Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice
Offline This is actually from the www.infidelguy.com message boards. Another atheist and I were having a conversation, but I felt the contradictions therein are something that should be considered and discussed.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Interestingly enough I was questioning a theist in a conversation about a similar subject. How can the death of Jesus' flesh, even if Jesus was supposedly God, save us from sin? Sacrifices, although a gesture of great purportions, do not affect anything. If I sacrifice a lamb to make it rain, and it rains...is it because I sacrificed the lamb? Similarly, religionists in general like to somehow basterdize the word "sacrifice" to mean something it doesn't.And how was it a sacrifice, anyway? Is jesus dead? Is it preferable to be in human form, or in spiritual form in heaven?
Exactly. Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning. He's GOD supposedly, so how can he really die to begin with? Further he ended up in Heaven, supposedly, and that isn't really torment.
What does paul say about the nature of flesh?
"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)
Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh.
And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around.
Where's the sacrifice?
There is none. And lest we forget that in order to be free from sin, we have to do something to get it. Well...that sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus having abolished our sins, if we still have sin that wasn't abolished.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
A lot of people were crucified back then. WTF makes Jesus so special?
Good question. In fact Josephus lists about 500 jewish revolters being crucified DAILY before the fall of the city and the destruction of the temple.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
True indeed. I've always thought it was somewhat a slap in the face for all others who'd been condemned to death by crucifixion (not to mention burning or any other form) to say that Christ's suffering during his cruci-fiction was somehow worse than theirs, since it merited such a great sacrifice and theirs did nothing. Heck, they may not have even been allowed into Heaven after death if they didn't meet the required conditions.
Think free.
If he really was God, there's no reason he couldn't have just forgiven everyone without any sort of sacrafice. The story is so ridiculous and full of holes it's pathetic.
:idea: Just what did Jesus sacrifice on the cross? :idea:
Many Christians believe that Jesus "the Christ" came to redeem man to God by His death on the cross and to forgive man's sins. In some instances we have the death of Jesus, yet at other times you see the same Christians making the claim that Jesus "lives." Did he actually die or does he live? It cannot work both ways. Even if the death means a temporary death, it gives little value for an eternal sacrifice. But regardless of which way one believes, the morality of such an act deserves questioning.
If Jesus equals a god, then he could not have sacrificed his life, simply because an infinite god cannot die. If Jesus died as just a man, then he committed what we would today call, suicide:
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
-Matthew 26:2
If anyone believes his prediction, then Jesus must have known of his upcoming crucifixion. Jesus fulfilling his own prophecy says nothing about miraculous predictions for such self-fulfilling prophecies tend to carry themselves out. But if he lived as an all powerful being, he would have the power to avert his death. But he chose not to. Instead he consciously committed himself to allow his own death. In another word-- suicide. This act of self destruction, especially in light of a horrible disfigured and bleeding torso nailed to a cross hardly gives an exemplary act of the expression of life. On the contrary, such a scene equals that of horror movies designed to scare people out of their wits. Who knows how many children have experienced psychological problems after witnessing an image of a tortured man nailed to a cross at Sunday school. (By the way, any graven image of Christ violates the second commandment [Exodus 20:4]).
As to the sacrifice, just what did Jesus sacrifice? According to the Bible, he certainly did not sacrifice his life. Jesus went to Heaven, (and sat on the right hand of God) supposedly a place of peace, calm and everlasting joy. But as a man on earth, Jesus received death threats, attempts at stoning, and condemnation by his enemies. Exiting the problems on earth for the joys of heaven hardly gives an example of noble sacrifice. On the contrary, it appears that Jesus escaped his problems, leaving his disciples to fend for themselves while he opted for a life in perfect heaven. Should we teach our children to emulate such a selfish act? If Christians held to the consistency of their beliefs, shouldn't Christians best render Jesus' suicide as a cowardly act similar to the way they describe the Islamic terrorists who killed themselves by flying airliners into buildings on September 11th?
