Why the Jesus sacrifice?

[Falvlun]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.

If it is about forgiveness of sins, could not have God simply have said "I forgive you"?

It can't be about the power of death or the rights of Satan, because God is God. He can change the rules, he can make the rules differently from the get-go, and he can simply flex some muscles and say "Scram!".

It seems to me-- and I understand how horrible that this would sound to a believer-- that Jesus' death was rather superfluous. It was unnecessary.

So, what was the point of the Jesus sacrifice?

 

[savagewind]

It seems to me the scripture you quoted cannot be used to refer to Jesus' death. Jesus was given to the World through Mary a Jewish woman. John 3:16 It is what I think the scripture means. His death is another matter.

 

[Awoon]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.

If it is about forgiveness of sins, could not have God simply have said "I forgive you"?

It can't be about the power of death or the rights of Satan, because God is God. He can change the rules, he can make the rules differently from the get-go, and he can simply flex some muscles and say "Scram!".

It seems to me-- and I understand how horrible that this would sound to a believer-- that Jesus' death was rather superfluous. It was unnecessary.

So, what was the point of the Jesus sacrifice?

When people have a sacrificial mind set, "beliefs" are not necessary. It was not enough to just "believe" that God sent his Son. That would cover all of humanity, end of story. OK, so God sent his Son I believe it. Nope not enough. Rules of faith had to be put in. Go to church, be baptized, follow teachings of the Fathers, You must confess that God "sacrificed" his only Son on a cross, give money, confess your errors, bring others into the church, learn and practice the rituals, read the Bible, (but our interpretation is only correct).
So today after 1700 years of rule by the Church Fathers interpretations we no longer have simple "belief" of John 3:16, but a self righteous hypocrisy of insiders vs outsiders.

It's a dictatorial business.

 

[Meeka_S]

Wonderful topics
Keep update me please.

 

[Sleeppy]

If you can consider the rift between creation and God, you've already considered His (and our) sacrifice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.

I used to wonder about this, too. My own conclusion is that the sacrifice of Jesus is itself an attempt to answer the question of why the Jews were oppressed by the Romans. Why do bad things happen to good people?

If it is about forgiveness of sins, could not have God simply have said "I forgive you"?

Jesus own sacrifice is for the sake of the world, to justify people in general, not to erase their individual bad decisions. It is meant to unify everyone and to create a new house of prayer for all people. Sin is not all the same. Yes, if the sins were the kind that people do on purpose that would be the case. If you go through a Bible the various sacrifices are explained, and none of them are for purposeful acts like murder. For those kinds of things the sinner must try to undo whatever harm they have done, make restitution if possible and ask forgiveness. Jesus died merely for having sinful desires, not for committing crimes.

It can't be about the power of death or the rights of Satan, because God is God. He can change the rules, he can make the rules differently from the get-go, and he can simply flex some muscles and say "Scram!".

It seems to me-- and I understand how horrible that this would sound to a believer-- that Jesus' death was rather superfluous. It was unnecessary.

So, what was the point of the Jesus sacrifice?

The disciples also objected to Jesus death, Peter in particular. Jesus told them that they were thinking about it the wrong way. The point was that a person who had done nothing wrong nevertheless was still evil, because they would still desire to do evil. The judgment separated the spirit (his deeds) from his body (his evil desires). Jesus, despite everything, was tempted by his own body. It was not until he died that he was perfected, and that was the point made by his death.

 

[ChristineES]

Here is a link to a site that explains Jesus' sacrifice. I can't put into words what I want to say, so I am sharing the link, instead.
ZLM Video Series: ?The Gospel According to Isaiah?

It is to Zola Levitt's website- a man I really admire. He passed away some time ago, however.

 

[sojourner]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.

Reconciliation begins with self-sacrifice, yes?

