it they would die. What transpired is about as true as me telling a child "If you eat that cookie, you'll die!" Technically it's true, they're going to die anyways. But it won't be the cookie that kills them.

You're funny because you've been arguing only about the most obvious surface meaning of the scriptures.

I am well aware of deeper meanings and symbolisms in the myth. It is irrelevant, as that is not the point of my arguments. Would it make you feel better if other examples of your god mucking things up were brought in?

Well, I believe you're mistaken(pun intended).

Believe that all you want, the language speaks for itself.

Yes good would be one single virtue when describing a physical object. Yet, it isn't all the virtues. There are many virtues that would be ignored by such "good" as you are speaking of. I meant all good things coming into existence. Sorry, this is all so obvious to me I forget other people might have a hard time understanding it because they have not thought about it as much as I have.

Yes, no one is as wise and learned as you. Shine on us, that we may bask in your storied glory and deep font of knowledge. No one has ever thought of such dichotomies and their necessity to the definition of what is.

Or maybe the myth is just a bunch of nonsense and you made a hasty, flawed statement.

Angels are spirits.

In service of Yahweh (so far as the bible is concerned), the agents of his will (rather than the adversary), and not regarded as evil in the slightest. On the contrary, biblical angels are regarded as righteous, just, and virtuous.

No offense, but maybe it's just reading comprehension.

Offense taken. It is not made obvious anywhere in Exodus, and it's you projecting your own preconceptions of the "villainous pharaoh" further than the story takes it.

I'm not trying to "sniff out hypocrisy". Yes you get to have an opinion. My opinion is that it would be a sacrifice.

Okay. How? What makes Odin hanging upon Yggdrasil a sacrifice?

 

[user4578]

He was just taking His time.

You seem to be saying that God had them deliberately run away in battle in order to satisfy the rule of Deut. 7:22. And if you are saying they did not engage the chariots, but merely did not build up the courage to do so, then your explanation would have God making them willing to fight only up until the certain point they faced the chariots, in order that they be not defeated all at once, even though Joshua had encouraged Ephraim to do so beforehand(Joshua 17:16-18). By the way I give the explanation as their unwillingness to do so at the time, despite God's presence among them.

 

[74x12]

You seem to be saying that God had them deliberately run away in battle in order to satisfy the rule of Deut. 7:22. And if you are saying they did not engage the chariots, but merely did not build up the courage to do so, then your explanation would have God making them willing to fight only up until the certain point they faced the chariots, in order that they be not defeated all at once, even though Joshua had encouraged Ephraim to do so beforehand(Joshua 17:16-18). By the way I give the explanation as their unwillingness to do so at the time, despite God's presence among them.

Yes you're right. I think God raises up leaders though at key moments. Men of extra faith. God raised no such leader for Ephraim to defeat these chariots at this time that I know of. Which is why I think it wasn't God's time. Caleb in Judah on the other hand had great success. You do have a good point. I would guess we're both right.

 

[user4578]

I would guess we're both right.

Yet my comment may be inaccurate, for it seems Joshua's discussion with the Ephraimites occurred after Judah's encounter with the iron chariots, seeing that it happened when they were dividing the land, after the war had ended(Jdg 1:8-19 vs Jos 17:16-18); though how long was it between these two events, maybe the same year, can't say(cmp. Jos 11:21-23/Jdg 1:19). Nevertheless, Joshua's discussion with the Ephraimites may explain the reason for Judah's hesitation against the iron chariots.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You do know the brain continues to develop as people grow up? Adam and Eve were adults.

Got an age to quote?

Because Pharaoh is a jerk.

But the Hebrews whined to Moses they ate lots of good food and didn't want in Egypt. That sound like slavery to you? Like mistreatment? The fact is they DID have it better in Egypt.

So the Jews just made it all up.

Most of the Old Testament is either military propaganda or temple-vs-state when the monarchy came into play. I realized this growing up before much exposure to such ideas. Nearly everything revolves around touting the military or arguing over whether God likes kings, which didn't happen until way after most of the bible was said to have happened. A law book was found by people working for King Josiah (sp?) and that's it. That's one book out of the rest of them. That can only mean that the other books were created during or after said King's rule.

It's kind of like today, when a certain country likes to tell the world it is in constant danger of destruction while posting tourism commercials with a bunch of yuppies in lush environments. You can't have it both ways.

