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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah, he's a real work-aholic! Glad I could be of help to you.mr.guy said:Man! that guy does more in three days than i've done all year! thanks for the info, aqualung.
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:If this is so, then why would God perform a sacrifice with His own Son?
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:We don't have a free pass to sin because we will always be forgiven for it
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....
Hi Steve, thanks for your post.Steve said: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 1:7This 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.
Hi Aqualung, thanks for your post.Aqualung said: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.
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:By saying Jesus was not "dead" and defining it about going to the place of the dead, wouldn't that mean that no one was really "dead", just "desended into the place of the dead"?
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: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.
Yeah, me too. I also have it on cd so I can listen to it (my turntable broke )Bennettresearch said:Hi Aqualung (still have the album)
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:Do we, as Christians, perform sacrifices? If this practice is required by God, then why not?
Bennettresearch said: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.
Well, you can go ahead and do that, except that nowhere did God say it was okay for us to sacrifice other human beings. He only allowed his son to be sacrificed after Jesus agreed to it.Bennettresearch said: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.
Nope. He died once and for all for all sins.Bennettresearch said: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?
Hardly.Bennettresearch said: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?
Even if you do not believe in Jesus, I feel that his example is a great one to follow. Self-sacrifice is a beautiful thing, if not the most beautiful thing.bartdanr said:Hi All,
Was Jesus' sacrifice significant? What, if anything, did Jesus lose that he did not regain (and that fairly quickly--three days or 33 years; either way, a heartbeat of eternity)?
How would you make the case that Jesus' sacrifice (or God the Father's sacrifice of his son) was something significant?
Peace
How about Jesus, then?Bennettresearch said: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.
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:If it were so, then it invalidates the story of Abraham and Isaac that puts and end to human sacrifice.
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: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 said:How about Jesus, then?
If you don't think that Jesus' sacrifice was necessary, why do you call yourself a christian anyway?