Jesus' sacrifice - what was the point?

[Poisonshady313]

You're belief is wrong. Therefore what you knock down is false. That's a straw man.

You don't quite get what a straw man is.

If I misrepresented YOUR position on the subject and attempted to knock down that misrepresentation that I created about anything YOU said.... that would be a straw man.


I put forth MY position on the subject. You disagree with my position. That's your problem. It's no reason to tell me that my position is a straw man.

 

[waitasec]

propaganda wasn't on the agenda. the gospels were written for those who already believed.

so these gospels weren't meant to be used as a way to spread the good news?

 

[sojourner]

so these gospels weren't meant to be used as a way to spread the good news?

I don't think they were. The stories were told to folks within the community and written down for community members. Later Xians used them as evangelism tools, as we understand evangelism.

 

[sojourner]

You don't quite get what a straw man is.

If I misrepresented YOUR position on the subject and attempted to knock down that misrepresentation that I created about anything YOU said.... that would be a straw man.


I put forth MY position on the subject. You disagree with my position. That's your problem. It's no reason to tell me that my position is a straw man.

Here's your statement in a nutshell:

The point of it is to fool people who don't know any better into believing Jesus was the fulfillment of all sorts of prophecies,

That is a false statement. It doesn't matter what your position is. What matters is their motivation. Their motivation was not to "fool people who don't know any better." If you can prove that it was, I'd love to see your "evidence." There is every reason to believe these people were sincere. They believed what they were spreading, and there's nothing to make us think otherwise. To misrepresent their motivation and then use that misrepresentation to "prove" your position that the sacrifice had no meaning is a straw man.

 

[waitasec]

Here's your statement in a nutshell:

That is a false statement. It doesn't matter what your position is. What matters is their motivation. Their motivation was not to "fool people who don't know any better." If you can prove that it was, I'd love to see your "evidence." There is every reason to believe these people were sincere. They believed what they were spreading, and there's nothing to make us think otherwise. To misrepresent their motivation and then use that misrepresentation to "prove" your position that the sacrifice had no meaning is a straw man.

here's a straw man for you,
would you equate this to young earth creationists, who sincerely believe god created the earth 6,000 yrs ago?

 

[waitasec]

I don't think they were. The stories were told to folks within the community and written down for community members. Later Xians used them as evangelism tools, as we understand evangelism.

we'll just have to agree to disagree

 

[Quiddity]

To demonstrate the depths of His love for us.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul was through and through a Hellenistic Jew---never was not a Hellenistic Jew. Died a Hellenistic Jew who was a follower of Jesus. As were the writers who wrote in his name. Plagiarism wasn't then what it is today. In any of the non-Pauline epistles, it's difficult to know who exactly wrote them. When Paul writes of certain people, quite often it's written, "born a Jew like me." Whoever wrote some of the non-Pauline epistles wrote, though, as if they were Paul (the Hellenistic Jew who followed Jesus, who was born a Jew and died a Jew.) Did Paul think followers of Jesus could be Gentiles? Obviously.
Did Jesus think that? Um...he came for the lost sheep of Israel, the writer writes in one part. Then there is that strange story about the Syro-Phoenician woman. (In same piece as "I came for the lost sheep of Israel)---and she talks about taking the crumbs. Please help my child. She pesters Jesus, basically and he seemed to be teachable Still was pretty dismissive and nasty to her initially.

Well, first off, Jesus was breaking rules left and right. His teachings are often directly in opposition to the Jewish 'authority', so are you implying that if the follwers of Jesus, let's say hypothetically, were all Jews, then if Christianity grew within Israel they would have remained "Jews"? The thing is, how are you making a correlation between Jesus's time and the spread of Christianity? Jesus travelled through Israel and adjacent areas, of course possibly going further afield, but this can't be compared to post crucifixion/resurection Christendom. Also, the term "Hellenistic Jew" should be explained further.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here's your statement in a nutshell:

That is a false statement. It doesn't matter what your position is. What matters is their motivation. Their motivation was not to "fool people who don't know any better." If you can prove that it was, I'd love to see your "evidence." There is every reason to believe these people were sincere. They believed what they were spreading, and there's nothing to make us think otherwise. To misrepresent their motivation and then use that misrepresentation to "prove" your position that the sacrifice had no meaning is a straw man.

