Did Jesus really die for our sins?

Great Debates
21

God the Father: Listen, kid. Here’s the plan. They’re gonna arrest you, run you through three kangaroo-court trials. They’ll whip you 39 times. Then you get to carry your cross up the hill, and they’ll hang you on it. They’ll put a crown of thorns on your head. They’ll drive nails through your hands/wrists and feet/ankles, and suspend you so you need to do pullups to even breathe. They’ll stab you in the side. Everybody will mock you, with a few exceptions. Toward the end, you’ll think I’ve abandoned you. And when you run out of strength to do those pullups using your wounded hands and feet, you’re gonna die. But don’t worry; the Cavalry is coming. I’ve got a surprise for them…on the third day, you come back to life!!

Jesus: Well, OK, if you say it’ll work out all right in the end…
What the whole Crucifixion thing proves is faith. Would you have the kind of trust to go through with that, on that bare promise?

Jesus did, by every account we have.

22

You can’t much help absorbing a fair amount of the Bible if you live in America, and I was no doubt helped by reading The Children’s Bible in the dentist’s office and Uncle Arthur’s Bedtime Stories (horrible treacly religious stuff) at Grandma’s. I have read the Bible, too, just not all of it (I think). And I know how to run a word-search at the Bible sites if I have some foggy idea of the words or phrases used in the bit I remember. :slight_smile:

23

Well, Poly, if I was God myself and knew it would work out, and that it was necessary to save the lives of every human being that ever lived, I sure hope I would. I am not saying His sacrifice was nothing, but simple humans willingly suffer and die–some die for forever, as far as they know–for their loved ones, or their country, or their ideals.

24

I agree with Gaudere. It was not the death that was remarkable, but the resurrection.

25

I gotta agree with Poly. Jesus was separated from God when he was on the earth. Sure, he may have felt the ressurection was a given (is this alluded to in the Old Testament?), but still his willingness to sacrifice himself was an act of faith, IMHO. You might recall he really didn’t want to go through with it (if this cup might pass from my hands…).

26

Mr. or Ms. Mullaney also has a point. The atoms can be quite a compelling illusion.

27

Oh, I agree it was an act of faith–if Jesus did not have God’s omniscience at the time, and was simply extremely certain that He would be resurrected–it’s just that humans sometimes sacrifice their lives for less reward and often with no hope of resurrection. Look at a person who dies to protect their loved one, or suffers torture and death to preserve their country or dreams. Do these people have more faith than God Himself had? They are willing to give up all they have for the sake of a beloved person or ideal.

28

Yes, Lib, it is Mister.

Gaudere – I think I would call those examples ones of love more than faith, while Jesus was an example of both.

And, if this whole thread is another hit-and-run from the LDMB (sp?) what the heck is their address so I can go raise some hell over there for a change?

29

“So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. Make love your aim…” But anyhow. They have faith that their sacrifice will be meaningful yet perhaps no faith in their resurrection, while Jesus had faith that His sacrifice would be meaningful and faith in His resurrection. Would Jesus have done it if He had not had faith in His resurrection? Some of us mortals are brave enough to do so…

No, I doubt this was a Pounder (LBMBer) drive-by. They tend to post a few Bible verses, tell us all we’re going to hell unless we believe JC died for us, sometimes ask how we can have morals if we don’t believe in God (that last one has become, in my personal opinion, the “gry” question of Great Debates), then run off. They don’t usually question the Bible or our possible salvation. (And I counsel you against trolling on any message board.)

30

LOL. OK, no trolling.

Anyway, Jesus had faith despite the inevitability of his death. He also had faith in his life, and he led others to believe as he did. Certaintly if he was wrong not only would he end up dead-dead, but everyone he’d ever loved and many of those who followed his teachings for countless generations would end up dead-dead too, and many would probably martyr themselves quite pointlessly and it would all be his fault. I think that would be a little stressful.

The best things Jesus did was to:

a) justify the faith lifestyle, which some might describe as “lazy” otherwise (although no one has brought this up here)
b) give Christians a nice easy get-out-of-cruxifiction free card in most cases – the “I’m just repeating what Jesus said, you aren’t against Jesus are you?” approach.

31

JMULLANEY says:

I don’t understand this. Could you please explain what you mean by “the faith lifestyle” and “a nice easy get-out-of-cruxifiction-free card”? Thanks.

