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

[TashaN]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Perhaps if it only saved one son, no. But God sacrificed his son to save billions of his other children from Physical Death. That's what's important. God sacrificed his son so that everybody woudn't forced to die an eternal physical death, never to be resurected, and he allowed his son to suffer so that, after all we can do, we might inherit a place along side him with his Father.

OK, My last question is .. why God didn't simply forgive this sin as he claim in the bible that he can forgive if we asked for forgivness?

Can you please read my post in this link for quick list of verses about forgivness in post number 39 ?

Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant?

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by The Truth

OK, My last question is .. why God didn't simply forgive this sin as he claim in the bible that he can forgive if we asked for forgivness?

Because that would defeat the purpose, or perhaps he can't. I"m not exaclty sure. I'll have to think about that one, and right now I'm too tired to think.

[TashaN]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Because that would defeat the purpose, or perhaps he can't. I"m not exaclty sure. I'll have to think about that one, and right now I'm too tired to think.

Take your time.

Peace.

[Passerbye]

Originally Posted by Hebrews 9:22

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Next question.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

How would you make the case that Jesus' sacrifice (or God the Father's sacrifice of his son) was something significant?

His death is not as significant as His resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15: 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Without the resurrection Jesus' death is nothing. It makes Jesus' message no different fromthat of any other who has died for a cause. It would make Jesus' message just one of many from which to choose.

But if the resurrection is true, then it speaks volumes on His power and that of God Himself.

[bartdanr]

Originally Posted by Steve

Hi bartdanr

The way i see it is this,
We have all broken Gods laws, God is Just, Holy and Righteous so cant just let Sin/wrong doing go unpunished. He is God so he gets to set the penalty for our sin, Their are 2 ways God has decided to ultimatley punish sin, one of them is by us in Hell the other is by Jesus' torture and Crucifixion.
The second option is a gift from God which we dont deserve, it is only by Gods grace and love that he made this atonement for us. For it to take effect it does require us to turn back to God and away from our sin though, hence the reluctance of many to take up Gods offer.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:22-26


"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:16-19

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4-6

Hi Steve, thanks for your post.

Ok, let's compare the two punishments for sin:
(1) Eternal torment in hell--unlimited pain and suffering for an unlimited period of time, multiplied by millions of humans.
(2) Limited pain and suffering for a limited period of time, multiplied by one human (one human-divine being, Jesus).

If it is as you suggest, that God decideds the punishment for sin, then s/he has established two unequal punishments. I can't see how they are equvalent. Is hell easier than crucifixtion? It certainly lasts longer in conservative Christian theology (i.e., forever vs. a few hours or a few days, depending how you measure Jesus' time of suffering).

If God established the punishment for sin, then God could un-establish it, couldn't s/he? If if God cannot un-establish it, then God is not all-powerful.

If God is all-powerful, then of course s/he can decide what s/he wishes. But that doesn't make it just, unless we define justice as "whatever God wills." By saying that, however, we give carte blanche to God for any kind of action that, if performed by anyone else, we would call it "evil."

An unlimited punishment for a limited offense is generally considered unjust. For example, if someone spits on the sidewalk, we generally find it unjust to punish the spitter by torturing them to death. (Of course, such a punishment is finite--compared to hell, which is infinite). How is justice served by punishing people in hell for eternity?

Yet I come back to my original question: what did Jesus give up that he didn't later regain? How was his sacrifice great, if what he gave up he quickly regained?

Peace

[bartdanr]

Originally Posted by Passerbye

Next question.

HI Passerbye, thanks for your post.

So God set up a law that things need to be cleansed by blood. (Of course, the interpretation of Torah given in the book of Hebrews is not altogether clear from the reading of Torah; in many places in the Old Testament, God forgives sin in the absence of a blood sacrifice.) But (again in contrast to the Old Testament), it is not "the soul that sins, it shall die", as long as blood is shed.

I know that millions of people believe this; however, it seems more than vaugly pagan. Why does God require the shedding of blood? Why can't he just forgive sin?

And still, I do not see how Jesus gave up anything that he did not later regain.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Originally Posted by Linus

His death is not as significant as His resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15: 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Without the resurrection Jesus' death is nothing. It makes Jesus' message no different fromthat of any other who has died for a cause. It would make Jesus' message just one of many from which to choose.

