What did Jesus really sacrifice?

[Philomath]

Christianity's greatest claim is that God loved the world so much that he sacrificed his son for it (John:316).

Sacrifice is defined as: something given up or lost.

Jesus death was painful and humiliating but what did he really lose?

Jesus knew that he was going to be sacrificed and resurrected. (Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 9:30-32, John 2:19, Luke 18:31-33)

Jesus knew that once he was resurrected he would be in a throne in heaven with his father. (Mark 10:35-37, Matthew 20:21)

Jesus died a painful death on the cross, one he knew that would happen. He was resurrected and walked the earth again and was then taken to be with his father in heaven.

This sounds more like a promotion actually. A couple of days of pain followed by eternity in paradise.

How does a couple days of suffering translate to "the ultimate sacrifice" when those days were followed by an eternity of bliss at God's side? What did Jesus really sacrifice?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Christianity's greatest claim is that God loved the world so much that he sacrificed his son for it (John:316).

Sacrifice is defined as: something given up or lost.

Jesus death was painful and humiliating but what did he really lose?

Jesus knew that he was going to be sacrificed and resurrected. (Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 9:30-32, John 2:19, Luke 18:31-33)

Jesus knew that once he was resurrected he would be in a throne in heaven with his father. (Mark 10:35-37, Matthew 20:21)

Jesus died a painful death on the cross, one he knew that would happen. He was resurrected and walked the earth again and was then taken to be with his father in heaven.

This sounds more like a promotion actually. A couple of days of pain followed by eternity in paradise.

How does a couple days of suffering translate to "the ultimate sacrifice" when those days were followed by an eternity of bliss at God's side? What did Jesus really sacrifice?

It might have just been a representation of Jesus breaking down the barriers of death and that now people can live a in eternity.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is going to get many varied responses, because there are many different views.

Jesus death was painful and humiliating but what did he really lose?

To be understood in context, Jesus lost his ability to do anything on Earth, to fix the world. The Jewish messiah is supposed to fix the world, bringing it back into prosperity and happiness, getting rid of poverty among other things. By going to be 'With the Father' Jesus had to give up all of the happiness of being here to fix everything. Instead the Christian NT writers say that Jesus will remain with the Father until every 'Enemy' is placed beneath his feet, including death itself. The enemies are things like poverty, suffering, war etc etc. After the final victory Jesus returns and immediately gives his crown, symbolizing his reign, back to the Father so that 'God will be all and in all'. This 'All in all' means that there are no longer kings, no longer strife, and this is the conceptual reason that Jesus leaves in the first place. He has to leave, so that the 'Holy Spirit' can come lead everyone into all truth. If he remains this cannot happen, probably because everyone would be looking to him for truth. Perhaps he would be a distraction, perhaps his reign would continue the curse upon the dynasty of king David (see below). His leaving means that he has to be patient and watch, and if he has to be patient than so do Christians waiting for the time that finally the world is healed.

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.”fn Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. --I Corinthians 15:24 through 15:28

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come...." Gospel of John 16:7 through 16:13 (not the letters 1 John, 2 John or 3 John Same author though)

Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ 2 Samuel 12:10 A threat of the L-RD against David's family, but Jesus supposedly is reigning as a descendant of David either through Joseph or Mary. Either way he is called the Son of David, so peace could not come with him reigning upon the Earth. Its recorded that Jesus purposely told one of his disciples to bring a sword, probably just to fulfill this prophecy; but the problem is that along with the sword comes war. The judgment against David was that his dynasty would always be at war. For whatever reasons that Jesus could not reign upon the Earth, one of them is that he couldn't have brought peace that way.

 

[Boyd]

Christianity's greatest claim is that God loved the world so much that he sacrificed his son for it (John:316).

Sacrifice is defined as: something given up or lost.

Jesus death was painful and humiliating but what did he really lose?

Jesus knew that he was going to be sacrificed and resurrected. (Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 9:30-32, John 2:19, Luke 18:31-33)

Jesus knew that once he was resurrected he would be in a throne in heaven with his father. (Mark 10:35-37, Matthew 20:21)

Jesus died a painful death on the cross, one he knew that would happen. He was resurrected and walked the earth again and was then taken to be with his father in heaven.