32

(following example taken from an episode of Gomer Pyle)
Well, look. Let’s say you have a couch. A nice couch, you would prefer not get rained on or stolen, big enough that you can’t exactly carry it around with you. Because you have this couch, you need some place, like a small apartment or a house, to keep it in. Now, let’s presume, for argument’s sake, that you do not own a house or a condo or whatever, and do not have government bonds that generate a revenue which would cover all rent / mortgage / and tax payments. So, in general, you then need to get employment for money in order to pay for the apartment in which you are storing the couch. Which, depending on your education and/or location, your generally talking about 40 or more hours a month work in order to pay for said apartment to pay to house said couch. Now, you may of course decide you want a car to get to and from your place of work, and insurance on the car, perhaps even electricity, a phone, cable, and so on (man does not live by bread alone) – oh, and of course, as you are tied to going to this job, you will not have time to get food by Christian means and as such would have to buy that also. Before you know it you are working 168 hours a month to provide for said couch.

Then you meet someone who does not have a couch. So, since they do not have a couch, they don’t need an apartment, or a car, and thus they do not need to work for money, but can, for example, devote their time working for God. They have 168 hours a month more free time to figure out how to get food without buying it, thus need have nothing to do with money what-so-ever.

Most people would regard the second person as lazy, all because the person doesn’t own a couch.

As for the get-out-of-crucifixion-free, I was kind of kidding – but these people with couches do tend to get a bit jealous from time to time. And they also get mad should a Christian point out that, because they have this couch which they adore so, they are, according to Christian teaching, dead and waiting to die. I would think Christians trying to make this argument on their own authority would get themselves in the same kind of trouble with the authorities Jesus did, and not that you won’t be thrown in prison for being a Christian in many countries anyway, at least in the Western world, you have a good chance of living freely.

33

I’m afraid I still don’t understand this. The couch is supposed to be what, exactly? A different faith system? A belief that good works are necessary for salvation? What? I’m still interested in knowing what you mean by a “faith lifestyle” – not through analogy but in plain old English – and how you think Jesus “justified” that “lifestyle.” (And I’m not putting words in quotes to be aggravating, but to indicate the terms you use that I don’t understand.) I mean, the Bible itself recognizes that a person engaged in a spiritual search might be resented by someone who is not, or who does not understand – witness the the story of Mary and Martha. Is that what you were talking about? I have no argument with it, of course (if in fact that’s what you’re getting at); I’ve just never considered it a particular accomplishment of Jesus’s to “justify” this, nor do I consider the search of spiritual enlightenment (at the expense of worldliness) to be particularly or singularly “Christian.”

As far as Christian teaching holding that a person having a “couch” is dead or waiting to die, obviously I’ll have to have some idea of what you intend the couch to mean before I can understand that.

34

A divan, a chesterfield. An article of furniture for sitting or reclining.

In a way. There’s the way, and there’s the wrong way.

If you rob a bank, and then give the money back, is that (in total) a good work, a bad work, or do you pretty much break even? Is that what you mean? Then no, it is not necessary to rob banks in order to have salvation – however, it is important to stop sinning and repent of the sins you have committed.

You already have your answer. It is freedom from want and freedom from sin.

By living a life free from sin, he gave Christians an example to follow which they can point to in their defence.

An exellent example.

The important thing is to listen to Christ’s teachings.

You’d be amazed how people frown upon this. And it is not a question of spiritual enlightenment but of keeping Christ’s teachings. And of course it is particularly Christian – it is what Christ taught. I suppose there are other religions which are ascetic and non-monastic and says to do otherwise is evil, but none come immediately to mind.

Isn’t it terrible? What people are willing to trade for eternal life! Not that I’m any better myself, but some people actually want eternal life and to love god and their neighbor. :shrug:

35

jmullaney paraphrased Gomer Pyle:

Um … you mean Christians are supposed to grow or hunt all of their own food?

36

Lordy, Christians and their theology! ::shaking head::
Look folks, …

Approx 2000 years ago, slighly less, or so the legend goes, there was a fellow born into the Jewish religion. On the one hand, this was most definitely not a “separation of church and state” kind of era; on the other hand, the boot of the conqueror, in this case the Romans, was rather loosely placed upon them: the Jewish folk and their traditions and courts and councils and whatnot were welcome to run things on a day-to-day basis (mainly because the Roman gov would just as soon not have to mess with it all, aside from which it probably made the general populace more tractable and less sullen), but at any time could be overruled by Roman authority for whatever Roman reasons seemed appropriate. Now, since the boot of the conqueror was a recurring fixture in Jewish history, and history, like politics, was not separable from religion, there were theological implications for their situation and for any and all possible reactions to it. The arrival of a great leader, another Moses, let’s say, to bring them to freedom, would have fit rather well.

Now, Judaism’s answer to the old question “What God wants y’all to do” took the form of the Law, which included everything from your basic Ten of Mt. Sinai fame to lots of Leviticus stuff that took the form “And if ye shall do this here thing, thou shalt do this here thing for this many days and then make this here offering at the temple”.

