-
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!
Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant?
- Thread starter bartdanr
- Start date
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
What is problematic about the Mantra of our sins being cleansed in the Blood of Jesus is that it is a political perspective of the authors of the Gospels and is not necessarily the perpective of those who were there and witnessed the event of the Crucifixion. To represent it as ordained by God and as the act of God giving His own Son as a sacrifice is contradictory to previous developments in the scriptures. In chapter 22 of Genesis Abraham proceeds to give up Isaac as a sacrifice. The end of the story has a happy ending in so far as God does not want Abraham to perform a human sacrifice on His altar. If this is so, then why would God perform a sacrifice with His own Son?
What if the crucifixion has been misinterpreted? Jesus was taken out by the establishment and His resurrection is represented by the fact that 2000 years later He has a worldwide following. The establishment didn't win by putting an end to Jesus and His Word, but actually caused His Word to flourish. Deut made a good point about atonement. We don't have a free pass to sin because we will always be forgiven for it. There are requirements attached and one must change their ways.
We still have not thrown off the yolk of believing that God micro-manages our lives. Human nature is more than willing to lay the responsibilty onto someone else's shoulders. The actions of those who participated in taking out Jesus were the actions of mankind and not that of God. What better way to absolve someone of responsibility than to say God ordained it !!!
What if the crucifixion has been misinterpreted? Jesus was taken out by the establishment and His resurrection is represented by the fact that 2000 years later He has a worldwide following. The establishment didn't win by putting an end to Jesus and His Word, but actually caused His Word to flourish. Deut made a good point about atonement. We don't have a free pass to sin because we will always be forgiven for it. There are requirements attached and one must change their ways.
We still have not thrown off the yolk of believing that God micro-manages our lives. Human nature is more than willing to lay the responsibilty onto someone else's shoulders. The actions of those who participated in taking out Jesus were the actions of mankind and not that of God. What better way to absolve someone of responsibility than to say God ordained it !!!
Aqualung
Tasty
Well, look at the entire mosaic law. This law is a type of Jesus. For example for sins, you sometimes have to offer up a first born lamb without blemish. Does this every time have a "happy ending," where they say, "oh, you don't actually have to kill the lamb"? No. Abraham's offering was a type because it asked him to offer up his son. Mosaic law was a type because it actually required the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins. Another thing to consider is that Abraham was not asked to do it for the forgiveness of sins, so the fact that he didn't sacrifice his son can't be said to be proof that Jesus wasn't sacrificed for sin. It was just to give a type of father and son willingly agreeing to the sacrifice.Bennettresearch said:
Definitely not. Good point. A lot of people think that Jesus's sacrifice means that you can essentially do whatever you want, and that is definitely not true.Bennettresearch said:
Hi Linus, thanks for your post.Linus said: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 comingnot 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?
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....
Yes, I guess it's a "time thing"...what is three days of intense suffering compared to an eternity of bliss?
However, your post got me thinking: I consider those who use some of their time to sometimes "sacrifice." For example, even if a soldier is not killed or wounded, to spend time away from loved ones and home is a sacrifice, even though they didn't "lose" anything (but irreplacable time).
Perhaps I should modify my premise: Jesus did, in fact, sacrifice something (he had horrible pain for three days, something most of us wouldn't want to do). But the act of dying was not the sacrifice. Everyone dies; but only Jesus resurrected himself. Jesus' death was a temporary thing, so not really a sacrifice. However, his suffering was a sacrifice.
The blood atonement thing still seems a bit pagan to me. However, the idea that God himself bore all the suffering in the world seems like a noble image. That is, the "bearing of sins" isn't just an "icky" feeling or feeling of intense guilt, but rather the experiencing of all suffering caused by sin. That would be an enormous sacrifice, and the torturing and suffering on the cross (while intense) would really be nothing compared to that.
However, I don't see CHristians as a general rule focusing on this. Indeed, I haven't really seen much written about what it meant to "bear the sins of the world" except for the results as it relates to us; i.e., the wiping out of our sins.
