In ancient religions - human/animal sacrifice was common. People used to sacrfice animal because it was believe if a person was sick, the spirit of that person has transported to an animal. Thus, you would need to kill the animal to summon the sprirt from the animal back to the sick person body. What happened to the animal? It is gone. Not kept alive.
Human sacrifice in the Aztec culture was based on the concept that if the Sun provided life on earth, we humans should sacrifice ourselves for the continuation of the Sun energy for earthly survivial. When humans are sacrifice, they are gone. You can’t no longer contact them anymore; they have no presence to help you.
Notice from those two examples, when something is sacrifice - it is gone permantely. You must cope with its loss. Otherwise, if it’s not truly gone, it has not been truly sacrifice.
When Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind, many interpeted it as an act of sacrifice for mankind. But if Jesus knew that when he died, he could still rose back from dead, and be the savior for mankind in the kingdom of heaven, was that truly sacrificing himself? For Christians, Jesus is stil alive in our heart. Jesus is alive when we accept him as a savior. If we are to connect with Jesus in the after-life, then how did Jesus sacrifice himself while he was on earth?
It has to do with the Christian understanding of sacrifice as practiced in the Old Testament. According to this theory, the OT sacrifices for sins were not only about giving something up, but about the animal sacrificed bearing the consequences of the penitent’s sin, namely, death. This was a prefigurement of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, in which He, in a similar manner, took upon the consequences of our sin, which were corruption and death. Unlike the OT sacrifices, though, He was able to destroy these consequences by rising from the dead, and furthermore, He did this for all of humankind, so there is no more need for continual sacrifices.
Actually the sun god sacrificed himself by taking up a job no other god was willing to do. He was permanently suffering and thirsty. That would be the equivalent of Jesus going to hell forever, not just dying and rising to heavens.
no greater love has any man that this: that he would give up his life for a friend.
According to Christians, none of us really “die” we all come back and either go to Hell or Heaven. So in this case, Christ died, but then came back to earth instead of just going to heaven, so the sacrifice was legit, as long as you believe death isnt the actual end of things, just a crappy and painful process leading to another kind of life.
Outside of Christianity, much of the religion is non-sensical, so trying to apply scientific logic to it is fruitless, which is why Apologetics (“defence of the faith”) is such a hilarious invention and totally contradictory to the scripture(which talks about the wisdom of God as foolish to the unbeliever…its NOT SUPPOSED to make sense to non Christians…thats the point! Thats FAITH)
Jesus was both Man and God. It was his “human part” that was sacrificed, leaving only the divine afterwards. I think you have to understand this dual nature in order to understand the actual sacrifice.
Yet you have tounderstadn the actual sacrifice to embrace Christianity, and you have to embrace Christianity to be able to understadn the duality.
Somehow that seems like a very unsatisfactory answer. People are suposedly damned if they reject Jesus’ sacrifice, yet they need to understand the ineffable to accept it, and they can presumably only understand the ineffable with divine guidance. It seems like a vicious cycle to me. A potential convert needs to already understand Jesus to accept him or already accept him in order to come to understand him.
From the way the NT is written I don’t think that was the intention. It seems like the value of Jesus’ sacrifice should be clear to all, not just those with a copy of “The Ineffable for Dummies”.
The three day “nap” was not the sacrifice. The 12 hour ordeal (or however long it was) leading up to his death was the sacrifice. I didn’t think “The Passion of The Christ” was a particularly good movie, but if you want to understand what the sacrifice consisted of, watch it.
I appreciate that, I’m just pointing out that the explanation is unsatisfactory to me. Like if you said that Frodo and and Sam were gay lovers and that was why Sam gave up the ring. I could say that the explanation is unsatisfactory and seems totally at odds with what the authors actually wrote and what they said they believed.
[/quote]
The three day “nap” was not the sacrifice. The 12 hour ordeal (or however long it was) leading up to his death was the sacrifice.
[/quote]
How is even that a sacriifice for a God though? I don’t doubt he felt pain, but he had the ability to turn it off whenever he wanted. And indeed at the end he did exactly that. It’s like a marathon runner going through hours of pain for the ultimate goal. It’s not that the pain isn’t painful but it’s not much of a sacrifice to endure pain when you know how to zone out and you know you can stop whenever you want to and the pain will instantly vanish. In fact a marathon runner still feels pain even after he stops and for days later. Jesus didn’t even face that.
Consider me even more underwhelmed than when I thought the sacrifice was the dying. Any pro athlete has gone through more pain than Jesus, with less ability to control it, for less reward and with far less certainty of victory at the end.
I appreciate that, I’m just pointing out that the explanation is unsatisfactory to me. Like if you said that Frodo and and Sam were gay lovers and that was why Sam gave up the ring. I could say that the explanation is unsatisfactory and seems totally at odds with what the authors actually wrote and what they said they believed.
