Crucifixion and Atonement - I Don't Understand

[Awoon]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

The Greatest Money making Scam of ALL time !!

 

[1robin]

The Greatest Money making Scam of ALL time !!

Yep, those original Apostles (the ones who first recorded the idea) sure did make out like bandits. They spent a life of servitude and toil in the service of a message that if false they would have known it. Some died because of the message and all suffered greatly. I do not defend what the Catholics did or did not do with the message but it is the height of absurdity to claim it was introduced by men who did not know it's absolute reality or to insinuate that they gained materially from it. It takes an actual Atheistic Stalin to show what true evil done in the name of religion is. In his case his absolute hatred of it and any one who believed in it as well as his thirst for power cost 15 million lives. It took a Hitler that actually said he justified his actions by principles found in evolution to show how much wealth and death can be gained there by that caused 50 million deaths. By the way even Dawkins could not find anything in evolution that allowed Hitler to be considered evil and therefore stopped. Thank God the crazy western religous folks had a suffecient foundation for morality that enabled him to be declared evil and stopped cold.

 

[Awoon]

Yep, those original Apostles (the ones who first recorded the idea) sure did make out like bandits. They spent a life of servitude and toil in the service of a message that if false they would have known it. Some died because of the message and all suffered greatly. I do not defend what the Catholics did or did not do with the message but it is the height of absurdity to claim it was introduced by men who did not know it's absolute reality or to insinuate that they gained materially from it. It takes an actual Atheistic Stalin to show what true evil done in the name of religion is. In his case his absolute hatred of it and any one who believed in it as well as his thirst for power cost 15 million lives. It took a Hitler that actually said he justified his actions by principles found in evolution to show how much wealth and death can be gained there by that caused 50 million deaths. By the way even Dawkins could not find anything in evolution that allowed Hitler to be considered evil and therefore stopped. Thank God the crazy western religous folks had a suffecient foundation for morality that enabled him to be declared evil and stopped cold.

Wars are the second Greatest Scam of ALL time.

 

[Babs]

Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

I believe it is just that. I think that it had an entirely different purpose.

What that purpose is, however, still stumps me. I'm kind of thinking that it may have been allowed to happen on account of the ensuing ressurection making it easier for people to believe that Jesus was the Christ.

I think it would have been far more awesome and far less cruel if he had been protected and the crucifixion nails couldn't even be driven though his skin....but it wasn't up to me. Might have acheived the same effect, though.

 

[Pegg]

But He NEEDED the payment of Jesus's(pubh) sacrifice to forgive All. Otherwise, anyone and everyone regardless will go to Heaven.

that is a misunderstanding

God had been forgiving mankinds sins for centuries before Jesus came along. Did he not make friendship with Abraham? Yes. Would he have made a friendship with someone he had not forgiven? Not likely.

So the idea that Jesus came so that God could 'forgive our sins' is wrong. Jesus came for a much greater reason then that.

He came to redeem us from death.

 

[loverOfTruth]

that is a misunderstanding

God had been forgiving mankinds sins for centuries before Jesus came along. Did he not make friendship with Abraham? Yes. Would he have made a friendship with someone he had not forgiven? Not likely.

So the idea that Jesus came so that God could 'forgive our sins' is wrong. Jesus came for a much greater reason then that.

He came to redeem us from death.

Then God NEEDED Jesus to redeem us from Death - He couldn't redeem us from Death otherwise. The God I believe in does not NEED anything - we Humans NEED stuff.

Not to mention what you said doesn't make sense at all. On one hand, God can forgive without Jesus since He did before Jesus - so He can still forgive now anyone even if they don't believe in Jesus at all. So need for Jesus at all. And on the other hand, people had been dying before Jesus and will do so after Him - so no difference there either.

 

[ankarali]

According to islamic ressources Jesus (peace upon be him) was not crucified but his follower Judah (Iskariyyot) has been crucified as a punishment of his treachery. Jews though he was Jesus (pubh) because his face, voice and body changed as the body of Jesus by God and Jesus (pubh) has been taken to sky he will come back at the end of the world (maybe he already came)

 

[Pegg]

Then God NEEDED Jesus to redeem us from Death - He couldn't redeem us from Death otherwise. The God I believe in does not NEED anything - we Humans NEED stuff.

Not to mention what you said doesn't make sense at all. On one hand, God can forgive without Jesus since He did before Jesus - so He can still forgive now anyone even if they don't believe in Jesus at all. So need for Jesus at all. And on the other hand, people had been dying before Jesus and will do so after Him - so no difference there either.