 

[Caladan]

Falvlun,

I think that instead of trying to rationalize a theological doctrine, which may make sense to some people and not to others, there is another third option which is pretty constructive.
Where did the idea of such a sacrifice emerged from in the first place?
Well first of all, of course that sacrifice was part of Judaism. And during the time of Jesus as the Temple in Jerusalem still stood it was part of the religious system. Of course all other cultures (probably, or at least most) around Judea, and perhaps around the world, also sacrificed anything from bulls, goats, and pigeons to their gods.
In addition, more interestingly, the concept of self sacrifice of a god and a cycle of his descending into the underworld is a repeating myth in ancient Near Eastern religion. We can see this with the Mesopotamian god Tamuz, which was also very popular with the Israelites (as even the Bible attests), and of course we have the death of Osiris and his rise in the underworld, and there are other examples in the Hellenic world. Such a concept did not spring ex nihilio, in a vacuum. Christianity inherited plenty of Hebraic and Near Eastern elements and ideologies into its philosophy. And it made sense that the Christians made Jesus' sacrifice, the ultimate and most dramatic one. And also the most final one, for the sake of mankind. As they tried to establish Jesus above all the gods of their time. Including the living ones, such as the emperors, and the popular gods of the Hellenic and Near Eastern world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Such a concept did not spring ex nihilio, in a vacuum. Christianity inherited plenty of Hebraic and Near Eastern elements and ideologies into its philosophy. And it made sense that the Christians made Jesus' sacrifice, the ultimate and most dramatic one. And also the most final one, for the sake of mankind. As they tried to establish Jesus above all the gods of their time. Including the living ones, such as the emperors, and the popular gods of the Hellenic and Near Eastern world.

Some more good points, Caladan.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reconciliation begins with self-sacrifice, yes?

Since when? Have you been reading Vincent van Gogh's guide to relationships?

There's a difference between self-sacrifice for its own sake and reconciling yourself to the aggrieved party at personal cost. Jesus' sacrifice was either something of value to God, or it was useless.

 

[sojourner]

Since when? Have you been reading Vincent van Gogh's guide to relationships?

There's a difference between self-sacrifice for its own sake and reconciling yourself to the aggrieved party at personal cost. Jesus' sacrifice was either something of value to God, or it was useless.

When there's a division, someone has to self-sacrifice something -- at least their own ego/sense of justice/sense of fairness, etc. in favor of the greater good in order for reconciliation to take place. Are you saying that Jesus' self-sacrifice was "for its own sake?" if so, you don't understand enough about Christian theology to even have a dog in this fight.

What about being of value to humanity? Jesus' self-sacrifice is of eminent value to humanity, for by sacrificing his own life for the life of humanity, Jesus, as the "quintessential human being," places us on a rung above himself in importance.

Nonetheless, self-sacrifice is of value to God when it allows us to get out of our own way long enough to notice God.

 

[InChrist]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.

But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.

If it is about forgiveness of sins, could not have God simply have said "I forgive you"?

Why can't the judge in a courtroom just change the rules and simply tell the murderer, thief, rapist, or any other criminal, "I forgive you, you're free"?

It can't be about the power of death or the rights of Satan, because God is God. He can change the rules, he can make the rules differently from the get-go, and he can simply flex some muscles and say "Scram!".

It seems to me-- and I understand how horrible that this would sound to a believer-- that Jesus' death was rather superfluous. It was unnecessary.

So, what was the point of the Jesus sacrifice?

To pay the debt we owe.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why can't the judge in a courtroom just change the rules and simply tell the murderer, thief, rapist, or any other criminal, "I forgive you, you're free"?

But then they don't go and punish an innocent person in place of the guilty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why can't the judge in a courtroom just change the rules and simply tell the murderer, thief, rapist, or any other criminal, "I forgive you, you're free"?

