• 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?

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From a different perspective, from Jacob Neusner's A Judaic Reading of the Passion Narratives

Conclusion

In the Halakhic context, the death penalty achieves atonement of sin, leading to the resurrection at the end of days. It is an act of mercy, atoning for the sin that otherwise traps the sinner/criminal in death. In the context of the Gospel narrative, with its stress on repentance at the end and atonement on the cross by a single unique man, representative of all of humanity, for the sins of all humanity, we deal with no juridical transaction at all. It is an eschatological realization of the resurrection of humanity through that of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. Read in light of Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin and its Halakhic theology with its climax, "All Israel has a portion in the world to come," the passion narrative coheres, each component in its right proportion and position, all details fitting together.

The Mishnah interprets the death penalty as a medium of atonement in preparation for judgment leading to resurrection, just as the theology of the passion narratives has always maintained. For both the Mishnah and the Gospels, the death penalty is a means to an end. It does not mark the end but the beginning. The trial and crucifixion of Christ for Christianity, like the trial and execution of the Israelite criminal or sinner for Judaism, form necessary steps toward the redemption of humanity from death, as both religions have maintained, each in its own idiom.

Indeed, in the context of the law as articulated in the Mishnah, the details of the passion narratives take on acute meaning. All that requires translation is Christ for the criminal, and the passion narrative covers that ground in the context of the larger theology of atonement. A truly Christian film of the passion narratives begins with a prologue of suffering on the cross, giving way to a luminous, truly sublime vision of resurrection in all its glory. The climax comes not on Friday but on Sunday.​
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
That is very interesting Deut; sems to shift the perspective, somehow - but it makes sense.:)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
The Truth said:
I know that you are already explaining what you already believing in but you missed somthing in the story which is that the dad in your story supposed to has parents and the only way to forgive for what your brothers did so they have to through you in the street letting a car to hit you then everybody will be pleased and all of them will be happy for thier entire life and i don't have to remind you that you are contradicting yourself because Jesus was asking God for help in the cruci-FICTION so don't tell me that the dad in your story will say Ohh NOOO i don't wanna do this help ... help ... then he will say through himself saving his son ??? anyway i see your whole example dosn't work because i'm confused whether you referring to God as God"the father" or Jesus i don't know. please tell me what do you mean !!!
I don't really understand you. Perhaps it's because this huge long paragraph is one really, really long sentence? Umm... reword it, break it up into a few more sentences. Because I read it a bunch of times, and I just can't undertand it.:eek:
 

bartdanr

Member
Hi, Aqualung--thanks for your post.

Aqualung said:
Would you really?
I think you may have misread me. I wrote "I would hope that if I was emotionally mature enough, I would be happy just saving everybody, and I wouldn't expect people calling me a hero. " I didn't say "I am emotionally mature enough..." I said "I would hope " that I was emotionally mature enough. I may not be, but I would hope that the Son of God would be.

Let's lay you have a five year old son. And one day he is playing with his ball near the road. It runs into the road, and a car drives up at really high speeds, and you know the two will collide. You jump in front, pushing your son away, and then you get hit and die.
Let's stop right there. If I was only dead temporarily, say three days, then it would be comparable to what happened to Jesus. From all apperances, he was fully healed from his death in three days (yes, he had scars, but he apperantly wasn't writhing in agony from pain.) But if I died for my son and wasn't resurrected, my sacrifice isn't exactly comparable to Jesus'.

If then, you could learn that the five year old gets the hugest ego, saying that appearantly it is in the stars that he live, and he starts ordering around his parents, and becomes a real brat, and doesn't even do anything with the life you so generously allowed him to have, that woudn't make you in the slightest bit mad?
It would be a bit difficult for him to order me around if I were dead, wouldn't it? ;) But seriously, it would make me mad that my five year old has a big ego--whether I died for him or not. And regardless if I knew that he would grow up to be a brat, I still would chose for him--absolutely! That's what love for your children means. He doesn't owe me anything extra because I died for him; he owes it to others and himself to grow up to be a decent, carring person.