And not to pick on Israel, but nearly every country/nation has done the same thing. Heck, we are teaching our own children that Native Americans just left their homes voluntarily to help the poor Europeans and that slaves weren't slaves but migrant workers. Lots of countries lie.

Yes the children of Israel ran into difficulties with enemies that had "chariots of iron". However, this was the same Israelites that killed Og the giant. (Deut. 3:3) There really was no problem for God; He was just taking His time.

He can snap His fingers and do things instantaneously. He is eternal. Why the wait?

By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.

So you'd be fine with people claiming God said it was okay to kill you, your family, and take your house for their own?

I mean, in the US, people get irritable when their houses are ripped from them for a shopping mall. Strange how they're fine when others have it done to them.

They were adults.

A fact of which you have no evidence.

They did not have the mind of a newborn.

No, go look up childhood developmental psychology. Tell me that Adam and Eve don't fit Erikson's stage for roughly age 7 or so.

God can't lie.

He was definitely less than honest about His motives starting in Genesis 2.

The Garden of Eden was not the mistake. Placing the tree there was. This is clearly shown in that Adam and Eve could not rationally nor reasonably been blamed for their actions, and placing the possibility for the marring of paradise was as putting a self-destruct button on a submarine.

When toddlers are told not to mess with Daddy's gun and toddler ends up dying from Daddy's gun, we rightfully blame the parent for leaving the gun where toddler could get it.

Your objections on grounds of biology are also meaningless, as they were formed "fully grown" from clay and ribs.

Do we even know that, though? Where does it say they were fully grown?

Yes, no one is as wise and learned as you. Shine on us, that we may bask in your storied glory and deep font of knowledge. No one has ever thought of such dichotomies and their necessity to the definition of what is.

lol

God raised no such leader for Ephraim to defeat these chariots at this time that I know of.

It's not that hard. Even some ancients used mares in heat to distract the horses. Apparently mud can stop chariots as we learn a few times in the bible. Man doesn't make it rain, so that must mean God did it, which means there's no reason He can't do it in that instance. Did God run out of clouds that day? Did He forget to pay His water bill?

 

[syo]

An apple? Why would you think that?

an orange.

 

[syo]

The Noahide Code already does that though.

all religions do that. we just have to choose our religion.

 

[RabbiO]

an orange.

Actually, I asked my questions seriously.

 

[syo]

Actually, I asked my questions seriously.

yes, i don't know what kind of fruit it was, it could be anything.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I just hope He doesn't find out about the bananas.

 

[74x12]

The Garden of Eden was not the mistake. Placing the tree there was. This is clearly shown in that Adam and Eve could not rationally nor reasonably been blamed for their actions, and placing the possibility for the marring of paradise was as putting a self-destruct button on a submarine.

Well you assume it was placed there as a self destruct button. There may have been a very good reason to have it there that is now lost to history. Adam and Eve were put there to tend the garden not to just do whatever. Every job has rules. Break the rules and you're out of there. The garden to me appears to have been a place for immortals to be. We don't know what the tree of knowledge was for, but it may have been good to eat by some of the immortals but would cause death to Adam and Eve.

And yet they didn't know anything. Not until that fruit. Your objections on grounds of biology are also meaningless, as they were formed "fully grown" from clay and ribs. Mythically speaking - as their entire existence is - they had the minds of infants, and were as newborns.

I don't see it that way. I don't see them having minds of infants. They could talk, walk etc. They certainly didn't have the minds of newborns. Adam comes across at least as somewhat intelligent. He knows Eve came from his rib. He think's she is the “right step” in other words he likes her a lot and thinks she's a fit companion unlike the other animals he saw. It was from love of Eve rather than because he was deceived that he seems to have eaten the fruit. I don't think he fully realized what he was getting into, but that seems to be the reason he did it. (1 Tim. 2:14)

Of course he can. It's perpetually ridiculous that your god is all-powerful, can do anything, except shameful and bad things. Despite admitting to being the author of evil and woe as well. Your god told a mistruth in that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge didn't kill them; they were told if they ate it they would die. What transpired is about as true as me telling a child "If you eat that cookie, you'll die!" Technically it's true, they're going to die anyways. But it won't be the cookie that kills them.