Peace
Hi Steve, thanks for your post.Steve said:
I guess I really can't see how a slap in the face to a divine being is equivalent or worse than spending eternity in hell. I cannot conceive of God being so concerned about others respecting or worshipping him that this would be worse. It seems to me that the one who would say "turn the other cheek" would have the grace and love not to be so incredibly offended at someone disrespecting him/her.
Really, the whole concept that God demands our "worship" with bowing before him/her like some kind of oriental potentate and spending all of our time (really, all of eternity) sining how wondering s/he is, is astonishing to me. Does God really want us to fawn over him/her? Does s/he seek sycophantic followers? Or does s/he seek loving children who continually grow to be more like him/her?
Peace
Aqualung
Tasty
Yep. That's exactly what it means. If you think that dead means that they have completely ceased to exist in any form other than a pile of flesh and bones buried in the ground somewhere, then nobody ever really dies. It really just depends on how you look at what "death" really is. If you think of death as being the state in which the spirit is sperated from the body for a length of time, than Jesus, and all the others, most certainly were dead. But if you look at it that way, death really isn't anything at all.bartdanr said:
A good explanation, aqualung; I think this is somewhere where non-theists become 'distracted' because of their unwillingness (Which is perfectly understandable) to accept without proof.Aqualung said:
The shame of it is that when arguments come up over subjects such as these, the theist naturally accepts the pretext of 'continuing life' (Albeit in a different non-physical framework), whilst the non-theists see only the flesh and bones.
blueman
God's Warrior
We have a historical record that Christ was crucified in the New Testament Gospels, lets get that straight initially. There were many people during that time in 1st century Palestine who could have disputed the events that Gospel writers provided a historical record of. The significance of Jesus's death and resurrection was that fact that He did it to redeem the sins of mankind so that we might have a relationship with God and through Jesus, have everlasting life. If someone wrongs me, I have the capacity to forgive that person, but no one else does on my behalf. Only Jesus was able to do this by being the ultimate sacrifice because He was God incarnate. The other level of significance is the fact that if you objectively reference the Old Testament or the Jewish Talmud and read the prophetic words of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and some of the other Old Testament prophets, Jesus met the biblical blueprint of all the Messianic prophecies. No one else in history can lay that claim next to their name but Jesus.
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
Hi Aqualung (still have the album)
The Old Testament is rampant with reinforcing the concept of sacrifice of animals and burnt offerings of cereal grains. What this reminds me of is when Moses came back and found tha Aaron had made an idol of the Golden Calf. It is the same with the Jews in the Bible. They hanged on to ancient practices of offering sacrifices to their gods.
Do we, as Christians, perform sacrifices? If this practice is required by God, then why not? It is disheartening to not be able to find much in the way of protesting this act in the Bible but I have found some interesting verses.
Psalms 40:6; Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required.
Psalms 106:38; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Ecclesiastes 5:1; Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil.
Isaiah 1:11; "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
Isaiah 66:3; "He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dogs neck; he who presents a cereal offering, like him who offers swines blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like him who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations;
Jeremiah 7:22; For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Ezekiel 20:31; When you offer your gifts and sacrifice your sons by fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, says the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.
Hosea 6:6; For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.
Hosea 8:13; They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the LORD has no delight in them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt.
Daniel 8:13; Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"
How do we equate the sacrificing of animals to that of the Son of God? If there was a definate outcry against the pagan practice of sacrificing children, then why would God sacrifice His own Son? This is why i have a problem with the sanctioning of the Crucifixion as being ordained by God.
The Old Testament is rampant with reinforcing the concept of sacrifice of animals and burnt offerings of cereal grains. What this reminds me of is when Moses came back and found tha Aaron had made an idol of the Golden Calf. It is the same with the Jews in the Bible. They hanged on to ancient practices of offering sacrifices to their gods.
Do we, as Christians, perform sacrifices? If this practice is required by God, then why not? It is disheartening to not be able to find much in the way of protesting this act in the Bible but I have found some interesting verses.
Psalms 40:6; Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required.
Psalms 106:38; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Ecclesiastes 5:1; Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil.
Isaiah 1:11; "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
Isaiah 66:3; "He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dogs neck; he who presents a cereal offering, like him who offers swines blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like him who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations;
Jeremiah 7:22; For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Ezekiel 20:31; When you offer your gifts and sacrifice your sons by fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, says the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.