Did Jesus redeem man from his sacrifice? History shows that violence of man against man has increased since the "sacrifice." Wars, terrorist acts, murders, and suicides have occurred because of beliefs in Jesus. It appears that the sacrifice resembles the curse of a demon rather than that of a savior. Furthermore, believing that his death forgives sins only provides reason for committing them in the first place. Why should anyone feel so disagreeable about committing sins when they feel that Jesus has already forgiven them? No wonder jails contain so many Christian zealots. Regardless of how "Caesar's" laws treat them, they think of themselves as specially forgiven.
i'm new but where is the talk of the stories of other messiahs of the past..
the story of them (and there's plenty from krshna to nimrod, to horus to nike..)
goes along the lines of..
at the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere,
the sun is the weakest.
the story of samson is about the sun entering the house of virgo..
falling into autumn and the sun's rays getting shorter.
using the book of metaphors to criticise christianity
is you taking it literally..
the sun 'dies' for three days and is 'reborn' three days later..
on december 25th.
adam and eve the twins, gemini
taurus the bull in egypt - taurus
into the age of the ram, moses - aries
into the age of the fish, jesus - pisces
into the age of aquarius..
ganymede the victim of zeus the pedophile.
So basically you have several misinterpretations of scripture here and lack some understanding about the overall picture of Jesus sacrifice.
First, Jesus sacrifice was not of His flesh only, but of His soul. As Isaiah 53 states beginning in verse 4:
Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 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.
6 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.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And *they made His grave with the wicked--
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,...
How else could Jesus offer His soul as a sacrifice for our sins except through the physical death of His body? 2 Corinthians 5:21 also states: For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." By making Jesus "sin" for us, God the Father caused Jesus to experience our spiritual punishment on the cross by forsaking Him and laying our sins upon Him. Jesus demonstrates this when He says "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34 and elsewhere. Clearly this is not referring to a merely physical punishment. If physical death alone was the punishment for sin, then when every person died they would no longer be in danger of judgment for their sin because they would have paid the penalty already with their death. But as Hebrews 9:27 says "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" implying that there is a spiritual debt that must be paid as well.
The resurrection did not invalidate Jesus sacrifice. On the contrary, it was proof that sacrifice of His body and soul for sins was acceptable to God the Father and that everyone who believes in Jesus would no longer be considered guilty of sin: Romans 4:24-5 "But for us also, to whom [righteousness] shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."
The resurrection also attested to the fact that Jesus was, Himself, God the Son seeing that "Death was unable to hold Him" See Acts 2:22-36.
Your analysis of the scriptures you quoted is completely off.
"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).
You have totally wrested the first verse out of its context. It is referring to the fact that our flesh is corrupted and has a propensity for sin. If it were not for the Spirit of God dwelling in Christians, we would not be capable of overcoming the fleshly nature. Paul later states in Romans 8:1 "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This is in keeping with the verse you cited in Galatians about Christ indwelling the believer through the Spirit of God Who does the works of righteousness through us.
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)
This is referring to our corrupt human bodies that are subject to death and decay. In our current state we could not live forever and Paul says that Christians will receive heavenly bodies like Jesus now has.
Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh.
Again, you have taken this verse completely out of it's context. Everyone who witnessed Jesus while He was physically here on the Earth did "see the salvation of God". Furthermore everyone who does not believe will see Jesus in their flesh when they are resurrected at the end of the age. Believers will see Christ immediately when they die.
Furthermore, Jesus' body was raised physically, but it was changed into a Heavenly body. He was able to appear and disappear at will and yet was able to eat food (Luke 24:35-42). He also ascended to Heaven in His physical form. He never had corruptible flesh and does not now, so you are twisting this verse to try to support your claim.
And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around.
This is by far the most grievous example of obscuring the meaning of the text with your ridiculous commentary. This verse is referring to believers who felt guilty about eating meat that they either felt may have been sacrificed to idols or that was perhaps not kosher. And some felt that it was better to abstain from drinking wine because they did not want to unwittingly support it use and possible abuse among Christians. So here Paul is exhorting the Christians to not cause their fellow believers to stumble by eating or drinking something that they might have considered "sinful". He clearly states that "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in *these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles *or is offended or is made weak. 22 *Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God."
So your application of this verse to the "Eucharist" is quite wrong.