Jesus is the only means to have the 'death penalty' removed from a person. And that will only happen during the messianic age, not now.

There is only one way to redeem the soul, and it is through faith in the messiah. When the messianic age begins, those who are invited will have the penalty of death removed from them.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Jesus is the only means to have the 'death penalty' removed from a person. And that will only happen during the messianic age, not now.

There is only one way to redeem the soul, and it is through faith in the messiah. When the messianic age begins, those who are invited will have the penalty of death removed from them.

Those who are invited ? Sounds like a VIP cult club - not to mention those who never heard of the Messiah, don't have a chance at all. I will leave it at that. Unfortunately, people have twisted God's religion to whatever their whims desire.

 

[1robin]

Wars are the second Greatest Scam of ALL time.

What is this? You fail to prove your first claim, or even attempt to address the false concepts in your first point and then make a second that is unrelated to the first. Yes wars sometimes have either a devastating or a possitive economic influence. So what? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[1robin]

Those who are invited ? Sounds like a VIP cult club - not to mention those who never heard of the Messiah, don't have a chance at all. I will leave it at that. Unfortunately, people have twisted God's religion to whatever their whims desire.

I respectfully disagree with Pegg on this. I know Jehovah's witnesses are generally associated with Christianity but have some very different views than orthodox Christianity. In protestantism and a large portion of Catholicism we are all invited (so to speak) to be born again and have our sins forgiven in this life. If that is experienced then you are guaranteed that heaven is in your future. I will defend any part of this as necessary but for now only wanted to indicate that at least this "invited" doctrine is inconsistent with main stream Christianity.

 

[1robin]

According to Islamic resources Jesus (peace upon be him) was not crucified but his follower Judah (Iskariyyot) has been crucified as a punishment of his treachery. Jews though he was Jesus (pubh) because his face, voice and body changed as the body of Jesus by God and Jesus (pubh) has been taken to sky he will come back at the end of the world (maybe he already came)

I find this the most bizarre and desperate interpretation of the Bible in a long list of desperate and strange interpretations made by Muslim's.
1. It makes Allah into a liar.
2. It means Allah's prank created a religion much larger than his own.
3. It means he could not see that in the future his trick would lead 1/3 of the human race away from him.
4. The Bible has 4 contemporary testimonies. It has multiple independent testimonies. Its testimony is said by the greatest experts in human history on evidence and testimony (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lynhurst) to meet every single standard of reliable testimony and faithful history of modern law and the historical method.
5. Muhammad was not a witness, existed hundreds of years later, and wrote his "account" in a book that makes terrible mistakes concerning much earlier and contemporary claims in the Bible.
6. In no historical, legal, or textual category is the Quran even remotely as reliable on this issue as the Bible. It is pure faith, in spite of the evidence.
If I was a Muslim I would never use this substitutionary version of events to get out of what a much older and more reliable book said concerning those events. Most modern Muslim debaters and scholars have long ago dropped that view of the Gospels. The new interpretations are not convincing either but they are better than this deception theory. Even if God had carried out this diabolical prank, he would be then be unworthy of worship.

 

[Awoon]

What is this? You fail to prove your first claim, or even attempt to address the false concepts in your first point and then make a second that is unrelated to the first. Yes wars sometimes have either a devastating or a possitive economic influence. So what? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

When you use Atheist & Hitler in a comment you already lost.

 

[1robin]

When you use Atheist & Hitler in a comment you already lost.

How is it possible to lose a comment? Hitler and Stalin were incidental to my claim but are just interesting enough to throw in. Is that where you got the war reference? If So what I said Stalin did was not in a war. It was primarily power and religious hatred fed by paranoia and justified by the absence of any way without God to justify the sanctity or worth of life. In Hitler’s case he sure did not ultimately profit to much from the war and most of his most destructive actions were incidental to the war. He certainly would have profited much more if he had never attacked Poland and sat in Berlin, shut up, and chased Eva Braun around instead.

Your original claim that religion was invented as a means of profit has been completely refuted at least in the case of Judaism and Christianity. If it has been at latter times used for that purpose I do not care. I defend God and the Bible not what some idiots have wrongly used it to justify. Everything you have said after that has been hard to track.

 

[Awoon]

You cant read. My first post #141 was to the OP.

No war is broke and no religion is broke, both money making scams.

 

[1robin]

You cant read. My first post #141 was to the OP.