They were immortal before they ate it. After they ate it they died. They were forbidden from the tree of Life because it would allow them to go on living as long as they ate it. Not because they necessarily needed it to stay alive before that.

I am well aware of deeper meanings and symbolisms in the myth. It is irrelevant, as that is not the point of my arguments. Would it make you feel better if other examples of your god mucking things up were brought in?

God is not mucking things up.

Believe that all you want, the language speaks for itself.

I will believe it because it actually makes sense unlike bringing in an unnecessary controversy as you want to do. The fact is it can be read that way. You're relying on some English version that apparently blithely just translates it "regret" without any regard for context.

Yes, no one is as wise and learned as you. Shine on us, that we may bask in your storied glory and deep font of knowledge. No one has ever thought of such dichotomies and their necessity to the definition of what is.



Or maybe the myth is just a bunch of nonsense and you made a hasty, flawed statement.

Apparently you at least hadn't thought of it very closely. Or I wouldn't need to spend this much time responding to your attempt to disprove me with something that has little or nothing to do with my actual point.

In service of Yahweh (so far as the bible is concerned), the agents of his will (rather than the adversary), and not regarded as evil in the slightest. On the contrary, biblical angels are regarded as righteous, just, and virtuous.

But, I don't know how it could be any plainer when in Psalm 78:49 it says God sent evil angels into Egypt and in Psalms 104:4 it says angels are spirits. We can safely assume that if good angels are spirits so are evil ones.



Besides, you're arguing over word play at this point. The important fact remains regardless of what they are called.

Offense taken. It is not made obvious anywhere in Exodus, and it's you projecting your own preconceptions of the "villainous pharaoh" further than the story takes it.

Well, I didn't mean to offend. I had to make that point. I don't think I'm projecting my own preconceptions on to the story. I think the story is perhaps a little bit subtle but not very subtle about Pharaoh's intentions.

Okay. How? What makes Odin hanging upon Yggdrasil a sacrifice?

I've already explained my reasons why I believe it was probably a sacrifice. You've explained why you disagree with that. Although I now don't believe every offering is a necessarily a sacrifice; yet when someone says they offered themselves then I'm thinking sacrifice.



For me a sacrifice doesn't have to mean permanent loss. It could mean pain endured etc. For example you could obviously say he at least sacrificed 9 days. Basically, you're attempting to define sacrifice for yourself and then say that what Jesus did is not a sacrifice based on your own definition rather than God's definition.

 

[taykair]

I'm going to butt in here for a moment, make a crazy comment, then leave as quickly as possible...

You are a regular, run-of-the-mill human being. You are cut severely. You can bind the wound and seek treatment and live, or you can choose to lie where you are and bleed to death. If you choose to bleed to death, you are, in effect, committing suicide.

Now imagine that you are a super-being. You cannot die unless you want to do so. You choose to allow the authorities to put you to death. You call it sacrifice. But is it? Or is it suicide?

We now return to our regular program, Christians vs. Lions - The Rematch, already in progress...

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I'm going to butt in here for a moment, make a crazy comment, then leave as quickly as possible...

You are a regular, run-of-the-mill human being. You are cut severely. You can bind the wound and seek treatment and live, or you can choose to lie where you are and bleed to death. If you choose to bleed to death, you are, in effect, committing suicide.

Now imagine that you are a super-being. You cannot die unless you want to do so. You choose to allow the authorities to put you to death. You call it sacrifice. But is it? Or is it suicide?

Paul appears to regard the sacrifice of Jesus as a matter of ritual, likening Jesus to the sacrificed Passover lamb. That is, it was something that was done to Jesus. In a ritual sacrifice, what the victim thinks about it is not really relevant.

Mark, Matthew and Luke maintain this idea of Jesus as victim, with Jesus not even answering the charges against him. Luke has a scene the night before the crucifixion where Jesus asks God the Father if there is any way out of this, but is willing to obey if that is necessary. This is reminiscent of Paul emphasizing Jesus as the obedient servant. That is, the sacrifice still has the flavor of a ritual one, not something voluntarily performed, but something that was required if not exactly welcomed.

OTOH John has Jesus in charge of things. He practically forces himself on the band come to arrest him. He banters with Pilate about who has the real power. Unlike the other Gospels, John says that Jesus carried his own cross. Even on the cross he is giving directives. As with so many other parts of his Gospel, John tells a different story than the other Gospels.