You can't possibly know their motivation any more than I can. We can assume. We can guess. We can suppose. You can't prove your belief regarding their motivation any more than I can prove mine.

Because of their obvious lack of knowledge regarding Jewish scripture, tradition, law, culture, etc... which can be discerned by 1. Having a knowledge of these things and 2. Reading the gospels and seeing where they fell short, one could be led to believe one of two conclusions.

1. They were themselves ignorant and didn't know any better.
2. They knew better and hoped you wouldn't.


Either way, there's no reason to believe that any of Jesus' life and/or death had any special significance.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, first off, Jesus was breaking rules left and right. His teachings are often directly in opposition to the Jewish 'authority', so are you implying that if the follwers of Jesus, let's say hypothetically, were all Jews, then if Christianity grew within Israel they would have remained "Jews"? The thing is, how are you making a correlation between Jesus's time and the spread of Christianity? Jesus travelled through Israel and adjacent areas, of course possibly going further afield, but this can't be compared to post crucifixion/ressurection Christendom. Also, the term "Hellenistic Jew" should be explained further.

Actually, Jesus wasn't breaking too many rules. He disagreed with some; however, there was no official form of Judaism. There were multiple Judaisms from that time (as scholars have been inclined to say). Interfaith debates were common, and nothing was wrong with that. That was really all that Jesus was doing.

As for Jesus traveling further than Israel, probably not. He taught to Jewish populations, and instructed his followers to do so as well. He was a Jewish teacher, with a Jewish message, for Jews.

As for remaining Jews, we know that wouldn't happen. The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Up until at least the 4th century, we still see groups of Jewish-Christians. Through the first century, there was no Christianity. The movement that Jesus created was still within Judaism. It was only after the temple was destroyed, and Judaism centralized into Rabbinic Judaism, did Christianity emerge as a new religion.

So "Christianity" did grow inside of Israel. However, it was still under Judaism. Eventually, there was a rift between Rabbinic Judaism, which centralized Judaism, and Christianity, which slowly became a new religion.

 

[marky mark]

The point of Jesus' sacrifice was your sin and mine. God is holy and sin must be punished. We have all sinned and therefore, if judged by God's perfect standard [10 commandments] we were all doomed. In His mercy Jesus came, kept the commandments perfectly and filled His accound with perfect rightousness. Ours are filled totally with unrightousness. He is willing to trade accounts to set you free, while He took the punishment on the cross. God did not die on the cross, Jesus in His humanity died. An innocent is the only one who can die for a quilty person. He was a sinless sacrifice of which the O.T. sacrificial lambs pointed to. He paid your fine and offers the gift of salvation, but it must be received. Thereis no other way to attain forgiveness and without it one will spend eternity paying a debt they will never be able to pay.

 

[*Deleted*]

I agree with falling blood in most of what he writes above. Only thing I'd take issue with is that I think the word "Christian" was used earlier than he indicates. I think it was used in Antioch and can be found in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. Still heavily Jewish at that point. Peter and Paul had a huge falling out---Peter said one must first become a Jew to be a Christian (important to know and right there in the Christian scriptures---I think also in the Book of Acts)---Paul said no, one didn't have to become Jewish first, although Paul always remained a Jew himself, even as he spread the message (as he interpreted it about Jesus.)

It's always been of interest to me what was going on psychologically/neurologically (?) with Paul (in terms of persecuting the early followers of Jesus and then having the experience on the road to Damascus. Whatever happened, he felt compelled at that point to stop persecuting followers of Jesus and to become a follower himself, changed his name, etc. There are theories as to what that was about, but who knows.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree with falling blood in most of what he writes above. Only thing I'd take issue with is that I think the word "Christian" was used earlier than he indicates. I think it was used in Antioch and can be found in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. Still heavily Jewish at that point. Peter and Paul had a huge falling out---Peter said one must first become a Jew to be a Christian (important to know and right there in the Christian scriptures---I think also in the Book of Acts)---Paul said no, one didn't have to become Jewish first, although Paul always remained a Jew himself, even as he spread the message (as he interpreted it about Jesus.)

It's always been of interest to me what was going on psychologically/neurologically (?) with Paul (in terms of persecuting the early followers of Jesus and then having the experience on the road to Damascus. Whatever happened, he felt compelled at that point to stop persecuting followers of Jesus and to become a follower himself, changed his name, etc. There are theories as to what that was about, but who knows.