How is even that a sacriifice for a God though? I don’t doubt he felt pain, but he had the ability to turn it off whenever he wanted. And indeed at the end he did exactly that. It’s like a marathon runner going through hours of pain for the ultimate goal. It’s not that the pain isn’t painful but it’s not much of a sacrifice to endure pain when you know how to zone out and you know you can stop whenever you want to and the pain will instantly vanish. In fact a marathon runner still feels pain even after he stops and for days later. Jesus didn’t even face that.
Consider me even more underwhelmed than when I thought the sacrifice was the dying. Any pro athlete has gone through more pain than Jesus, with less ability to control it, for less reward and with far less certainty of victory at the end.
Doggonit, Blake, you’ve convinced me to come into yet another religion thread. A few things on the subject of pain.
No pro athlete has ever gone through the pain that Jesus went through. To understand this, you must realize that the Romans used the cross as the most painful torture available*. First, there’s the crown of thorns. It punctured the skin in the head right at the temple (among other places), right where there are lots of nerve endings. Second, there’s the obvious whipping and stab with a spear, neither of which can feel good. Third, nails go into the hand, where the muscle can hold a couple hundred pounds- but it’s about as painful as anything a human can experience. Third, hanging by the arms is not a sustainable position. Death generally came by slow loss of oxygen. Now, I only run a max. 7 or so miles (not the marathons), but if it involved anything like that, I would never even stand up again. So pro athletes have the advantage; it’s less painful and they can stop. They might get booed or told off by their coach, but they can surrender.
Second, what many people don’t realize is that Jesus was fully God and fully man, meaning he had most of the limitations of being human, even while having the perfection of God. Jesus could not see into the future as if it were right now. He certainly could not turn off pain (where did you get that from?). He also did not “want” to be executed, as is demonstrated by his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, which may be summarized thus: “Father, I don’t want to go die, but if that’s your will, you’re the boss, so I’ll submit to it.” He knew he had to die, and why, but that couldn’t have been much of a pain-killer. However, the willingness is also important; to be the perfect sacrifice, Jesus had to go onto the cross with a fully willing heart. I maintain that there is a subtle difference between wanting to be a sacrifice and being a sacrifice with a willing, even joyful heart.
You also seem to be missing the disgrace involved. When God’s only son is beaten, laughed at, and ultimately killed, that’s a major sacrifice. God gave up his rightful sovereignty, just for a moment, so that we could be forgiven. That’s an awfully big deal.
Note: I consider “It is finished” an observation, rather than a declaration. Jesus didn’t decide that his sacrifice was large enough, he simply knew that it was.
Interesting. Borges wrote a story about a theologian who figures out that Judas was actually the Christ, because he performed the ultimate sacrifice–he is spending an eternity in hell, and his name is reviled forever. But it would violate God’s plan if the theologian were able to propogate his theory, so at the end I think the theologian dies with his secret.
true, but lots of people have been tortured and gone through worse pain. I dont see how the quantity of pain has anything to do with the sacrifice.
No idea what that statement means if it means anything at all.
How do you know either is true or not true?.
Sounds more like a man who was deified by man than a real god but that is just my opinion
Is it? Why? Gave up his sovereignty? What does that mean? You only give something up truely if it means you cant take it back
Sorry, your post is one of the reasons I left any vestiges of christianity behind. Full of half meaningful statements that evaporate when you try and work out what they are trying to say
For me, the sacrifice was in the giving of free moral will. The crucifixion was not just a symbol, but an event in which humanity exercized its free moral will. It isn’t that Jesus suffered more than any other man ever had or ever would, but that He was punished for the sin of heresy when He was in fact a sinless man. The reason that giving free moral will is a sacrifice is that those who choose to reject God may do so freely, and God cannot ever take them back against their will. His loss is therefore permanent. And since He loves perfectly, the loss is immeasurable.
If the “sacrifice” was only temporary(and according to the story as written, it was), and if God could stop it, or even avoid it at any time(and the very definition of omnipotence means that you have to accept this conclusion), then it wasn’t a “sacrifice” at all. There is a term for people who participate in events of this sort willingly-masochists. It wasn’t even proper sado-maochism, since we supposedly had no choice whatsoever in our participation.
Some here seem to be looking for a logical, scientific explanation of a religious belief. Why? It’s a matter of faith, not of reason. Christ suffered and died on the cross, according to Christian theology. His death was the sacrifice. This isn’t an episode of “CSI”. Besides, it parallels the Abraham/Isaac story of the OT, only this time God didn’t stay the hand that slayed the son, His own son. For God so loved the world…