:confused: Yeah. I see people every day bleeding from every pore because of how much they are suffering.:rolleyes:
First, the interpretation that Jesus sweated blood is just that--an interpretation. It says "sweat like drops of blood", not necessarily sweating blood. Many conservative commentators do not believe that Jesus literally sweat blood. Second, imagine being crucified for weeks before dying. Imagine being slowly crushed in an iron madien. There are countless ways of death and the infliction of pain that makes Jesus' brief stay on the cross (though horrible) not as painful as what others have experienced. You of course can introduce the metaphysical "bearing the sins of the world", and I cannot imagine what that is like. (Indeed, I wonder how it is possible. What 'weight'--metaphysically speaking, of course, do sins have? Is it the feeling of intense guilt, perhaps? But why should anyone feel guilt over what someone else did wrong? We should discuss this further.)

And I did not suggest that 'every day' people have greater physical pain than Jesus. Please don't try to spin my words, friend.

So am I to understand that the only criteria for "significant" is how much suffereing there was? It really doesn't matter what the result of the sacrifice was (such as the salvation from physical death of every human being and the possiblity of eternal exaltation, in Jesus's case; or, say, the preservation of one relationship that is obviously not very meaning ful on one end, in the case of an abusive spouse) as long as it was painful, long, and horrid?
I believe that 'sacrifice' by definition, has two major elements: (1) giving something that has great value to you (whether it has greater or lesser value to the one to whom you give it) and (2) the giving is irrevocable. This is one of the things that Jesus taught, actually, in the example of the widow's mite. What she gave was of little value to the actual operation of the Temple in Jerusalem, but it was of great value to her. And what the rich gave, though it may have helped the Temple a great deal, held little value for them--it didn't dent their bank accounts.

And Jesus' death on the cross was not irrevocable. He rose from the dead--so he gave nothing that he did not regain.

Weird. Yep, I guess that woman should be exalted even above Jesus when she gets to heaven, because her pain was so looong, and it accomplished so muuuch. Wow. We should all be kissing their feet.
I think you'll notice in my other posts (I'm not sure if it's in this post or not), that 'worshipping' or 'being worshipped', if it means falling down on your knees and saying how wonderful someone is, holds little appeal to me. I believe in respect and honor, but 'worship' seems over the top.

But I do think someone who gave something of great value to themselves irrevocably for the sake of another has given the greatest sacrifice possible. Yet I don't see that in the cross.

I look forward our continuing dialogue.

Peace
 

bartdanr

Member
Scott1 said:
I agree.
I still don't understand your emphasis on the duration... my emphasis is in the free sacrafice of self and obedience to the Father... to me, a much more important distinction than watching the crucifiction with a stop watch.
Again... I appreciate your commentary, but I still don't understand the point you are trying to make (assuming you are)...

... for the record, I have no doubt about my resurrection, either.:)
I'd have to agree.... but again, I don't know why this is important... please help explain.
Hi Scott1, thanks for your post.

My emphasis on duration is that 'sacrifice', as I just posted above, involves the irrevocable giving of something that to you has great value. Suffering for a short span of time, giving your life just to regain it--these things don't seem like sacrifice. Is there anything that Jesus gave that he didn't get back?

Faith in the resurrection is important in that if you freely give your life and do not expect to have it given back to you, you are giving something of great value. But if you expect to have it given back to you, you aren't giving it--you're simply loaning it.

Now, as to the importance of obedience to the Father: did God the Father order Jesus to be crucified? And I still have problems with the whole system of sin and punishment as envisioned in Christian theology. God sacrificing himself to himself to pay a debt that he demanded?

As to the 'sacrifice of self'--did Jesus give up himself? Jesus, according to Christian theology, still lives, and in glory. So what aspect of self did Jesus sacrifice?

And I would like for us to delve more into the idea of 'bearing the sins of the world' and how this causes suffering.