Against this background, Jesus of Nazareth made a name for himself and stirred folks up, pro and con, by making essentially the following assertions:

  • Way too many Jewish folks are attributing to themselves a lot of righteousness by doing up Judaism as recipe-following, i.e., obeying the letter of the laws that they find easy to obey and pointing it out, but conveniently overlooking the less convenient laws and, in particular, not being particularly good neighbors to their fellow Jews in these troubled times. Kinda like Isaiah in all this.

  • The Law, while sacred and of central importance, should not be comprehended as follow-the-rules-blindly; it is instead the putting into words of something that could be summarized as “implement God’s overall wish, which is ‘Love your neighbor and your God as your self; forgive wrongs done to you; share what you have’”. So if what you do is in any way contradictory to this, or fails to follow this, it is wrong even if (by some possible interpretation) it is permitted, excused, or even mandated by the Law as written. This was controversial then and is still a controversial issue now (whether morality can be codified or is ‘situational’).

  • He said “I speak these things as the Son of God”, a particularly emphatic way of saying that when you heard him, you were hearing God. It was a lot stronger than any variation on “I speak as a divinely inspired individual and God told me to tell you these things” and it upset many folks who interpreted it as either “I, as the Son of God, am above you when it comes to the subject of what God wants, so you should believe me without question and kowtow to me on such matters” or, worse, “You can forget about Moses and his burning tree and anything written in the Law, because I am the ultimate source of information about God and am here to replace all that moldy old crappe”, or, yet worse, “Forget the ‘God’ you have been foolishly worshipping, worship me instead”. But when confronted about this, he pointed out that any Jew can claim (from Psalms 82 I think) to be sons of God although sons with an unfortunate tendency to fail to live up to this legacy. He also said “If you do not see God in what I say and do, don’t follow me blindly, but look and listen and you’ll see that I am in the Father and he is in me”. So we’re back to an interpretation as “Lissen up folks, when you hear me speak, you hear the voice of God telling you what’s up”.

  • He did, on several occasions, place himself in a position where a “spirit of the law” view of his behavior would say he had done righteous things, while a “letter of the law” perspective would find him to be in violation, usually of a relatively petty and arguable thing that had been interpreted by the letter-of-law folk in a certain way. One would assume he had done this deliberately in order to continue to provoke awareness and draw attention to this issue he was trying to stress.

  • Although he had said the “kindgom is not of this world” thing, thereby in essence saying “If you’re hoping I’m gonna be the new Moses and lead us out from under Roman domination, that isn’t my shtick”, it seems likely that any leaderlike Jewish dude with a lot of charisma and a throng following along would worry the Roman occupiers.

CONCLUSION:

Jesus of Nazareth was NOT trying to get hisself killt. He was trying to force the issue about recipe-following and figured no one would blithely put up with seeing him done in by the rigid rule-following folks he was upsetting, yet if they didn’t they would be agreeing, in essence, with his premise that doing what you KNOW is right (and not doing what you KNOW is wrong) must outweigh blind obedience to individual clause and phrase of the written law.

The Romans’ involvement was most likely not part of the plan, and complicated things.

Anyway, depending on your own beliefs about spirit-vs-letter of the law, he was either a perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately wrong-headed deliberate trouble-maker who contrived to provoke a confrontation and had to be disposed of, or else a heroic and brave insurrectionist who was killed in the defense of red tape and unquestioning obedience to rules and regs OR was killed almost by accident by Roman occupiers who didn’t like dudes who manage to attract crowds like he did.

37

Supposed? No, although the Lord helps those who help themselves, of course. I think that statement can be applied to humanity as a whole, right? But most people aren’t Christians, and in so much as the devil chases his own tail anyway, I don’t see any reason not to take advantage of his efforts. Although, there are warnings in the Old Testament admonishing Israel for feeding her prophets just to shut them up – so I suppose one should be wary of too much of a good thing.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Lord’s Prayer?

38

I do like AHunter’s take on things, right up to the last paragraph. Is it too much to ask that J.C. might have been very well aware that he was courting martyrdom, and counted what he had to say and do more important than his earthly life in getting the message across? Even in living memory we have people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King who have done just that, and ended up paying with their lives for what they taught. (Note that both of them thought very highly of him and how he operated.)

The Christian understanding of Jesus is that he was the Second Person of the Trinity, to be sure, but totally human as well. In him, we are told, we see God clearly: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” for example. Of course, this got endowed over the centuries with pilpulim and distinguos that carefully define what the dogma is not saying in saying what it does. And the metaphysical metaphorical Christ that Paul sometimes gets hyped up about seems to have very little to do with the rabbi from Nazareth. But that does not reject the basic concept.

