Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant? (crucify, beliefs, eternity, God, Christ)

[Jayhawker Soule]

From a different perspective, from Jacob Neusner's A Judaic Reading of the Passion Narratives

Conclusion

In the Halakhic context, the death penalty achieves atonement of sin, leading to the resurrection at the end of days. It is an act of mercy, atoning for the sin that otherwise traps the sinner/criminal in death. In the context of the Gospel narrative, with its stress on repentance at the end and atonement on the cross by a single unique man, representative of all of humanity, for the sins of all humanity, we deal with no juridical transaction at all. It is an eschatological realization of the resurrection of humanity through that of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. Read in light of Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin and its Halakhic theology with its climax, "All Israel has a portion in the world to come," the passion narrative coheres, each component in its right proportion and position, all details fitting together.

The Mishnah interprets the death penalty as a medium of atonement in preparation for judgment leading to resurrection, just as the theology of the passion narratives has always maintained. For both the Mishnah and the Gospels, the death penalty is a means to an end. It does not mark the end but the beginning. The trial and crucifixion of Christ for Christianity, like the trial and execution of the Israelite criminal or sinner for Judaism, form necessary steps toward the redemption of humanity from death, as both religions have maintained, each in its own idiom.

Indeed, in the context of the law as articulated in the Mishnah, the details of the passion narratives take on acute meaning. All that requires translation is Christ for the criminal, and the passion narrative covers that ground in the context of the larger theology of atonement. A truly Christian film of the passion narratives begins with a prologue of suffering on the cross, giving way to a luminous, truly sublime vision of resurrection in all its glory. The climax comes not on Friday but on Sunday.

[michel]

That is very interesting Deut; sems to shift the perspective, somehow - but it makes sense.

[mr.guy]

wonder if it won't start popping up in the death penalty debate..

[michel]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

wonder if it won't start popping up in the death penalty debate..

Meaning ?

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by The Truth

I know that you are already explaining what you already believing in but you missed somthing in the story which is that the dad in your story supposed to has parents and the only way to forgive for what your brothers did so they have to through you in the street letting a car to hit you then everybody will be pleased and all of them will be happy for thier entire life and i don't have to remind you that you are contradicting yourself because Jesus was asking God for help in the cruci-FICTION so don't tell me that the dad in your story will say Ohh NOOO i don't wanna do this help ... help ... then he will say through himself saving his son ??? anyway i see your whole example dosn't work because i'm confused whether you referring to God as God"the father" or Jesus i don't know. please tell me what do you mean !!!

I don't really understand you. Perhaps it's because this huge long paragraph is one really, really long sentence? Umm... reword it, break it up into a few more sentences. Because I read it a bunch of times, and I just can't undertand it.

[bartdanr]

Hi, Aqualung--thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Would you really?

I think you may have misread me. I wrote "I would hope that if I was emotionally mature enough, I would be happy just saving everybody, and I wouldn't expect people calling me a hero. " I didn't say "I am emotionally mature enough..." I said "I would hope " that I was emotionally mature enough. I may not be, but I would hope that the Son of God would be.

Let's lay you have a five year old son. And one day he is playing with his ball near the road. It runs into the road, and a car drives up at really high speeds, and you know the two will collide. You jump in front, pushing your son away, and then you get hit and die.

Let's stop right there. If I was only dead temporarily, say three days, then it would be comparable to what happened to Jesus. From all apperances, he was fully healed from his death in three days (yes, he had scars, but he apperantly wasn't writhing in agony from pain.) But if I died for my son and wasn't resurrected, my sacrifice isn't exactly comparable to Jesus'.

If then, you could learn that the five year old gets the hugest ego, saying that appearantly it is in the stars that he live, and he starts ordering around his parents, and becomes a real brat, and doesn't even do anything with the life you so generously allowed him to have, that woudn't make you in the slightest bit mad?

It would be a bit difficult for him to order me around if I were dead, wouldn't it? But seriously, it would make me mad that my five year old has a big ego--whether I died for him or not. And regardless if I knew that he would grow up to be a brat, I still would chose for him--absolutely! That's what love for your children means. He doesn't owe me anything extra because I died for him; he owes it to others and himself to grow up to be a decent, carring person.

Yeah. I see people every day bleeding from every pore because of how much they are suffering.

First, the interpretation that Jesus sweated blood is just that--an interpretation. It says "sweat like drops of blood", not necessarily sweating blood. Many conservative commentators do not believe that Jesus literally sweat blood. Second, imagine being crucified for weeks before dying. Imagine being slowly crushed in an iron madien. There are countless ways of death and the infliction of pain that makes Jesus' brief stay on the cross (though horrible) not as painful as what others have experienced. You of course can introduce the metaphysical "bearing the sins of the world", and I cannot imagine what that is like. (Indeed, I wonder how it is possible. What 'weight'--metaphysically speaking, of course, do sins have? Is it the feeling of intense guilt, perhaps? But why should anyone feel guilt over what someone else did wrong? We should discuss this further.)

And I did not suggest that 'every day' people have greater physical pain than Jesus. Please don't try to spin my words, friend.

So am I to understand that the only criteria for "significant" is how much suffereing there was? It really doesn't matter what the result of the sacrifice was (such as the salvation from physical death of every human being and the possiblity of eternal exaltation, in Jesus's case; or, say, the preservation of one relationship that is obviously not very meaning ful on one end, in the case of an abusive spouse) as long as it was painful, long, and horrid?

