• 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?

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Aqualung said:
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.
OK, My last question is .. why God didn't simply forgive this sin as he claim in the bible that he can forgive if we asked for forgivness?

Can you please read my post in this link for quick list of verses about forgivness in post number 39 ?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19512&page=1&pp=40
 

Aqualung

Tasty
The Truth said:
OK, My last question is .. why God didn't simply forgive this sin as he claim in the bible that he can forgive if we asked for forgivness?
Because that would defeat the purpose, or perhaps he can't. I"m not exaclty sure. I'll have to think about that one, and right now I'm too tired to think. :D
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Aqualung said:
Because that would defeat the purpose, or perhaps he can't. I"m not exaclty sure. I'll have to think about that one, and right now I'm too tired to think. :D
Take your time. :)

Peace.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
bartdanr said:
How would you make the case that Jesus' sacrifice (or God the Father's sacrifice of his son) was something significant?
His death is not as significant as His resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15: 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Without the resurrection Jesus' death is nothing. It makes Jesus' message no different fromthat of any other who has died for a cause. It would make Jesus' message just one of many from which to choose.

But if the resurrection is true, then it speaks volumes on His power and that of God Himself.
 

bartdanr

Member
Steve said:
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

Hi Steve, thanks for your post.

Ok, let's compare the two punishments for sin:
(1) Eternal torment in hell--unlimited pain and suffering for an unlimited period of time, multiplied by millions of humans.
(2) Limited pain and suffering for a limited period of time, multiplied by one human (one human-divine being, Jesus).

If it is as you suggest, that God decideds the punishment for sin, then s/he has established two unequal punishments. I can't see how they are equvalent. Is hell easier than crucifixtion? It certainly lasts longer in conservative Christian theology (i.e., forever vs. a few hours or a few days, depending how you measure Jesus' time of suffering).

If God established the punishment for sin, then God could un-establish it, couldn't s/he? If if God cannot un-establish it, then God is not all-powerful.

If God is all-powerful, then of course s/he can decide what s/he wishes. But that doesn't make it just, unless we define justice as "whatever God wills." By saying that, however, we give carte blanche to God for any kind of action that, if performed by anyone else, we would call it "evil."

An unlimited punishment for a limited offense is generally considered unjust. For example, if someone spits on the sidewalk, we generally find it unjust to punish the spitter by torturing them to death. (Of course, such a punishment is finite--compared to hell, which is infinite). How is justice served by punishing people in hell for eternity?

Yet I come back to my original question: what did Jesus give up that he didn't later regain? How was his sacrifice great, if what he gave up he quickly regained?

Peace
 

bartdanr

Member
Passerbye said:
Next question.
HI Passerbye, thanks for your post.

So God set up a law that things need to be cleansed by blood. (Of course, the interpretation of Torah given in the book of Hebrews is not altogether clear from the reading of Torah; in many places in the Old Testament, God forgives sin in the absence of a blood sacrifice.) But (again in contrast to the Old Testament), it is not "the soul that sins, it shall die", as long as blood is shed.

I know that millions of people believe this; however, it seems more than vaugly pagan. Why does God require the shedding of blood? Why can't he just forgive sin?

And still, I do not see how Jesus gave up anything that he did not later regain.

Peace
 

bartdanr

Member
Linus said:
His death is not as significant as His resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15: 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Without the resurrection Jesus' death is nothing. It makes Jesus' message no different fromthat of any other who has died for a cause. It would make Jesus' message just one of many from which to choose.

But if the resurrection is true, then it speaks volumes on His power and that of God Himself.
Hi Linus, thanks for your post.

Yes, if Jesus is raised, then it speaks a lot of Jesus' power. (It isn't necessarily a sign of being omnipotent, of course--actually nothing could be such a sign.)

How does Jesus' resurrection effect the forgiveness of sin? Was it the act of the shedding of blood that cleansed us from sin, or the act of the resurrection? Or was the resurrection the evidence that Jesus' words were true, and therefore we should believe him?

And I still don't see how Jesus gave up anything that he didn't quickly regain. I still don't see how it was a significant sacrifice for him.

Peace
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
You might like to look at:-http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/5f00.0572/5f00.0572.05.htm


a short extract of which is as follows
Sanctification Through the Blood

"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with bis own blood, suffered without the gate"-Heb. xiii. 12.

"Cleansing through the blood" was the subject of our last chapter.

SANCTIFICATION THROUGH THE BLOOD must now occupy our attention.

To a superficial observer it might seem that there is little difference between CLEANSING and SANCTIFICATION, that the two words mean about the same thing ; but the difference is great and important.

CLEANSING has to do chiefly with the old life, and the stain of sin which must be removed, and is only preparatory.