I don't care who it was to. It was either a competent and factual description of religions based on the Bible or it wasn't. It wasn't.

No war is broke and no religion is broke, both money making scams.

Your incoherence and thought fragments are hard to follow. Wars have broken many cultures. In fact it broke one of if not the greatest in history - Rome. I have just read a history of Rome and watched 13 hours of documentaries on the empire. They literally fought themselves into the poor house eventually. The civil war broke the south utterly. The Persian wars almost destroyed Athens. The Peloponnesian wars actually did. Germany and Japan came out of the war a lot poorer than they went in.

I have already shown that Christianity’s roots are anything but lucrative. They for hundreds of years believed at the peril of everything they had. Several of Rome’s pyscho emperor’s took not only what little wealth they had but their actual lives as well. I am not sure you can debate the issue beyond a vague sentence or two at a time and so your next post will determine whether I can justify a discussion with you.

 

[Awoon]

I think Rome's "physcho" emperor's started that religion.

 

[1robin]

I think Rome's "physcho" emperor's started that religion.

That's it. The subject is deserving of more competant scholarship and debate than is available from you concerning this issue. I respect a competant argument even if I do not agree. This was not even close. Since it is obvious you have no intention of actually debateing the issue meaningfully then it makes me wonder what was the intention? Actually on second thought it doesn't.

 

[ankarali]

I find this the most bizarre and desperate interpretation of the Bible in a long list of desperate and strange interpretations made by Muslim's.
1. It makes Allah into a liar.
2. It means Allah's prank created a religion much larger than his own.
3. It means he could not see that in the future his trick would lead 1/3 of the human race away from him.
4. The Bible has 4 contemporary testimonies. It has multiple independent testimonies. Its testimony is said by the greatest experts in human history on evidence and testimony (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lynhurst) to meet every single standard of reliable testimony and faithful history of modern law and the historical method.
5. Muhammad was not a witness, existed hundreds of years later, and wrote his "account" in a book that makes terrible mistakes concerning much earlier and contemporary claims in the Bible.
6. In no historical, legal, or textual category is the Quran even remotely as reliable on this issue as the Bible. It is pure faith, in spite of the evidence.
If I was a Muslim I would never use this substitutionary version of events to get out of what a much older and more reliable book said concerning those events. Most modern Muslim debaters and scholars have long ago dropped that view of the Gospels. The new interpretations are not convincing either but they are better than this deception theory. Even if God had carried out this diabolical prank, he would be then be unworthy of worship.

I see you are a baptist, it is a Christian cult very near to Islam I heard the speaking of a Baptist man and I remarked very similarities between your cult and islamic view

I wrote only islamic view about this subject don't forget in Islam after Qoran we have Hadiths (words of prophet Mohammad) as a 2nd ressource. In Gospel of Barnabas also it is mentioned that Jesus was not crucified.

 

[1robin]

I see you are a baptist, it is a Christian cult very near to Islam I heard the speaking of a Baptist man and I remarked very similarities between your cult and islamic view

What on Earth are you talking about? The reasons I chose to be a baptist is because their core beliefs are that Christ DIED and rose again and we must be born again, and once born again salvation can't be lost. Which one of those is consistent with Islam? I am not sure who you heard but he does not sound like a Baptist. By the way you say Baptists are a cult and like Islam. That would mean Islam is a cult. In fact Baptist beliefs are identical to all of main stream protestant Christianity. You are not making any sense.

I wrote only islamic view about this subject don't forget in Islam after Qoran we have Hadiths (words of prophet Mohammad) as a 2nd ressource. In Gospel of Barnabas also it is mentioned that Jesus was not crucified.

I do not regard either the Quran or the Hadiths as being from God and have shown it many times. I have no problem doing it again but you are making such weird and irrational statements I am not sure it would be a meaningfull discussion. First make these comments here make sense and then we can discuss the Quran.

Aas far as Barnabus goes:
The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together, with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.
This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be late and pseudepigraphical;[1] however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic[2], Ebionite[3] or Diatessaronic[4]), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

It is a well known forgery even though a few Muslim's like it so much they will not admit it. It has historical markers that firmly place it in the 16th century. Bringing up bogus gospels of which there are many only hurts your credability and lowers your believability drastically. No respected textual scholars believe that gospel is even remotely authentic.

As for the Hadith's they are not witnesses nor even contemporary to either the crucifixion or the diabolical revelations that Muhammad had. They are not additional resources concerning the crucifixion, no more than I am a source for the battle of Gaugamela.