• 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!

Jesus's Death. Was That Unnecessary?

As an atheist, do you agree with Dawkins' assessment of Jesus's death?

  • no, but he does have one or two valid points in his answer

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

PureX

Veteran Member
he's not a fool.
And he is largely popular. This video, again, almost has 60k likes, which is a lot. For my videos as a comparison, I don't get 10 (not 10 k, I mean 10;)).
So, he can't be a fool.
Here on RF, last time I opened up a thread on his ideas, the atheists voted 13 to 9 to his favor.
Even here on RF, in which even the atheists are critical of darkmatter2525, a prominent atheist youtube channel, people largely share his ideas on faith.
So, he's definitely not a fool, I think.
Like most media 'talking heads, he's paid to provoke, and to stir up 'outrage', because it keeps people's eyes and ears on the advertising. And it sells books.

A foolish way to spend one's life, in my opinion.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
The triumphant Life Jesus lived was forgotten, overawed by the spectacular turning of the cheek on the cross and astonishing resurrection.

* Death or translation is normal for humans. Jesus came down from heaven to experience all of the life we are called to live.

* The cross proved the authority of Christ to teach and the “truth” of what he taught.

*That he did all that he did was a service of Love to us, not the payment of an imaginary sin debt.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Whats the reference?
this one ;)
But ...

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

- Makkot 11b

So, not sacrifice/absolution, but death/atonement.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The triumphant Life Jesus lived was forgotten, overawed by the spectacular turning of the cheek on the cross and astonishing resurrection.

* Death or translation is normal for humans. Jesus came down from heaven to experience all of the life we are called to live.

* The cross proved the authority of Christ to teach and the “truth” of what he taught.

*That he did all that he did was a service of Love to us, not the payment of an imaginary sin debt.

Triumph is being tortured to death?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
But ...

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

- Makkot 11b

So, not sacrifice/absolution, but death/atonement.

Not the same thing. The Gemara you posted does not teach what the OP stated that "sacrifice is needed in order to absolve sins from mankind." Further, death/atonement also not needed for "mankind" according to Jewish tradition. That as a concept is not what is addressed in the Mishnah you posted.

This gemara you posted is about unintentional murderer where the verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile. The statement, "for his sins" does not show up in the text.

דף יא,ב גמרא מ"ט אמר אביי ק"ו ומה מי שגלה כבר יצא עכשיו מי שלא גלה אינו דין שלא יגלה ודלמא האי דגלה איכפר ליה האי דלא גלה לא מידי גלות קא מכפרא מיתת כהן הוא דמכפרא

The type of (כפרא) that it is talking about him not being exiled because due to the death of the Kohen HaGadol and not for the sake of "sins" plural. The exile is in part due to the Goel Hadam (the family member of the accidentally murdered person) and also as a type of punishment. Further, the (כפרא) being discussed concerns the punishment of exile for the particular aveira of the unintentional murder, not other aveiroth and not for the "sins of mankind."

Also, according to the Rambam (Mishnah Torah - HIlchoth Teshuva 1:1-3) actual atonement only comes when the person realizes their mistake, makes corrective action, admits them, and does not return to them - then they bring a Qorban if there is Mikdesh.

The Rambam, in the Moreh HaNevuchim 3:40 explains that death of the Kohen Gadol is simply a part of the process of taking away the the rage of the Goel Hadam due to the loss of the Kohen Gadol being a national tragedy and loss - i.e. Goel Hadam will lose interest due to the greater loss.

Further, Rashi states "As he causes the Divine Presence to reside in Israel, and lengthens their lives, while the murderer causes the Divine Presence to leave Israel, and shortens their lives, he (the murderer) is unworthy of being in the presence of the Kohein Gadol. (Thus, he must remain confined in exile until the passing of the Kohein Gadol. - Sifri, 20.)"
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
But you have to due to be resurrected. Death/life/resurrection is the point. Just people are focused on death (i.e. sin, blood, and sacrifice) cause without it one can't be with god.

John speaks of Jesus' glorification in a way that includes the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as a single event.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member

So your statement "According to Jewish tradition, there needs to be a sacrifice in order that the sins of mankind should be absolved." is justified by the below?

"GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortioriinference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled,his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no,his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

- Makkot 11b:"

@Jayhawker Soule

Can you clarify?

Does this mean as Thomas has quoted you as saying that a sacrifice is needed for the sins of mankind?

@thomas t

This does not say anything about intentionally sacrificing a man or high priest as atonement for an "unintentional murder".

1. The priest was not killed as atonement for this mans "unintentional murder".
2. Also, it has nothing to do with "the sins of mankind".

So it is obvious that you completely misunderstood this. But I would like to hear from Jayhawker S as to his agreement with you quoting him.

Interesting.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't absolve be akin to reconciling one's self with god?

What did animal sacrifice mean if not a means to reconcile one (if that's true?) with god?

You first have to understand that the word in Hebrew used was not a "sacrifice." The word used (קורבן) "Qorban" comes from the Hebrew root which means "to draw near."

Also, not all of the Qorban's were from animals. Some of them were from grain/bread products.

According to the Hebrew text, and Jewish sources about the Hebrew text, atonement only when the person realizes their mistake, makes corrective action, admits them, and does not return to them - the Qorban, as described, by itself does not have any effect what so ever.

The purpose of the Qorban, as spelled out for Jews and not required for non-Jews, was/will to a) provide food for the Kohanim and Levites (the tribe of Levi who had no land rights) and b) an understanding that process was to draw Jewish person, of any generation, drawing closer to Hashem due to all of the work involved with bringing a Qorban and Hashem's understanding of univeral elements of human nature. (Again not all of them were from animals) I.e. there are some sources that posit that human beings developed the concept of Qorban and Hashem gave the Torah in a way understanding why humans initiated the concept and process.
 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
So your statement "According to Jewish tradition, there needs to be a sacrifice in order that the sins of mankind should be absolved." is justified by the below?

No, it is a translation issue. There are concepts that are hard to translate into English and this is one of them. See my response for an explaination.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that I suggested that it was.

I am not saying that you did. Yet, those reading this thread who don't know the context of the Gemara can be misled by the English. I.e. there has already been one comment asking if the Gemara was saying that it was the same.
 
Top