Lastly, no one can do anything for their own salvation. Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient. Everyone who puts their complete trust and faith in Christ will be saved. If you want to consider "believing" as doing something, well then yes, you do have to believe. But as for righteous works, these can never annul our sins. So you are again mistaken in your interpretation.
I hope that perhaps you will consider reading the New Testament (or if you have already, perhaps rereading it a few more times), it seems you are in need of more study as your exegeses of scripture indicates.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
Actually, the bigger problem is your misunderstanding of the word sacrifice.
Really? Did he lose his soul then? Is it in hell? If not, how did he 'sacrifice' it? By putting it on loan for 3 days? How is it a sacrifice if he has 'it' now?
You're begging the question that Isaiah refers to 'jesus'...
Actually, if he was 'resurrected' then there was no sacrifice in the first place. To sacrifice is to lose something. To forfeit.
Your analysis of the word 'sacrifice' is completey off.
You're begging the question again.... you can't even rationally demonstrate that people 'require' salvation.
I do hope that you'll read a dictionary and look up the word 'sacrifice'
It involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.
When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.
Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.
If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?
When you answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
I don't think that you or the dictionary are qualified to define what sacrifice means in the context of the New Testament. Biblical hermeneutics is based on the idea that scripture interprets itself. If Jesus' soul was an offering for sin, then the definition of offering should be a biblical definition and not just one pulled from a non-related source such as you suggest. I don't believe that any textual critic would look to a dictionary to find definitions of terms used in an ancient document, the very thought is ridiculous.
With that said, the authors of the text clearly understood that Jesus death and resurrection were not a contradiction in terms. They saw that Jesus was able to sacrifice Himself on the cross for sins and that the resurrection was the proof that this sacrifice was acceptable to God. You don't get to decide whether or not it was a sacrifice, God already did. So please, don't try to make it seem as though you or any other Atheist on here can make that determination.
Furthermore, I was not the first person to recognize that Isaiah was speaking of Jesus, every Gospel writer understood this was so and hence the reason why they quoted verses from this very chapter of Isaiah and applied it to Christ. Just because you refuse to accept it is of no consequence. It's your choice if you wish to be incorrect. But, again, in view of the fact that the biblical text is allowed to interpret itself, your assertion that this is a case of "question begging" is just absurd.
And no, Jesus's soul was not left in Hell, nor was this a requirement for His sacrifice to be valid as I previously stated. As Acts 2:31 says "[David] seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
Your blindness to your own sin is obvious if you think you are innocent. There is none righteous and all have sinned. The wages of sin are eternal spiritual death. If you want to pay your own debt, then you have that choice. But God has provided a means of salvation and it is the Gift of eternal life through Christ Jesus. It cannot be earned.
Furthermore, you have no idea what Christ experienced on the Cross so your paragraph on how some humans have suffered more is a blatant case of ignorance. It isn't wise to speak so offhandedly of something which you know nothing about.
However Jesus did recognize that His sacrifice, though horrific, was the only means by which man could be saved. Hebrews 12:2 states "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." So I believe this answers your question.
I find your contempt of the ordeal that He experienced to provide you with salvation to be tragic. But such is the nature of providing humans with free will; some will believe to their eternal joy and others will refuse to believe to their eternal misery.
As for your scenario about me going to the cross to save billions, I am not capable of doing this. Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father by becoming our sin on the cross. Being a finite being, I would not be able to endure it, nor can I imagine what it would have been like. So there is no way for me to answer this question.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
I think what todangst is driving at is that when Christians speak of Jesus' sacrifice, they are naturally implying that this is sacrifice is so great that it should naturally invoke gratefulness on the part of us "sinners". But the problem is, this "sacrifice" defies the very notion and essence of what a sacrifice is and should be. It is comparable to a father permitting himself to be slapped a hundredfold so that his daughter may avoid a punishment with full and perfect knowledge that not only will his daughter avoid the torment that is supposed to befall her but he will also gain a billion dollars after the slapping "sacrifice". As apparent, the father had not really sacrificed anything at all.