But if the resurrection is true, then it speaks volumes on His power and that of God Himself.

Hi Linus, thanks for your post.

Yes, if Jesus is raised, then it speaks a lot of Jesus' power. (It isn't necessarily a sign of being omnipotent, of course--actually nothing could be such a sign.)

How does Jesus' resurrection effect the forgiveness of sin? Was it the act of the shedding of blood that cleansed us from sin, or the act of the resurrection? Or was the resurrection the evidence that Jesus' words were true, and therefore we should believe him?

And I still don't see how Jesus gave up anything that he didn't quickly regain. I still don't see how it was a significant sacrifice for him.

Peace

[michel]

You might like to look at:-http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/5f00.0572/5f00.0572.05.htm


a short extract of which is as follows
Sanctification Through the Blood

"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with bis own blood, suffered without the gate"-Heb. xiii. 12.

"Cleansing through the blood" was the subject of our last chapter.

SANCTIFICATION THROUGH THE BLOOD must now occupy our attention.

To a superficial observer it might seem that there is little difference between CLEANSING and SANCTIFICATION, that the two words mean about the same thing ; but the difference is great and important.

CLEANSING has to do chiefly with the old life, and the stain of sin which must be removed, and is only preparatory.

SANCTIFICATION concerns the new life and that ,characteristic of it which must be imparted to it by God. SANCTIFICATION, which means union with God, is the peculiar fulness of blessing purchased for us by the blood.

The distinction between these two things is clearly marked in Scripture. Paul reminds us that "Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it" (Eph. v. 25, R. V.). Having first CLEANSED it, then He SANCTIFIES it. Writing to Timothy he says, "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use" (2 Tim. ii. 21). SANCTIFICATION is a blessing which follows after, and surpasses CLEANSING.

It is also strikingly illustrated by the ordinances connected with the consecration of the Priests, compared with that of the Levites. In the case of the latter, who took a lower position than the Priests in the service of the Sanctuary, no mention is made of SANCTIFICATION; but the word CLEANSING is used five times (Num. viii).

In the consecration of the Priests, on the other hand, the word "to SANCTIFY" is often used; for the Priests stood in a closer relationship to God than the Levites (Exod. xxix; Lev. viii).

This record at the same time emphasises the close connection between the sacrificial blood, and SANCTIFICATION. In the case of the consecration of the Levites-RECONCILIATION for sin was made, and they were sprinkled with the water of purification for CLEANSING, but they were not sprinkled with blood. But in the consecration of the Priests, blood had to be sprinkled upon them. They were SANCTIFIED by a more personal and intimate application of the blood.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

How does Jesus' resurrection effect the forgiveness of sin? Was it the act of the shedding of blood that cleansed us from sin, or the act of the resurrection? Or was the resurrection the evidence that Jesus' words were true, and therefore we should believe him?

I believe that His death, burial, and resurrection together make up the process by which we can have forgiveness of sins, thus allowing us to have a relationship with God. But if you want to break it down, I guess you could say that technically, the blood of Jesus was needed for the cleansing of sins.

It goes back to the Olt Testament. The Hebrews would sacrifice bulls, and goats for the clensing of their sins. But as we read in the Bible, their blood was not enough...

Hebrews 9: 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Also,
Hebrews 10: 1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

So I guess Jesus, blood technically is what save us, but it saves us through the resurrection as we can see in the 1 Corinthians passage I quoted above.

Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by bartdanr

And I still don't see how Jesus gave up anything that he didn't quickly regain. I still don't see how it was a significant sacrifice for him.

Time, maybe? He gave up three days of his life just to be beaten, whipped, nailed to a cross, left hanging there for a few hours, stabbed, and left for dead. I dunno that was just a guess. Though, I guess a few days are really nothing light of eternity.

It was a significant sacrifice for him because of how painful and humiliating cricifixion is. Jesus was physicaly abused by the Roman guards (slapped, hit on the head, etc.) he was whipped (scourged, which is painful enough as it is), had large nails driven through his hands and feet, left to hang, solely by those nails, from a cross, and stabbed in the side. Sounds pretty painful to me. And it probably isn't someting any of us would reasily go through. I would say that is a sacrifice. While he may or may not have technically "lost" anything, he did do something that none of us would be ready to do. I hope that's right....