To accomplish one or more of the goals of punishment according to the principles of jurisprudence:

- general deterrence - to deter society in general from committing the same crime
- specific deterrence - to deter that individual from committing more criminal acts in future
- inculcation - to act as a societal declaration that the act is considered wrong and the relative wrongness of it compared to other acts
- rehabilitation - to provide an opportunity to steer the individual onto a legitimate path

Edit: if someone other than the person who committed the crime offered to serve his sentence for him, the judge would refuse the offer, since the principles I outlined above lose their power and meaning if they aren't applied to he person who actually committed the criminal act.

Which of these is served by either a system of "sin debt" in general or atonement theology in particular?

To pay the debt we owe.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

If a debt was not agreed to by the debtor, it is not owed at all.

 

[InChrist]

But then they don't go and punish an innocent person in place of the guilty.

Jesus, the Son of God, chose to take the punishment upon Himself and pay the penalty for the guilty.

 

[Shermana]

I believe this was what Isaiah 53:10 was originally meant to convey, an actual human guilt offering, perhaps to serve as some one-time cover for all sins. However, judging by Hebrews 10:26-29, it is clear that the believers around this time did not intend it to be a cover for all sins including after accepting this one as some kind of substitute, but only for all sins prior. And indeed, it seems many Christians don't seem to incorporate Hebrews 10:26-29, or they have a very strange backwards idea of it that it means all your sins are covered unless you don't believe it or something. And I wonder if it coincides with the fact that the Temple was about to be destroyed about 40 years after this event.

As to why this is the case, I cannot say exactly, it would have to go into a long discussion on what specifically Jewish sacrifice was about and why there was such an idea of a Human Guilt offering concept.

Now some may say that Isaiah 53:10 was not about a Human guilt offering, but I believe this was in fact how it was interpreted to be all that time.

 

[InChrist]

To accomplish one or more of the goals of punishment according to the principles of jurisprudence:

- general deterrence - to deter society in general from committing the same crime
- specific deterrence - to deter that individual from committing more criminal acts in future
- inculcation - to act as a societal declaration that the act is considered wrong and the relative wrongness of it compared to other acts
- rehabilitation - to provide an opportunity to steer the individual onto a legitimate path

Edit: if someone other than the person who committed the crime offered to serve his sentence for him, the judge would refuse the offer, since the principles I outlined above lose their power and meaning if they aren't applied to he person who actually committed the criminal act.

Which of these is served by either a system of "sin debt" in general or atonement theology in particular?

All of the above are served to a certain degree by the atonement paid by Christ when applied to the life of a believer, especially rehabilitation. It is also important to remember that the atonement of Christ is primarily aimed at impacting one's eternal destiny, it is not meant to relieve people of facing the consequences of crimes against society in the present world.

If a debt was not agreed to by the debtor, it is not owed at all.

[/quote]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus, the Son of God, chose to take the punishment upon Himself and pay the penalty for the guilty.

That's not justice. :no: I would never ask an innocent person to be punished and suffer in my place, for my crimes. That's sickening. See, I believe in ethics. You know, where the guilty are punished and not the innocent. I guess that's another big difference between Christians and I.

 

[InChrist]

I believe this was what Isaiah 53:10 was originally meant to convey, an actual human guilt offering, perhaps to serve as some one-time cover for all sins. However, judging by Hebrews 10:26-29, it is clear that the believers around this time did not intend it to be a cover for all sins including after accepting this one as some kind of substitute, but only for all sins prior. And indeed, it seems many Christians don't seem to incorporate Hebrews 10:26-29, or they have a very strange backwards idea of it that it means all your sins are covered unless you don't believe it or something. And I wonder if it coincides with the fact that the Temple was about to be destroyed about 40 years after this event.

As to why this is the case, I cannot say exactly, it would have to go into a long discussion on what specifically Jewish sacrifice was about and why there was such an idea of a Human Guilt offering concept.

Now some may say that Isaiah 53:10 was not about a Human guilt offering, but I believe this was in fact how it was interpreted to be all that time.

I think the entire passage of Isaiah 53 is about Jesus Christ/ Messiah paying for the iniquities of us all.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53;5-6