I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

Peace
 

Aqualung

Tasty
bartdanr said:
I think you may have misread me. I wrote "I would hope that if I was emotionally mature enough, I would be happy just saving everybody, and I wouldn't expect people calling me a hero. " I didn't say "I am emotionally mature enough..." I said "I would hope " that I was emotionally mature enough. I may not be, but I would hope that the Son of God would be.
Are you saying that "emotionally mature" is the same as "possessing no emotions"? Is it somehow "emotionally childish" to feel a bit bad that many, many people go around devalueing a very significant thing?
bartdanr said:
Let's stop right there. If I was only dead temporarily, say three days, then it would be comparable to what happened to Jesus. From all apperances, he was fully healed from his death in three days (yes, he had scars, but he apperantly wasn't writhing in agony from pain.) But if I died for my son and wasn't resurrected, my sacrifice isn't exactly comparable to Jesus'.
Of course not. I never said you woudn't be resureected
bartdanr said:
It would be a bit difficult for him to order me around if I were dead, wouldn't it? ;)
:biglaugh: Yeah, I guess that would be tough. I didn't think the caracters out to well.
bartdanr said:
But seriously, it would make me mad that my five year old has a big ego--whether I died for him or not. And regardless if I knew that he would grow up to be a brat, I still would chose for him--absolutely! That's what love for your children means. He doesn't owe me anything extra because I died for him; he owes it to others and himself to grow up to be a decent, carring person.
But woudn't it make you madder if you had sacrificed your life, and then it just went to waste? And Jesus chose for us, knowing full well that some woudn't want the gift.

The rest of the post seems more an argument is semantics. "what does sacrifice mean," or "what does worship mean?".
 

bartdanr

Member
Aqualung said:
Are you saying that "emotionally mature" is the same as "possessing no emotions"? Is it somehow "emotionally childish" to feel a bit bad that many, many people go around devalueing a very significant thing?
Perhaps we have different perspectives on emotional maturity. I believe that when you love without condition, then whether or not it is reciprocated is not the important thing. And if you give a gift with the expectation of reciprocation, then is it truly "giving"? Even Jesus said to give to those who can't repay you. Seeking repayment of love or a gift--whether monetarily or emotionally--seems less emotionally mature than giving without expectation or even desire for reciprocation.

And we're moving away from the idea of ignoring and not caring to actively devaluing. But either way, someone who gives without seeking return should not care. If Jesus saved people and they don't know or don't care, why should he feel bad? They are saved. (Of course, some of this depends on if your a universalist or not. That can change a bit the understanding of if the sacrifice of Jesus was effective for everyone or not.)

Of course not. I never said you woudn't be resureected
Ok, if I was resurrected, then it would mean that it would be a comparable scenario. But I think my response would be the same: I am willing to give my life for my son, not because of what I hope he becomes, but because he is what he is: my son, whom I love.
:biglaugh: Yeah, I guess that would be tough. I didn't think the caracters out to well.
No prob. ;)

But woudn't it make you madder if you had sacrificed your life, and then it just went to waste? And Jesus chose for us, knowing full well that some woudn't want the gift.
If I was resurrected, then I didn't sacrifice my life. But assuming I wasn't resurrected but lived in some kind of afterlife, I don't know. I suppose I might be madder, or sadder. But again, it's not comparable in that Jesus did not give up his life permanently. He laid it aside for a few days. But your point is taken, in that one can be disappointed in what your children chose in life, even after giving them all you could. But I would still give my child all I could. It's a gift, without expectation of quid pro quo.

The rest of the post seems more an argument is semantics. "what does sacrifice mean," or "what does worship mean?".
I don't believe it's just semantics. I think the definition of "sacrifice" and "worship" are very germaine to this topic. If someone considers it a sacrifice for Bill Gates to give a begger 50 cents, then they have a different definition of sacrifice than I do. And the thought that an emotionally mature being would want other beings to kneel before him or her and sing all day long about how wonderful they are is far different than I understand maturity.