SANCTIFICATION concerns the new life and that ,characteristic of it which must be imparted to it by God. SANCTIFICATION, which means union with God, is the peculiar fulness of blessing purchased for us by the blood.

The distinction between these two things is clearly marked in Scripture. Paul reminds us that "Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it" (Eph. v. 25, R. V.). Having first CLEANSED it, then He SANCTIFIES it. Writing to Timothy he says, "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use" (2 Tim. ii. 21). SANCTIFICATION is a blessing which follows after, and surpasses CLEANSING.

It is also strikingly illustrated by the ordinances connected with the consecration of the Priests, compared with that of the Levites. In the case of the latter, who took a lower position than the Priests in the service of the Sanctuary, no mention is made of SANCTIFICATION; but the word CLEANSING is used five times (Num. viii).

In the consecration of the Priests, on the other hand, the word "to SANCTIFY" is often used; for the Priests stood in a closer relationship to God than the Levites (Exod. xxix; Lev. viii).

This record at the same time emphasises the close connection between the sacrificial blood, and SANCTIFICATION. In the case of the consecration of the Levites-RECONCILIATION for sin was made, and they were sprinkled with the water of purification for CLEANSING, but they were not sprinkled with blood. But in the consecration of the Priests, blood had to be sprinkled upon them. They were SANCTIFIED by a more personal and intimate application of the blood.:)
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
bartdanr said:
How does Jesus' resurrection effect the forgiveness of sin? Was it the act of the shedding of blood that cleansed us from sin, or the act of the resurrection? Or was the resurrection the evidence that Jesus' words were true, and therefore we should believe him?
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 coming—not 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?


bartdanr said:
And I still don't see how Jesus gave up anything that he didn't quickly regain. I still don't see how it was a significant sacrifice for him.
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....
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
bartdanr said:
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?
No.... Jesus was/is divine... the effectiveness of the sacrafice is not based upon what Christ gave up, but on what his sacrafice accomplished= the defeat of death.
But if you expect to have it given back to you, you aren't giving it--you're simply loaning it.
Again, you are right... but you continue to look at Christ and the Passion in humanist terms. Christ was/is God... and could have redeemed humanity with a snap of a finger... the fact that he didn't is the mystery and grace of the incarnation.
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?
Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."( Cor 5:21; cf. Phil 2:7; Rom 8:3.)... I'm sorry, I can't help you understand the "whole system"... only the grace of God can help you there.:)
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 don't understand this... please help.
 

Steve

Active Member
bartdanr said:
Ok, let's compare the two punishments for sin:

(1) Eternal torment in hell--unlimited pain and suffering for an unlimited period of time, multiplied by millions of humans.

(2) Limited pain and suffering for a limited period of time, multiplied by one human (one human-divine being, Jesus).

If it is as you suggest, that God decideds the punishment for sin, then s/he has established two unequal punishments. I can't see how they are equvalent. Is hell easier than crucifixtion? It certainly lasts longer in conservative Christian theology (i.e., forever vs. a few hours or a few days, depending how you measure Jesus' time of suffering).
Who are you that Christ should have been beaten and crucified for you? I could argue that the punishments are unequal but in the other direction, that the very author of life came down to earth to suffer and die the way he did could be considered more significant then all the humans ever being punished in hell forever. Who are we to weigh the significants of our Creators beating and Crucifixion, who are you to claim that your punishment in hell comes close to even just one slap on Jesus' face? Even if you never accept him as your Savior this side of the grave im sure you will understand the significants of his humiliation, beating and Crucifixion when you stand befor his Majesty and Holiness on Judgement Day. When you see the nail holes in his hands and feet you too may wonder in light of his splender and perfection how someone such as him could have even walked and talked among fallen mankind, let alone make atonement the way he did. It seems you have no comprehension of who Jesus is, maybe you need to take up the attitude of John the Baptist - consider his comments..


And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. Mark 1:7



This same person John is describing is the same person who went through Crucifixion for you, to consider the atonment he made as substandard is not wise esspecially considering he didnt have to make one at all. Its your choice whether or not you are willing to accept him as your Savior.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Scott1 said:
No.... Jesus was/is divine... the effectiveness of the sacrafice is not based upon what Christ gave up, but on what his sacrafice accomplished= the defeat of death.
How he defeated death? To not be dead !!! it's logic right ? To be like Jonah because Jonah was alive.

"AND HE SAID UNTO THEM TAKE ME UP, AND CAST ME FORTH INTO THE SEA; SO SHALL THE SEA BE CALM UNTO YOU: FOR I KNOW THAT FOR MY SAKE THIS GREAT TEMPEST IS UPON YOU." (Jonah 1:12)

1-The sea was calm unto Jonah so, The cross was calm unto Jesus Crist.

"JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?" (Jonah 2:1)

2- Jonah prayed unto his God out of the fish's belly, Jesus prayed to God too when he was on the cross.

Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray! The answer again is "ALIVE" For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive? "ALIVE!" is the answer. On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E, of course! What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: "AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE" LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive for three days and three nights? Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE! is the unanimous answer from the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim!

If Jonah was alive for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have been alive in the tomb as he himself had foretold! But Christianity hangs on the flimsy thread of the death" of Jesus for its salvation. So it has to answer that Jesus was DEAD for three days and three nights. The contradiction between his utterance and its fulfilment is obvious. Jonah ALIVE, Jesus DEAD! Very UNLIKE Jonah! Jesus had said "LIKE Jonah" not UNLIKE Jonah. If this is true then according to his own test Jesus is not the TRUE Messiah of the Jews. If the Gospel record is genuine then how can we blame the Jews for rejecting "CHRIST".


Peace be upon you ... :)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
The Truth said:
How he defeated death? To not be dead !!! it's logic right ? To be like Jonah because Jonah was alive.

"AND HE SAID UNTO THEM TAKE ME UP, AND CAST ME FORTH INTO THE SEA; SO SHALL THE SEA BE CALM UNTO YOU: FOR I KNOW THAT FOR MY SAKE THIS GREAT TEMPEST IS UPON YOU." (Jonah 1:12)

1-The sea was calm unto Jonah so, The cross was calm unto Jesus Crist.

"JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?" (Jonah 2:1)

2- Jonah prayed unto his God out of the fish's belly, Jesus prayed to God too when he was on the cross.

Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray! The answer again is "ALIVE" For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive? "ALIVE!" is the answer. On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E, of course! What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: "AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE" LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive for three days and three nights? Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE! is the unanimous answer from the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim!

If Jonah was alive for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have been alive in the tomb as he himself had foretold! But Christianity hangs on the flimsy thread of the death" of Jesus for its salvation. So it has to answer that Jesus was DEAD for three days and three nights. The contradiction between his utterance and its fulfilment is obvious. Jonah ALIVE, Jesus DEAD! Very UNLIKE Jonah! Jesus had said "LIKE Jonah" not UNLIKE Jonah. If this is true then according to his own test Jesus is not the TRUE Messiah of the Jews. If the Gospel record is genuine then how can we blame the Jews for rejecting "CHRIST".


Peace be upon you ... :)
The truth; I think you have again misunderstood; Scott said:-
"No.... Jesus was/is divine... the effectiveness of the sacrafice is not based upon what Christ gave up, but on what his sacrafice accomplished= the defeat of death. "

What he meant by the 'defeat of death' is 'Eternal life' - rebirth in the spiritual heaven - where will will be for evermore......;)
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
michel said:
The truth; I think you have again misunderstood; Scott said:-
"No.... Jesus was/is divine... the effectiveness of the sacrafice is not based upon what Christ gave up, but on what his sacrafice accomplished= the defeat of death. "

What he meant by the 'defeat of death' is 'Eternal life' - rebirth in the spiritual heaven - where will will be for evermore......;)
No michel i know excatly what he meant and what you meant and i just used his words to prove somthing else.

got it? ;)

so please anyone can answer me about my pervious post?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
The Truth said:
No michel i know excatly what he meant and what you meant and i just used his words to prove somthing else.

got it? ;)

so please anyone can answer me about my pervious post?
I am sorry, I am completely confused; Just what are you asking?:confused:
 

mr.guy

crapsack
The Truth said:
No michel i know excatly what he meant and what you meant and i just used his words to prove somthing else.

got it? ;)

so please anyone can answer me about my pervious post?
Perhaps you should read michel's answer again. It seems to me he answered your question pretty directly.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
michel said:
I am sorry, I am completely confused; Just what are you asking?:confused:
ok to make it short ... forget about scott.

I'm just trying to say that Jesus's signaficant wasn't by dismissing his spirit sarficing himself for our sin but by being alive even though he was in the tomb ( ALIVE ) for three days as i have proven so far.

That's all.

So, can you please forget about what scott meant and concentrate in what i have said in my pervious post about Jesus & Jonah if you don't mind or if it's not bothering you?
 

mr.guy

crapsack
The truth, is it possible that jesus was being allegorical? If Jesus is eternally alive, then the sum difference of his physical being while in his tomb is zero. Just my easy answer, though...
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Truth. Jesus wasn't "dead" in that he was essentially in an uncoincious state of rest for three days. He was very much alive, but he "decended to the dead," that is, to the place where the spirits of dead men are kept. This is the place that is equivalent to the belly of the whale. He is essentially dead to the rest of the world, but very much alive. 1 Pet 3:19 "preached unto the spirits in prison", 4:6 "gospel preached also to them that are dead." You are saying that the belly of the whale is death itself. The belly of the whale is not. It is what he was doing when he was "dead," though he was actually very much alive.
 
Top