I believe that 'sacrifice' by definition, has two major elements: (1) giving something that has great value to you (whether it has greater or lesser value to the one to whom you give it) and (2) the giving is irrevocable. This is one of the things that Jesus taught, actually, in the example of the widow's mite. What she gave was of little value to the actual operation of the Temple in Jerusalem, but it was of great value to her. And what the rich gave, though it may have helped the Temple a great deal, held little value for them--it didn't dent their bank accounts.

And Jesus' death on the cross was not irrevocable. He rose from the dead--so he gave nothing that he did not regain.

Weird. Yep, I guess that woman should be exalted even above Jesus when she gets to heaven, because her pain was so looong, and it accomplished so muuuch. Wow. We should all be kissing their feet.

I think you'll notice in my other posts (I'm not sure if it's in this post or not), that 'worshipping' or 'being worshipped', if it means falling down on your knees and saying how wonderful someone is, holds little appeal to me. I believe in respect and honor, but 'worship' seems over the top.

But I do think someone who gave something of great value to themselves irrevocably for the sake of another has given the greatest sacrifice possible. Yet I don't see that in the cross.

I look forward our continuing dialogue.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Originally Posted by Scott1

I agree.
I still don't understand your emphasis on the duration... my emphasis is in the free sacrafice of self and obedience to the Father... to me, a much more important distinction than watching the crucifiction with a stop watch.
Again... I appreciate your commentary, but I still don't understand the point you are trying to make (assuming you are)...

... for the record, I have no doubt about my resurrection, either.
I'd have to agree.... but again, I don't know why this is important... please help explain.

Hi Scott1, thanks for your post.

My emphasis on duration is that 'sacrifice', as I just posted above, involves the irrevocable giving of something that to you has great value. Suffering for a short span of time, giving your life just to regain it--these things don't seem like sacrifice. Is there anything that Jesus gave that he didn't get back?

Faith in the resurrection is important in that if you freely give your life and do not expect to have it given back to you, you are giving something of great value. But if you expect to have it given back to you, you aren't giving it--you're simply loaning it.

Now, as to the importance of obedience to the Father: did God the Father order Jesus to be crucified? And I still have problems with the whole system of sin and punishment as envisioned in Christian theology. God sacrificing himself to himself to pay a debt that he demanded?

As to the 'sacrifice of self'--did Jesus give up himself? Jesus, according to Christian theology, still lives, and in glory. So what aspect of self did Jesus sacrifice?

And I would like for us to delve more into the idea of 'bearing the sins of the world' and how this causes suffering.

I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

Peace

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

I think you may have misread me. I wrote "I would hope that if I was emotionally mature enough, I would be happy just saving everybody, and I wouldn't expect people calling me a hero. " I didn't say "I am emotionally mature enough..." I said "I would hope " that I was emotionally mature enough. I may not be, but I would hope that the Son of God would be.

Are you saying that "emotionally mature" is the same as "possessing no emotions"? Is it somehow "emotionally childish" to feel a bit bad that many, many people go around devalueing a very significant thing?

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Let's stop right there. If I was only dead temporarily, say three days, then it would be comparable to what happened to Jesus. From all apperances, he was fully healed from his death in three days (yes, he had scars, but he apperantly wasn't writhing in agony from pain.) But if I died for my son and wasn't resurrected, my sacrifice isn't exactly comparable to Jesus'.

Of course not. I never said you woudn't be resureected

Originally Posted by bartdanr

It would be a bit difficult for him to order me around if I were dead, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I guess that would be tough. I didn't think the caracters out to well.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

But seriously, it would make me mad that my five year old has a big ego--whether I died for him or not. And regardless if I knew that he would grow up to be a brat, I still would chose for him--absolutely! That's what love for your children means. He doesn't owe me anything extra because I died for him; he owes it to others and himself to grow up to be a decent, carring person.

But woudn't it make you madder if you had sacrificed your life, and then it just went to waste? And Jesus chose for us, knowing full well that some woudn't want the gift.

The rest of the post seems more an argument is semantics. "what does sacrifice mean," or "what does worship mean?".

[bartdanr]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Are you saying that "emotionally mature" is the same as "possessing no emotions"? Is it somehow "emotionally childish" to feel a bit bad that many, many people go around devalueing a very significant thing?

Perhaps we have different perspectives on emotional maturity. I believe that when you love without condition, then whether or not it is reciprocated is not the important thing. And if you give a gift with the expectation of reciprocation, then is it truly "giving"? Even Jesus said to give to those who can't repay you. Seeking repayment of love or a gift--whether monetarily or emotionally--seems less emotionally mature than giving without expectation or even desire for reciprocation.

And we're moving away from the idea of ignoring and not caring to actively devaluing. But either way, someone who gives without seeking return should not care. If Jesus saved people and they don't know or don't care, why should he feel bad? They are saved. (Of course, some of this depends on if your a universalist or not. That can change a bit the understanding of if the sacrifice of Jesus was effective for everyone or not.)

Of course not. I never said you woudn't be resureected

Ok, if I was resurrected, then it would mean that it would be a comparable scenario. But I think my response would be the same: I am willing to give my life for my son, not because of what I hope he becomes, but because he is what he is: my son, whom I love.

Yeah, I guess that would be tough. I didn't think the caracters out to well.

No prob.

But woudn't it make you madder if you had sacrificed your life, and then it just went to waste? And Jesus chose for us, knowing full well that some woudn't want the gift.

If I was resurrected, then I didn't sacrifice my