I look forward to our continued discussion.

Peace
 

Aqualung

Tasty
bartdanr said:
If I was resurrected, then I didn't sacrifice my life
You did, though. You will now no longer be able to enjoy the things that you would enjoy if you had been able to live your life out. That's the plain and simple truth.
bartdanr said:
And the thought that an emotionally mature being would want other beings to kneel before him or her and sing all day long about how wonderful they are is far different than I understand maturity.
That's not all he wants. He wants us to make something of our lives. Even if you could handle it if a person that you saved did not do anything with that gift, I don't consider it emotionally immature to expect that we would at least try to make something of the lives which were so generously given to us.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Aqualung said:
I don't really understand you. Perhaps it's because this huge long paragraph is one really, really long sentence? Umm... reword it, break it up into a few more sentences. Because I read it a bunch of times, and I just can't undertand it.:eek:
ok i'll make it short for you.

Aqualung said:
Would you really? Let's lay you have a five year old son. And one day he is playing with his ball near the road. It runs into the road, and a car drives up at really high speeds, and you know the two will collide. You jump in front, pushing your son away, and then you get hit and die. If then, you could learn that the five year old gets the hugest ego, saying that appearantly it is in the stars that he live, and he starts ordering around his parents, and becomes a real brat, and doesn't even do anything with the life you so generously allowed him to have, that woudn't make you in the slightest bit mad?
do you mean God "the father" supposed to sacrifice himself to save his son "Jesus"?

if not so that means we are smarter and have more mercy than God who we claim he is
"The Love" himself that we could sarifice ourselves to save our children but God would not do it for his son?

So, what do you think now?

Warning: please use your mind and don't try to use the so claim faith to make you go around trying to find anything that may work to explain what you don't actually accept by your mind so i advice you to think about it deeply by your mind trying to figured it out whether it makes any sense to you or not to you.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
The Truth said:
do you mean God "the father" supposed to sacrifice himself to save his son "Jesus
No. I guess I didn't make the most parrallel metaphore I could. In the car example, it would be like a father allowing a brother to sacrifice himself for a younger brother.
The Truth said:
Warning: please use your mind and don't try to use the so claim faith to make you go around trying to find anything that may work to explain what you don't actually accept by your mind so i advice you to think about it deeply by your mind trying to figured it out whether it makes any sense to you or not to you.
Are you telling me that I don't actually beleive what I'm saying? Or that I don't use my mind when I answer my questions? Because if that's what you are saying you are completely wrong.
 

bartdanr

Member
Hi Aqualung, thanks for your post.

Aqualung said:
You did, though. You will now no longer be able to enjoy the things that you would enjoy if you had been able to live your life out. That's the plain and simple truth.
This I don't understand. Do you believe that if resurrected, the new life we have would somehow be inferior to the life before death? What are the differences you see in life before death and life after resurrection?

That's not all he wants. He wants us to make something of our lives. Even if you could handle it if a person that you saved did not do anything with that gift, I don't consider it emotionally immature to expect that we would at least try to make something of the lives which were so generously given to us.
Ok, I think we're talking two seperate and negative reactions to a gift: (1) a person who doesn't care about the gift-giver, but uses the gift; and (2) a person who doesn't want the gift, and doesn't care about the gift-giver.

Now, whether you are a universalist or not determines a great deal about your answer. If you are a universalist, then it doesn't really matter if a person wants the gift or not--they will still be saved. Their feelings about the gift giver likewise don't matter.

If you aren't a universalist, then it is likely that you believe that the gift of salvation can be refused. If salvation is a wonderful gift, then no rational person would refuse it (and especially if the alternative is eternal torment.) Why would anyone consider it less than wonderful? (This would be a productive bunny path to wander along.)

You say "that's not all he wants", showing that he does want such worship. To me, that cannot be the sign of a being who is emotionally mature.