Hosea 6:6; For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.
Hosea 8:13; They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the LORD has no delight in them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt.
Daniel 8:13; Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"
How do we equate the sacrificing of animals to that of the Son of God? If there was a definate outcry against the pagan practice of sacrificing children, then why would God sacrifice His own Son? This is why i have a problem with the sanctioning of the Crucifixion as being ordained by God.
Aqualung
Tasty
Yeah, me too.Bennettresearch said:
I also have it on cd so I can listen to it (my turntable broke )One of the reasons that the Jews had to make animal sacrifices was to constatly remind them of their sins and what needs to be done to cleanse them. The jews of the OT were notorious for very quickly leaving their God when they weren't being constantly reminded of him. This is one of the reasons that animal sacrifce was a part of mosaic law. Another was to be type for Jesus.Bennettresearch said:
Bennettresearch said:
One of the things to understand is that God didn't just one day say, "I think I'll sacrifice my firstborn son. Won't that be fun!" He thought of it even before he created the earth. He knew that human would fall short, so he needed a way that we could be redeemed. Jesus allowed himslef to be sacrificed, because of his love for his father, and his love for all of us, and God did it because of his love for Jesus and his love for all of us. It would be the selfish father who would say, "you can't go through any pain in your life, but of course everybody else will die because of that."
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
Ok, I am convinced everyone. When Mt St Helens errupts again I am going to drive right ddown there and throw a virgin into the volcanoe. That should put my sins to rest for while at least. Does this all mean that when Jesus comes back we will crucify Him again to cleanse all of the sins that have been committed since He was here last time?
Linus
Well-Known Member
Hardly.Bennettresearch said:
Hebrews 10: 10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17"AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
18Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
OK, but it still doesn't address for me the validity of Jesus being a human sacrifice sanctioned by God. It doesn't wash and just because Paul said so doesn't make it true. If it were so, then it invalidates the story of Abraham and Isaac that puts and end to human sacrifice. There is much criticism in the OT about the pagan practice of sacrificing one's children as an abomination, mainly directed at the Canaanites. Are we to disregard this and say that ours sins must be cleansed by a human sacrifice? Not seeing it, sorry.
Linus
Well-Known Member
How about Jesus, then?Bennettresearch said:
John 12:27"Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28"Father, glorify Your name " Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31"Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." 33But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.
Jesus knew that he came to earth to die. He says in the end of verse 27 that it was his purpose. How is that not sanctioned by God?
The story of Abraham and Isaac doesn't end with a human sacrifice. That's not the point of the story. It was a test of Abraham's faith. God wanted to see if Abraham would trust in God and have complete faith and obedience. Surely you don't think that God ever intended for Isaac to be killed as a human sacrifice, do you?Bennettresearch said:
Because what you are describing is something wholly different from Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus commited no sin. He was without blemish (spiritually, that is). That is why It was necessary for him to be put to death. No other human has lived a sinless life. No other could take Jesus' place. I don't see why you are so confused...Bennettresearch said:
If you don't think that Jesus' sacrifice was necessary, why do you call yourself a christian anyway?
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
Linus said:
Hi Linus.
This is the response to the dogmatic insistence upon worshiping the crucifixion. What was lost after the crucifixion is the ministry of Jesus and Jesus being represented by others whose viewpoints quite evidently superceded those of Jesus Himself. My belief in Jesus is is predicated upon Him being a teacher and prophet.
As with all study of scripture and gospel, questions arise and there a many learned scholars who state that the Gospels were written with a political bias. This political bias is represented in defense of two positions.
1. That the Crucifixion was ordained by God
2. That the Cross symbolizes Christianity more than the teachings of Jesus.
Therefore, if I doubt,(not confused) that this is the real message that Jesus intended, it is what I have come to think on the subject after my personal studies. I have not closed the book yet, probably never will, but the preoccupation with blood sacrifice and the representation of it in Christianity is problematic. The question arises; If I am responsible for my own actions and face judgement, then why should I rely upon someone else, namely Jesus, to take the hit for me?
I think that salvation is reached through following Jesus and not through Him being sacrificed for my sins.