O.K. The term "Hellenistic Jew" still hasn't been explained. If it simply means "a Greek speaking Jew" then what is the relevance? I also think that the influence, impact of Jesus is being downplayed in this thread. We have to use the available sources such as Josephus, Pontius Pilate, etc., or just dismiss all of early Christian history as a hoax, which some do. Another alleged falsity is that Jesus wasn't a Nazarene. But nobody has given an explanation of how this would even benefit the early Christians, much less later church writers or "hoaxers". Concerning the "Phoenecian" woman story, usually false or made up, fictional deities don't have humanizing, even contrary interactions with "regular" people. It's exactly these details that give credence to the general accuracy of the NT.
But all of this is way off topic, as to the original question of the OP, the standard answer is a few posts back, supplied by Marky Mark.

 

[sojourner]

You can't possibly know their motivation any more than I can. We can assume. We can guess. We can suppose. You can't prove your belief regarding their motivation any more than I can prove mine.

Because of their obvious lack of knowledge regarding Jewish scripture, tradition, law, culture, etc... which can be discerned by 1. Having a knowledge of these things and 2. Reading the gospels and seeing where they fell short, one could be led to believe one of two conclusions.

1. They were themselves ignorant and didn't know any better.
2. They knew better and hoped you wouldn't.


Either way, there's no reason to believe that any of Jesus' life and/or death had any special significance.

What makes you think they "fell short" in the gospels?

BTW:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
The position of the Christian is misrepresented, since there is no reason to suspect they were hoping to dupe anyone.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What makes you think they "fell short" in the gospels?

BTW:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
The position of the Christian is misrepresented, since there is no reason to suspect they were hoping to dupe anyone.

I wasn't offering the position of the Christian, nor was my response aimed at a Christian.

The OP asked in an open forum "what is the point?". I gave what I feel the point is. If this thread were in a Christian DIR, you would be right. If a Christian wrote the OP, you'd be right. Neither is the case. You're wrong. I don't operate under the premise that the NT is genuine, factual or historical. The fact that you do is not my problem.

 

[sojourner]

I wasn't offering the position of the Christian, nor was my response aimed at a Christian.

The OP asked in an open forum "what is the point?". I gave what I feel the point is. If this thread were in a Christian DIR, you would be right. If a Christian wrote the OP, you'd be right. Neither is the case. You're wrong. I don't operate under the premise that the NT is genuine, factual or historical. The fact that you do is not my problem.

Since Jesus would have significance only for the Christian, it is that POV that is considered here, no matter where the thread is located.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Since Jesus would have significance only for the Christian, it is that POV that is considered here, no matter where the thread is located.

Though Jesus is only significant to the Christian, discussions about Jesus are often participated in by non-Christians... and in an open forum, a question asked can be answered by anybody from whatever POV they like.

You fervently believe in your position. That's fine.

My position is not yours, and it is my position from whence I spoke.

 

[waitasec]

The point of Jesus' sacrifice was your sin and mine. God is holy and sin must be punished. We have all sinned and therefore, if judged by God's perfect standard [10 commandments] we were all doomed. In His mercy Jesus came, kept the commandments perfectly and filled His accound with perfect rightousness. Ours are filled totally with unrightousness. He is willing to trade accounts to set you free, while He took the punishment on the cross. God did not die on the cross, Jesus in His humanity died. An innocent is the only one who can die for a quilty person. He was a sinless sacrifice of which the O.T. sacrificial lambs pointed to. He paid your fine and offers the gift of salvation, but it must be received. Thereis no other way to attain forgiveness and without it one will spend eternity paying a debt they will never be able to pay.

i consider it to be immoral for someone to take away my responsibility and culpability. why don't you?
these things belong to me, myself and i...the trinity.

 

[sojourner]

God is holy and sin must be punished.

Hmmm... I thought the paradigm was "God is holy and sin must be forgiven."

He paid your fine and offers the gift of salvation, but it must be received. Thereis no other way to attain forgiveness and without it one will spend eternity paying a debt they will never be able to pay.

I don't buy that theology.

i consider it to be immoral for someone to take away my responsibility and culpability. why don't you?

What makes you think that responsibility has been taken away? Can you explain your position a little more specifically?