Yes, we should make something of our lives. But non-Christians can make a great deal of their lives as well. For this, should they be damned?

Peace
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Aqualung said:
No. I guess I didn't make the most parrallel metaphore I could. In the car example, it would be like a father allowing a brother to sacrifice himself for a younger brother.
are you saying that you would allow your own son to get killed by others saving his brother instead of stopping the car or saving him by yourself ( because you can do so ) !!!! :eek: and you will just set and watch the movie ?

do you see now what was the warning for? to use your mind. :biglaugh:


Aqualung said:
Are you telling me that I don't actually beleive what I'm saying? Or that I don't use my mind when I answer my questions? Because if that's what you are saying you are completely wrong.
i just proved for you how you don't use your mind in the pervious quote. :rolleyes:
 

Aqualung

Tasty
The Truth said:
are you saying that you would allow your own son to get killed by others saving his brother instead of stopping the car or saving him by yourself ( because you can do so ) !!!! :eek: and you will just set and watch the movie ?

do you see now what was the warning for? to use your mind. :biglaugh:
I think you're the one who needs to use his mind. how could God himself do it? He has already gone through his life, died, was resurected, and then exalted. He can't do that again.
The Truth said:
i just proved for you how you don't use your mind in the pervious quote
Yeah. Because I'm the one who can't speak in complete sentences, or express entire thoughts.
 

Steve

Active Member
Hi bartdanr

The way i see it is this,
We have all broken Gods laws, God is Just, Holy and Righteous so cant just let Sin/wrong doing go unpunished. He is God so he gets to set the penalty for our sin, Their are 2 ways God has decided to ultimatley punish sin, one of them is by us in Hell the other is by Jesus' torture and Crucifixion.
The second option is a gift from God which we dont deserve, it is only by Gods grace and love that he made this atonement for us. For it to take effect it does require us to turn back to God and away from our sin though, hence the reluctance of many to take up Gods offer.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:22-26

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:16-19

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4-6
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Aqualung said:
I think you're the one who needs to use his mind. how could God himself do it? He has already gone through his life, died, was resurected, and then exalted. He can't do that again.
you said: In the car example, it would be like a father allowing a brother to sacrifice himself for a younger brother.
OK ... who is the father and who is the brother who sacrificed himself?

Jesus is the brother who sarificed himself and his father is our God "the father" right?


Yeah. Because I'm the one who can't speak in complete sentences, or express entire thoughts.[/QUOTE]
:D this is because of the language but not the processing of the mind. ;)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Jesus is the brother who sarificed himself and his father is our God "the father" right?
Right.
The Truth said:
this is because of the language but not the processing of the mind.
Well, good. Now that you know what happens when people assume stupidity instead of language, or when people assume stupidity instead of a difference in beleif, I hope we can have a better debate, instead of going around telling each other to use our minds.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus is the brother who sarificed himself and his father is our God "the father" right ?
and you said right.

Therfore, I said God "the father" would allow his own son "Jesus" to get killed by others (jews & Roman) to save the other son instead of stopping them? he did so to wash away our sins right?

Then, he just allowed them to do so instead of saving his son "Jesus" from them (because he can do so by forgiving the sin) and he will just simply watch?

Will you do the same for the sake of saving your son by allowing the other one to be killed?
I want a direct answer if you don't mind. :eek:

and sorry if i disturbed you by my comments about the mind thing. :p

Is it clear this time? :)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
The Truth said:
Will you do the same for the sake of saving your son by allowing the other one to be killed?
Perhaps if it only saved one son, no. But God sacrificed his son to save billions of his other children from Physical Death. That's what's important. God sacrificed his son so that everybody woudn't forced to die an eternal physical death, never to be resurected, and he allowed his son to suffer so that, after all we can do, we might inherit a place along side him with his Father.

and sorry if i disturbed you by my comments about the mind thing
That's fine. Just so long as you recognise that difference in beleif does not equate difference in intelligence. :)
 
Top