• 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!

Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
As I have said before, Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel. Have you also noticed how it uses past tense?
I don't know why you are raising this question. As I said, it is a fundamental Christian teaching contained in the NT. It was also foreshadowed by what God asked Abraham to do with Isaac, though God provided an alternate sacrifice for him.

You may disagree all you like, but that is the teaching we have and accept. It matters not what others think and postulate; that teaching is one of our fundamental dogma.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Christians view it as a sacrifice. Voluntarily or not a human sacrifice is not acceptable to HaShem.

They view it as a sacrifice, like you might sacrifice something you cared about deeply for the sake of someone you loved. Not as a human sacrifice.

It was never in any sense in any of the various Christian groups I was involved in thought of it as a human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice is what those who attack Christianity call it. I know, myself being among the critics of Christianity. I never called it a human sacrifice or thought of it as such until after I left it.

Christianity has been criticized for this concept of accepting human sacrifice for so long perhaps many themselves even see it as part of Christian theology they have to defend.

It amounts to a strawman created by the critics of Christianity.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
As I have said before, Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel. Have you also noticed how it uses past tense?
Your original question contained this: "Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?"

I demonstrated how the OT spoke of such a sacrifice. It matters not if it as you objected to was 'Israel' or Jesus Christ. What matters is that your question was addressed in Isaiah, no matter whom it might refer to. So, again, end of story.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

Because God said so. The End :D
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
They view it as a sacrifice, like you might sacrifice something you cared about deeply for the sake of someone you loved. Not as a human sacrifice.

Perhaps we could illustrate it this way.....supposing an enemy had a gun pointed at your dearly loved wife or child....and you stepped in front of them to take the bullet. Would you be considered a fool or a hero? Jesus took the 'bullet' aimed at us. He loved us that much.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?
Well, throughout the Bible there's a rule. The souls that sins shall die. (You know that. ;)) God put Jesus to death to reveal his justice and his love for all humanity. He is not the God of the Jews only. Jesus' death, resurrection, and great commission have opened the way to God for all nations by taking the curse of sin upon himself at the cross. Whereas the Messiah was thought to be a political figure by the Jews, the messiah showed the world that royalty isn't always domineering. That the king of the universe is kind to all. By this new covenant made with the whole world, God gives the gentiles and Jews spiritual power over their spiritual enemy. This is all to prepare for the physical kingdom that will come at the end of time. The truth is, we can't heal the world so God will give his people a new one.

Also, Jesus' death is not normative. It's a one time thing. Whereas people were stoned right and left in the Old covenant, Jesus has put the death, well, death. :) What it means is that no one needs to be punished with death for sin anymore.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

I think I look at it that way because Hindu scriptures are rife with contradictions. But rather than invalidate them it points out different views and perspectives of the writers. And lessons to be learned. We accept it as “meh, ok, your view is good, my view is good, let’s get some tea”.

Delving into and studying them is where we start to really think, i.e. “how do we reconcile them, or do we have to?” and learn. For centuries rabbinical scholars have debated and come up with a huge corpus of wisdom.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Kinda like ' A Tale of Two Cities' isn't it.

But my question is why would omnipotence need to make a sacrifice to achieve salvation?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?
Cause God asked for it.
Exodus 22:29
Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

And there is Exodus 12:29
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle

Exodus 13:2 and also Exodus 11:5 to name a couple more.
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts

If god didn’t like human sacrifice there still seemed to be something about first borns.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
What about Abraham? Whether it was stopped or not... he did command it. Or Pharaoh's son and the firstborn of Egypt? Those could be considered taken human sacrifices too.
You do know they sacrificed people to Odin? What exactly could you(worshiper of the asgard) have against human sacrifice?

Yes He commanded it as a test. You know God doesn't make mistakes. The real goal of all sacrifices in the old Testament was to make people's hearts better. God looks on the heart of the offerer. God doesn't need the offering. The person's heart is God's concern. Because Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac He proved first of all his devotion to God and secondly his great faith. Because previously God had promised that Isaac would be the one to raise up a great nation. Therefore Abraham believed that God would even raise Isaac to life again in order to fulfill the promise. But it proved to be only a test of his faith.

Pharaoh's son and the firstborn of Egypt was a punishment on Egypt. A sacrifice is generally given willingly and usually costs something also. The Egyptians did not give a sacrifice.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
As I have said before, Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel. Have you also noticed how it uses past tense?
No, I don’t see it. Because it says “he shall...he shall...he shall...”
There's the precedent of Abraham and Isaac. I think that near-miss and Jesus are the only two episodes of human sacrifice. If I remember correctly what Sister Mary Oreganata taught was that the sin of Adam and Eve was so grave that there was no atonement possible other than a life. And there was no life pure enough to make such a sacrifice, so God decided to incarnate and offer himself.
interesting view, and certainly not a rogue idea, about “there was no life pure enough....so God decided to incarnate”. In case you’d like to think on it, though...