And concerning the verse you quoted, particularly verse 10 of Isaiah 53. The Hebrew word nephesh translated in your quoted passage as "soul" is simply understood as "a breathing creature" or "vitality" not really the same soul which separates from the body upon death as we modern day people commonly understand it. The translator's note of the NET Bible even states: " It reads literally, 'if you/she makes, a reparation offering, his life.' " Even NRSV renders it as: "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin."
Use soft words and hard arguments.
Again, I find it inconceivable that you or anyone else can question the validity of Christ's sacrifice. You do not know what Jesus suffered on the cross or what it is like to experience God the Father's wrath as He did when He became our sin. Jesus is an infinite being who tasted death for every man. Do you know what that would feel like? Furthermore, do you know what that would be like to enact that punishment on Your most beloved Son?
Given that you don't know what Jesus went through while He hung on those beams of wood for your sin, you really have no right to speak about whether or not it was a real sacrifice or what it cost the Father. So how can you compare this to a hundred slaps in the face? Your use of this metaphor to describe something you know nothing about is highly arrogant.
Your second point about the word nephesh being something other than what we understand today is not supported. Thayer's lexicon defines nephesh primarily as:
1.) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
This is all apologetic bullshit. YOU have no idea what any of that was like either. Assuming this whole fairy tale were true, an infinite being may well have felt absolutely NO pain or suffering. Those who wrote of it were human, thus putting it all through their human perception, thus describing suffering as THEY (or YOU or I) might feel. But that means nothing.
What DOES mean something is that Jeebus KNEW he would be ressurected, in heaven, at the side of God. After only a few hours of torture.
That ain't shit compared to the uncertainty, prolonged emotional pain, physical torture, etc. that other humans have gone through in history - many of which, I might add, at the hands of your twisted religion.
By comparison, Jeebus was a pussy. Go back to your Koran. Oh, wait... wrong fairy tale.
Our esteemed visitor Sara wrote:
"Again, I find it inconceivable that you or anyone else can question the validity of Christ's sacrifice. "
Why? In the O.T. is it not written that we should use scripture to prove all things? Does your statement here also apply to the Jews? If so, how come? If you can not give a reason why, that is oustide of your religious theology and dogma then you are commiting what in logic is called a special plead logical fallacy. What justification do you have in claiming that atheists and Jews can not question a person who claims to be a son of God and Gods messiah? If you can't do this then you suffer from narrow minded religious bigotry ma'am. I sure hope that you are not the type of religionist that puts naked assertions and special pleads before the dignity of human beings and humaities sacred search for truth. Telling some one who does not believe in a holy spirit or Faith as a means of knowing IS the same as telling them to shut up. Do you use such nonsensical nonsequiters as a means to shut the jews up as well? I think you are a big meany.
I just love how most theists always talk down to those who do not agree with them when it comes to their narrow-minded religion.
You find it inconceivable that we question the validly of Jeebus' "sacrifice"? Well, I find it inconceivable that your believe there is an old whiteman floating among the clouds passing twisted judgment on mortal men while also claiming to be loving. I find it inconceivable that you speak to us as if Jeebus existed when there is no evidence that supports Jeebus the man, let alone a water walking magician, ever existed. I find it inconceivable that you derive your arguments from a book filled with contradictions, the Bible. A book that is so worthless, so full of lies, I wouldn't even wipe my ass with it.
I'm sorry that I'm coming off so nasty, I really am a nice guy. I'm just sick of being talked down to by bible humping, hymn singing, irrational people like yourself.
Much love,
Trey
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
You're not nasty, Trey - like me, you're just responding in kind.
When an xian questions my beliefs in a reasonable manner and asks me to explain my position rationally, I respond calmly and without a trace of rancor.
But when a thumper lays a guilt trip and/or eternal torment threat on me based on NO evidence but the irrational beliefs foisted upon them before they could reason for themselves, the "snide remarker" dons his cowl & cape...