This sounds more like a promotion actually. A couple of days of pain followed by eternity in paradise.

How does a couple days of suffering translate to "the ultimate sacrifice" when those days were followed by an eternity of bliss at God's side? What did Jesus really sacrifice?

I think many of us would agree that an individual like Nelson Mandela sacrificed for his people. Or individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., or Malcolm X suffered for their fight for equality. I don't think that would usually be argued against. However, they also had a belief in an afterlife, in which they would gain some sort of reward for right belief. They "knew" that once they died, they would be in heaven (or eventually go to heaven). Would that mean that they also did not sacrifice?

Just because there is a possible reward at the end of the tunnel, or that one "knows" what will happen after they die, that does not negate the sacrifice in the beginning.

Now, personally, I reject the idea of Jesus having been resurrected. But I do not doubt that he "knew" he would be resurrected at some time. I do not think that negates the sacrifice though.

 

[Philomath]

This is going to get many varied responses, because there are many different views.

To be understood in context, Jesus lost his ability to do anything on Earth, to fix the world. The Jewish messiah is supposed to fix the world, bringing it back into prosperity and happiness, getting rid of poverty among other things. By going to be 'With the Father' Jesus had to give up all of the happiness of being here to fix everything. Instead the Christian NT writers say that Jesus will remain with the Father until every 'Enemy' is placed beneath his feet, including death itself. The enemies are things like poverty, suffering, war etc etc. After the final victory Jesus returns and immediately gives his crown, symbolizing his reign, back to the Father so that 'God will be all and in all'. This 'All in all' means that there are no longer kings, no longer strife, and this is the conceptual reason that Jesus leaves in the first place. He has to leave, so that the 'Holy Spirit' can come lead everyone into all truth. If he remains this cannot happen, probably because everyone would be looking to him for truth. Perhaps he would be a distraction, perhaps his reign would continue the curse upon the dynasty of king David (see below). His leaving means that he has to be patient and watch, and if he has to be patient than so do Christians waiting for the time that finally the world is healed.

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.”fn Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. --I Corinthians 15:24 through 15:28

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come...." Gospel of John 16:7 through 16:13 (not the letters 1 John, 2 John or 3 John Same author though)

Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ 2 Samuel 12:10 A threat of the L-RD against David's family, but Jesus supposedly is reigning as a descendant of David either through Joseph or Mary. Either way he is called the Son of David, so peace could not come with him reigning upon the Earth.

I'm confused by your post I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say to me. I don't really see how any of that was a sacrifice.

 

[Philomath]

I think many of us would agree that an individual like Nelson Mandela sacrificed for his people. Or individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., or Malcolm X suffered for their fight for equality. I don't think that would usually be argued against. However, they also had a belief in an afterlife, in which they would gain some sort of reward for right belief. They "knew" that once they died, they would be in heaven (or eventually go to heaven). Would that mean that they also did not sacrifice?

Just because there is a possible reward at the end of the tunnel, or that one "knows" what will happen after they die, that does not negate the sacrifice in the beginning.

Now, personally, I reject the idea of Jesus having been resurrected. But I do not doubt that he "knew" he would be resurrected at some time. I do not think that negates the sacrifice though.

Good point. The biggest difference though is that Jesus had nothing to lose and everything to gain, he had foreknowledge of what would happen. People
such as Malcom X, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr did not. They believed in an afterlife but did not know with guaranteed certainty of what was to happen. Jesus "sacrifice" may not be negated but it is certainly loses some value.

 

[savagewind]

The way I see it is it was God who gave the sacrifice. The sacrifice might be the relationship Father and Son enjoyed before the son came to suffer. It is gone forever. Isn't it? Is it possible for either the son or the father to go back to the situation that was before Jesus came? I don't think so. Do you? I don't know what it was, but they do. Don't they? Everything is different since then, I am sure. The before has been sacrificed.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well I think Philomath that you're looking at the sacrificial aspect incorrectly.

Jesus did not sacrifice anything, Jesus was the sacrifice.

There's also other aspects involved in it as well. Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a substitution/atonement model. By taking our place and rising from the dead, Jesus conquered the wage of sin which was death that was passed along through Adam. So in part all those who do not know Jesus would only experience death (In Judaism if I remember correctly death was the final way to atone for such extreme heinous acts against God), but those who accept Jesus would be given the new life (which I think maybe a continuation of the Jewish Idea of the World to Be (to come))).