According to the Bible, Adam was not a “god incarnate”; he was simply a man, but a perfect human one. So, the only life needed was a perfect human one.

The requirement of repayment in the Mosaic Law was “an eye for an eye, a foot for a foot”.....a god giving his life for a human life, would be like ‘two legs for a foot.’

(If that were the case, he wouldn’t have a ‘leg to stand on.’
Ta-da.)
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Just to clarify: I meant his action of honouring his promise by sacrificing his daughter, not his action of making a foolish promise.

In the story in Judges 11, Jephthah is never condemned for keeping his promise. In fact, when his daughter, who fits the motif of a virtuous daughter, learns that he's considering not sacrificing her, she tells him that he had to do it.

Overall, I think the story was intended to communicate a moral that's something like "don't make idle promises to God, because you'll have to keep them even if it hurts." This moral doesn't work if Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (given his promise) is meant to be seen in a negative light.

The alternative, that the author is trying to comnunicate that Jephthah's daughter's sacrifice is bad, makes the overall lesson of the story all muddled: so he wasn't supposed to honour his promise? It's okay to break your word to God? That doesn't square up with the rest of the Torah, IMO.
Neither Jephthah not his daughter are scholars. I think the story on its own illustrates what happens to an ignoramus.

There is a question here if there was any promise that he needed to keep. It's definitely not ok to break your word to G-d. But let's say I take an oath to give your house to the Temple. That doesn't work, because I don't have control of your house. The same if I take an oath to offer a pig as a sacrifice. Only cows, sheep, goats and pigeons can be offered as animal sacrifices. All the oaths in the world, aren't going to get my pig up on that altar. So there's a dispute in the Talmud about whether or not the oath is invalid altogether or whether the person owes the value of the sworn item.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Perhaps we could illustrate it this way.....supposing an enemy had a gun pointed at your dearly loved wife or child....and you stepped in front of them to take the bullet. Would you be considered a fool or a hero? Jesus took the 'bullet' aimed at us. He loved us that much.
Why would Jesus need to take a "bullet"?

And who was doing the aiming?

Anyways isn't a sacrifice giving up something for good?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I don’t see it. Because it says “he shall...he shall...he shall...”
Israel is often referred to like this. As well as cities such as Jerusalem, who are sometimes disparagingly compared with and called harlots.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I demonstrated how the OT spoke of such a sacrifice. It matters not if it as you objected to was 'Israel' or Jesus Christ. What matters is that your question was addressed in Isaiah, no matter whom it might refer to. So, again, end of story.
No it wasn't addressed because no-one is/was being sacrificed.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know why you are raising this question. As I said, it is a fundamental Christian teaching contained in the NT.
Well I'm sorry but it's wrong. A cursory reading of the prophets will tell you this. Israel is referred to as G-d's servant and this is what is going on in Isaiah 52-53.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Capital crimes in Israel meant the death sentence. With death hanging over their heads as the punishment was carried out swiftly, there was little time for repentance. If you took a life, you paid for it with your own. Adam gave his children a dreadful genetic inheritance which sentenced every last one of them to suffer the same penalty as he did. His death paid for his own sin....Jesus' death pays for the sin of all his offspring.
I'd hardly say the criminal was offering himself as a sacrifice. This just isn't the same thing at all. One individual cannot pay for the sins of another. There still has to be repentance. No where does Torah specify that a human sacrifice, which is essentially what Jesus is supposed to have been, can take away your sins. Can you please point out to me where this is allowed, because all I can see are animal and grain sacrifices and offerings and a whole lot of HaShem not allowing or accepting human sacrifice.

How many of Israel's sacrifices involved blood offerings? (Leviticus 9) Why do the religious Jews no longer offer blood sacrifice? Has the law changed? If it is God's law to offer these things to atone for sin, and there is no longer a temple at which to offer them, why do you think God never commanded another temple to be built? Why is Jerusalem a place of conflict and not peace as its name suggests? Could it be that God no longer resides there?
They tried to build another Temple and were prevented. The Third Temple will be built when Messiah comes. And, as you already know, not all sacrifices have to involve blood.

Jesus was beaten by the Romans because the Jews falsely accused him of breaking their law, which he never did.....even Pilate found him innocent of any charge requiring the death penalty, washing his hands of Jesus blood. His blood was on the hands of his accusers.

Jewish law required that all males be circumcised. Jesus was a Jew under Jewish law. Do you view circumcision as a blemish? Does God?

No, but being circumcised means he was wounded and therefore, according to sacrificial laws, unsuitable to sacrifice. His being bloody and beaten also rendered him a null sacrifice. It doesn't matter if he'd never committed a sin in his life, he was blemished.
 
Last edited:

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
No it wasn't addressed because no-one is/was being sacrificed.
Wrong!
10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Well I'm sorry but it's wrong. A cursory reading of the prophets will tell you this. Israel is referred to as G-d's servant and this is what is going on in Isaiah 52-53.
Since Christ and his teachings came because of God's will, you can say it is wrong all day, all your life, and the only one wrong is you.
 
Top