Sara, you missed the point of the illustration. The analogy of the slapping "sacrifice" is meant to convey in simple terms the ramifications of Jesus' alleged "sacrifice". If Jesus knew full well what WILL happen BEFORE it happens. If Jesus KNEW AHEAD that after a BRIEF and MOMENTARY "punishment" from God that he will be raised again, will sit at the right hand of God's throne himself, will be exalted, praised, and worshipped as the King of kings and Lord of lords, and will reign forever and ever then that is hardly a genuine sacrifice at all. Like the father in my scenario who knew that his brief and momentary punishment will result in greater returns so too is Jesus' BRIEF and MOMENTARY punishment will result in VASTLY greater returns. So Sara, what kind of a sacrifice is that? That flies in the face of the very notion of what a sacrifice is.
Why would you fear your imminent death when you know perfectly well that you will live again anyway?
Why would you fear God's wrath when you know it will be just a temporary affair and that after just a few days you would not only regain God's unparralled favor once more, but also all the glory and riches of the entire universe and the restoration of your divine status anyway?
Why would you fear any lost at all if you knew that your lost shall be replenished in more ways and gains than your lost? You see, I see no rational reason why this momentary sacrifice is such a big deal if you know perfectly and completely that you will earn more than what you will lost.
Sacrifice entails uncertainty, pain and lost. Apart perhaps from pain, Jesus' "sacrifice" bears none of these essential ingredients to brew a sacrifice recipe. Besides if you knew pain will be just temporary and you will become invincible again in the end anyway, then this "pain" is hardly to be concerned about especially if we take into account that the very person who will undergo this sort of pain is someone who possesses omniscience to view everything at the grand scale of things.
I am well aware of nephesh having various meanings under different contexts. But the concept of soul as something that continues to consciously exist apart from the body after death is a foreign concept to ancient Israel belief system. And Bible scholars generally agree that in the particular aforementioned verse, the correct meaning and implications of the "soul" based on the historical, cultural, linguistic context of the passage is as what scholarly Bibles such as NRSV translates it - "Life". It only means to sacrifice a breathing being. A living entity.
Use soft words and hard arguments.
It wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of the amount of pain he underwent, TP. It was a sacrifice in the sense that a perfect man without mark was offered up to God -- quality instead of quantity, perhaps. I know that you think that this should have included an inordinate amount of pain, but the blood sacrifice was done on oue behalf -- Jesus suffered for our redemption. It wasn't the amount of pain that redeemed, it was that the sacrifice was made at all.
As someone put it: "Jesus died, so that in the end we wouldn't have to". Metaphysical nonsense from a naturalistic perspective, sure, but you are on the wrong track if you think that Jesus's sacrifice was about the amount of pain.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I still don't get why God would need to sacrafice himself to himself to protect us from him because of a system he created. Surely an actual God could forgive unconditionally!
That seems to be the one chink in his omnipotence. Well, that and his apparent inability to handle money...
And of course he keeps fucking up when trying to make people that won't sin. And then the whole thing with creating the devil, natural disasters, etc.....
Forget it! According the the Bible, God is a world-class fuckup!
Anti-Faith,
Your question about Jesus being the Messiah and God in the flesh is a different matter all together, though it is well supported in the Hebrew Scriptures. What is being questioned here is whether or not the Death of Christ for the sins of the world a real sacrifice. The Atheist position is that because Jesus only spent a brief amount of time in Hades and was resurrected 3 days later, that it wasn't "good enough" or a "real" sacrifice. This is ridiculous.
The bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22) and that the blood of bulls and goats was not capable of expiating sins because these sacrifices had to be repeated (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus' sacrifice of His perfect life ONE time on the cross was most certainly valid and His resurrection was the proof.
Hebrews 10:10- By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
People have the choice as to whether or not they wish to believe the bible's account, but if Atheists or Jews want to argue Christian theology, then they should really try to understand what the New Testament scriptures teach regarding salvation and sacrifice. Calling the validity of Christ's atonement in to question because it doesn't agree with THEIR idea of what a sacrifice must be is sheer nonsense. It's not their or your call to decide what the biblical definition should be.
I'm sorry you find me to be mean, that was not my intention. The best means of cutting through lies is by being direct. Furthermore, if believing in Jesus and His sacrifice as being the only way to God means I am a bigot, so be it. The truth cannot be compromised to accommodate people's preferences.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
Actually, most of us believe that Jesus never even existen, and that sin is a primitive concept.