I don't think Paul ever really talks about hell, or if any of the apostles ever do but it is implied in revelations and the mix of the time would have pushed such an idea forward.

 

[outhouse]

It is my opinion

The man lost his life sticking up fopr the common hard workng Jew fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple.

He was only deified after his death which was later percieved as a sacrifice as the mythology grew in Hellenistic communities.


Percieved sacrifice. Thats why it does not make a bit of sense as written. Everything written about the man was by people who did not know him living far away from the area the legends came from. Most 40 years after his death

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We do know Jesus was considered wise from testimonies from non-christian sources. I forgot who it was who indicated that destruction followed nations that destroyed their wise rulers.

Athens and Socrates
Jesus and the Jews (though I don't think Jesus's name is actually used but the implication is there)
I forgot who the third was.

 

[Sees]

We do know Jesus was considered wise from testimonies from non-christian sources.

Could you name a couple?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Could you name a couple?

lol I name one off the top of my head

Mara bar Serapion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll look up the others to see if i should edit it to say one non-christian source.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm confused by your post I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say to me. I don't really see how any of that was a sacrifice.

You asked what he gave up. He gave up participation in healing the world the way that a man would prefer to do it.

 

[Sees]

lol I name one off the top of my head

Mara bar Serapion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll look up the others to see if i should edit it to say one non-christian source.

Thank you... Can't say I remember that one as the name doesn't ring a bell. Still keeping watch for best non-Christian source that gives credence to historical Jesus. Even though I hold the opinion that we can't know for sure that Jesus lived, I do think it is probable a wise man lived who became what we now call Jesus. Maybe the years they suspect he lived are all well off.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thank you... Can't say I remember that one as the name doesn't ring a bell. Still keeping watch for best non-Christian source that gives credence to historical Jesus. Even though I hold the opinion that we can't know for sure that Jesus lived, I do think it is probable a wise man lived who became what we now call Jesus. Maybe the years they suspect he lived are all well off.

Well who and what Jesus has the only good evidence is the Gospels and even those are arguably not written by people who knew Jesus.

But again we believe in Socrates and there's not much proof his existence besides the writings of his disciples (if I remember correctly)

 

[Sees]

Well who and what Jesus has the only good evidence is the Gospels and even those are arguably not written by people who knew Jesus.

But again we believe in Socrates and there's not much proof his existence besides the writings of his disciples (if I remember correctly)

I see all the people of ancient history similar really... The ones with their image on coins or what not have a bit more credibility naturally.

Like I like to say, I wouldn't bet the life of my kids on any of it. Teachings of wisdom, compassion, developing the self, how to better experience reality, etc. doesn't really matter who or what put them in play or spread them around - to me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I see all the people of ancient history similar really... The ones with their image on coins or what not have a bit more credibility naturally.

Like I like to say, I wouldn't bet the life of my kids on any of it. Teachings of wisdom, compassion, developing the self, how to better experience reality, etc. doesn't really matter who or what put them in play or spread them around - to me.

Understandable honesty until the development of Camera (even if paintings were done), it was pretty impossible to tell if someone existed. This current time with all the picture taking that goes on, all the facebooking, instagraming, twittering, and all those other ings maybe the first time that even 100 years from now the proof of ones existence will be actually demonstrable. Unless you're a bot....

 

[Akivah]

lol I name one off the top of my head

Mara bar Serapion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll look up the others to see if i should edit it to say one non-christian source.

Mara bar Serapion is not referring to jesus.
1. The document doesn't mention jesus by name.
2. jesus was never a king.
3. The Jews didn't kill jesus, the Romans did.
4. The Jewish kingdom fell 100 years after jesus died.
5. The earliest date of this letter is 73 CE, whereas the jesus figure died around 33 CE. So the letter writer could never have met jesus.

 

[outhouse]

We do know Jesus was considered wise .

Based on the what they read, written mythology and legends by unknown authors

 

[outhouse]

Still keeping watch for best non-Christian source that gives credence to historical Jesus.

There are none.