• 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!

The need for Christ to die makes sense, and it doesn't

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, I can't answer your assertion that there is a paradox if you don't get more specific than that.

First, which you have not responded to, is the concept of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' are same throughout most of Christianity. The concept of the Fall and Original Sin indicate God made the mistakes that led to the Fall and Biblically the falt falls on the innocents Adam and Eve, for temptation in the Garden that they were set up for the Fall. The concept of 'inherited sin' adds to paradox that all humanity carries the stain and suffering from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.


I agree, but on the human and the nature of of our physical existence the evolving physical and spiritual existence is a factual reality[/QUOTE]

There is nothing impotent about God. My belief is not that God is impotent. I believe God designed everything to happen just as it did.

This would lead to the unfortunate chain of events where Adam and Eve are guilty for the stain of Original Sin that infexts all humanity.

Since you bring up nature as evidence about the character of God. What do you think of the cycle of life? The ecosystem itself is based on a system of sacrifice. Animals eat other animals so on and so forth. So all animals and plants in the ecosystem are eventually nourished by one another's sacrifice. If this system was --ultimately-- designed by God; then you have to admit that God does use a kind of sacrifice.

As a scientist for fifty years plus I consider this a terrible analogy to justify sacrifice by humans to appease the wrath of God.

This also gets into the analogy that Jesus Himself used in John 12:24. In order to produce a new plant; a seed must in a sense die in the ground. This is a sacrifice. But it creates new life.

This view of an analogy in the Bible lies at heart of the problem.

Exactly, that is the human perspective. This is why no one can know God or the things of God unless God Himself reveals it to you. Otherwise, we are all in a constant state of confusion or even delusion. The history of God dealing with humans is God in mercy reaching down to them in their state of delusion/confusion. He chose to speak through prophets etc. This is the way of God. My point is; He still is doing it.

Disagree completely. Unfortunately too many people believe God speaks to them today in too many conflicting and contradictory claims.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It was not God's will for people to make foolish vows. Jephthah could have prayed for victory in battle without making any vow at all. Much less one so foolish. Suffice to say that human sacrifice was not pleasing to God. If Jephthah had faith he would not make a silly vow. (Psalm 50:9-14)

God is beyond us and not in need of anything. If people will be righteous and pray with faith then He will hear their prayer. But, yet He has no pleasure in fools and He expects people to pay their vows.

God gives and takes away as Job said. Yet, Job blessed His name. Every person has a day to die and it's appointed by God. You can't keep your spirit back from leaving your body on that day.

Does not explain God's responsibility, if it is so. for the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, regardless of the human failings of Jephthah. There are more examples of human sacrifice in the OT.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Makes sense and doesnt means doesnt make sense.

The sacrifice is purely spiritual, has nothing to do with a priestly sacrifice
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Makes sense and doesnt means doesn't make sense.

The sacrifice is purely spiritual, has nothing to do with a priestly sacrifice

Biblically not true. The concept of sacrifice of redemption and forgiveness of sins in the OT was through sacrifice of animals, and sometimes human sacrifice. This was replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:14
He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds. (NLT)


Acts 3:19
Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away. (NLT)


Romans 3:22-24
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (NIV)


Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (NIV)


Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (NIV)
 

FooYang

Active Member
So, the need for God's son to be crucified makes sense to me in the sense that suffering and dying for someone is possibly the best way to show them you love them.

For instance, if somebody gives me butterflies in the stomach and delightful feelings, I could be friends with anybody, and it would be easy to love them. I could incessantly show affection and words of praise towards them and it wouldn't mean anything.

Once I'm willing to suffer for them, then I am proving that I truly love them, because I stop receiving reward.

I'm not going to wear a crown of thorns for someone, be stripped down naked, humiliated, and scourged for someone, then be nailed to a cross for them, unless I really love them more than anyone, and find there to be a cause so beautiful, that it is worth such a sacrifice.

The crucifixion doesn't make sense either though, because God would not need it to forgive. He could simply say, "your debt is forgiven". But the crucifixion is a way to demonstrate true unconditional love, for a person would only want to make such a sacrifice, if the reward for making such a sacrifice was truly beautiful, and the suffering worthwhile.

Yep, I tend to think the same. Although there is some sense of nobility of self-sacrifice but ultimately it is quite anti-climactic. He was supposedly crucified and now we're past 2000 years after his death and there is still sin, poverty and all that kind of stuff. If he died for our sins as mainstream Christian doctrines state, it's results have been significantly delayed.....

I'm not opposed to it but Jesus' place in history feels more like the beginning of something rather than a conclusion - this is perhaps the most puzzling aspect of Christianity, at least pragmatically.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Biblically not true. The concept of sacrifice of redemption and forgiveness of sins in the OT was through sacrifice of animals, and sometimes human sacrifice. This was replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:14
He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds. (NLT)


Acts 3:19
Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away. (NLT)


Romans 3:22-24
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (NIV)


Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (NIV)


Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (NIV)
Then sins are gone, so why the hassle?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So what does your argument mean?

the concept of a sacrifice is a human way of believing they are appeasing God(s), and nothing happens. Sacrifices do not achieve anything as far as God is concerned.

Old Testament sacrifice is intimately linked to the New Testament concept which replaces the OT priestly concept of sacrifice.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
the concept of a sacrifice is a human way of believing they are appeasing God(s), and nothing happens. Sacrifices do not achieve anything as far as God is concerned.

Old Testament sacrifice is intimately linked to the New Testament concept which replaces the OT priestly concept of sacrifice.
I don't believe so. In christian belief, the type that Im familiar with, the 'sacrifice' does not include all sins, in other words, it's conditional. Nothing like a priestly sacrifice at all, which is one sin, or specific sins, or such. Totally different.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I don't believe so. In christian belief, the type that Im familiar with, the 'sacrifice' does not include all sins, in other words, it's conditional. Nothing like a priestly sacrifice at all, which is one sin, or specific sins, or such. Totally different.

False, Biblically the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has the same purpose, and replaces priestly sacrific of Judaism. Priestly sacrifice is not necessarily for one sin. In fact this very very unlikely It is common for priests to make ceremonial sacrifices on holidays and special occasions to forgive the sins of the community in ancient times and today without animal sacrifice. .This ceremonial ritual offering without the sacrifice is called Karbanot.

The only difference I can see is Christians claim that the one act of sacrifice of Jesus Christ is for all sins for all time, but that does not detract from the relationship, as described in the NT.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The only difference I can see is Christians claim that the one act of sacrifice of Jesus Christ is for all sins for all time, but that does not detract from the relationship, as described in the NT.

Who says all sins for all time?
Not the Bible.
The Biblical sacrifice is conditional, and it's only for believers. It does nothing for non believers.

John 10:1-17

'My sheep', in those verses, means only the believers.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Who says all sins for all time?
Not the Bible.
The Biblical sacrifice is conditional, and it's only for believers. It does nothing for non believers.

John 10:1-17

'My sheep', in those verses, means only the believers.

There may be differences between what Christians believe in terms of what sins are forgiven, but that is not the point. Even in Judaism forgiveness of sins is also conditional on such factors as belief and sincerity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Who says all sins for all time?
Not the Bible.
The Biblical sacrifice is conditional, and it's only for believers. It does nothing for non believers.

John 10:1-17

'My sheep', in those verses, means only the believers.

Biblically, because of the sacrifice by Jesus Christ, the priestly sacrifice is not needed, for believers for all time.The intimate link is also the claim of of fulfillment and replacement of Judaism by Jesus Christ.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Biblically, because of the sacrifice by Jesus Christ, the priestly sacrifice is not needed, for believers for all time.The intimate link is also the claim of of fulfillment and replacement of Judaism by Jesus Christ.
If that is your definition of Judaism, sure. I guess. Not really.

The sacrifice, spiritual sacrifice, must be estimated by James 1
The
Biblically, because of the sacrifice by Jesus Christ, the priestly sacrifice is not needed, for believers for all time.The intimate link is also the claim of of fulfillment and replacement of Judaism by Jesus Christ.
Huh?
Do you mean, it allows non jews in the Covenant? That' still conditional, and Judaism does that also.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If that is your definition of Judaism, sure. I guess. Not really.

The sacrifice, spiritual sacrifice, must be estimated by James 1
The

That is your perspective of the necessity of sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and problematic belief in the Fall and Original Sin

Huh?
Do you mean, it allows non jews in the Covenant? That' still conditional, and Judaism does that also.

I said nothing of the sort, considering the Jewish or the Christian perspective. Actually the more liberal side of contemporary Judaism and Christianity extends the possibility of salvation to non-believers..
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That is your perspective of the necessity of sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and problematic belief in the Fall and Original Sin
No it isn't, those aren't my beliefs. Never were, where would those beliefs come from?
I said nothing of the sort, considering the Jewish or the Christian perspective. Actually the more liberal side of contemporary Judaism and Christianity extends the possibility of salvation to non-believers..
Great
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That is your perspective of the necessity of sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and problematic belief in the Fall and Original Sin



I said nothing of the sort, considering the Jewish or the Christian perspective. Actually the more liberal side of contemporary Judaism and Christianity extends the possibility of salvation to non-believers..
Man where are you coming up with this stuff? The 'sacrifice' is spiritual, only for believers, and isn't physical at all. That's what I said, and it has nothing to do with 'original sin'.

Try refuting what I write instead of peripheal oddball arguments and ideas.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No it isn't, those aren't my beliefs. Never were, where would those beliefs come from?

Great

You may have your own personal believs concerning this, but nonetheless . . .

The doctrines and documents of the Roman Church, Protestant churches, Orthodox churches. You are still evading the issue of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' in all this. The Fall and Original Sin plays a pivital role in Christianity, and the question of role of sacrifice in this.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Man where are you coming up with this stuff? The 'sacrifice' is spiritual, only for believers, and isn't physical at all. That's what I said, and it has nothing to do with 'original sin'.

Try refuting what I write instead of peripheal oddball arguments and ideas.

The crucifiction of Jesus Christ is a very very very physical act of sacrifice. It has everything to do with the fall and original sin, which you are evading.

Romans 5

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
Last edited:
Top