The Baha’is have an interesting gimmick: they see the various religious leaders, including Moses, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed, along with their own Baha`ullah, as “mirrors” of God, making who he is visible to humans. While like any metaphor it has its limits, it does have some virtues in making things clear. (And I think every Moslem and Jew on the board would quickly jump to make the distinction between prophet and God, dear to their hearts, if anybody seriously advocated this view.)

And the question of his supposed rising enters into it too. Now, granted, people don’t stop being dead on any regular basis, and this is recorded only by True Believers 2000 years ago. But some of those guys were pretty clear thinkers, and knew the difference between story and datum. Either they got some sort of mass delusion about this that was important enough to them for them to be martyred in defense of it, allowed an urban legend about someone they knew and loved to spring up during their lifetime and took advantage of it for self-aggrandisement, or something truly extraordinary really did occur.

Joel, haul out that couch and sit down, and get the schmaltzy old “Desiderata” out and read it. Then go do your best, and trust in all-encompassing love to accept it and make up the difference where you fall short. Because I think you’ll find that the couch is stuffed with straw, like the perfectionism you feel you must preach though you’ve found yourself incapable of living up to. Or am I reading your point all wrong?

39

Oh, possibly, but I don’t think so. Because of his death, the message was muddled; rather than force people to realize “Of course this irritating Jesus dude is right; we could stone him to death for technical violation heaped upon technical violation but we can’t stop knowing that in doing so we would be killing a man for doing good things for people, and to do such a thing is wrong”, he hit them up with:

• Oh my God, we went and did it, or did nothing to prevent it, this was a horribly evil thing to do to a fundamentally good person so we are horrible and weak people.

• He is dead and there is no one who can take his place, so all that he was doing comes to a halt and it feels like a horribly futile end to something that seemed meaningful and good.

• What the hell just happened here? He always seemed to know what he was doing and to have a reason for what he did. I would have followed him anywhere, but not to the grave! Now these Romans are running around asking if anyone wants to claim to be a follower of him. What now?

These questions, and their rather awkward and unfortunate resolution in theology, history, and social movement, have greatly overshadowed his original message about letter-vs-spirit. In fact, most of organized Christianity has sort of taken the corpse of the messenger and dipped it in gold plate and taken to the worship of that while ignoring the message itself (aside from a generalized wave-of-the-hand towards being nice to one’s neighbor).

I would say that Jesus of Nazareth and Martin Luther King were both willing to take the risk of martyrdom, but I do not think that either of them had any reason to think that they were more effective dead than alive.

And this whole theological mystical metaphysical stuff about God being required to sacrifice his son before he would be allowed to forgive human sins, and, therefore, the death of Jesus of Nazareth being a Really Good Thing, is downright creepy.

40

I don’t like AHunter’s take on things, right up to the last paragraph. Jesus clearly did not want to die, though he knew when his number was up.

But the idea that all Jesus did was teach people they should follow the spirit of the Law and not merely the letter of the law, while important, misses out on a number of things.

He established the Kingdom of God.

He gave a teaching of how to love your fellow man that was a fulfullment of the ten commmandments.

He provided an example of how to live that love.

He demonstrated that by living a life of faith in God, you can work miracles.

All of which can be proven scientifically with a little personal investigation.

Christianity, despite what people would have you believe, is not a form of Judaism where you can eat pork.

I know that is latin for “something essential” (which immediately makes me suspicious) – but what are you talking about?

I see no reason to bother loving my fellow man. I am willing to, generally, obey the laws of the nation-state in which I live because of fear of worldly retribution. I see no reason to trust in God when virtually no one else does. God is not going to magically make up the difference somehow – I know every day I am working deliberately against his plan and it would be hypocritical of me to say elsewise.

I don’t understand what you mean. I suppose this is some vague allusion to a straw man argument. But I fail to see how my argument is weak or easily confuted. Although it is a long and drawn out argument, it can plainly be shown that not only is following Christ’s teachings in full “loving your neighbor” but it is also the most rewarding course of action for one’s life in this world, my own dissonance not withstanding.

And I don’t intend to preach. This is the Straight Dope and I see no reason not to present the truth in my own little realm of experience.

Of course, I do pity those who wish for eternal life but are too weak to follow what Jesus taught.

And it is a shame about all those who are blind who in turn follow the blind. They always start the argument with “well, I’ve always been taught…” but haven’t a foot to stand on after that. But they go on teaching what they were taught anyway and the cycle is complete.

Not incapable, simply unwilling.

Although just as I pity the weak, I sometimes fear the strong. Those strong in spirit who in this life do follow Jesus sit in judgement over us. If there is a hell, and I must say I don’t know if there is, and should we both die today in our lives of sin, we will probably both achieve the same level of eternal torment. I don’t think that is anything to look forward to.

But I’ve never had a strong notion of an afterlife and I suppose that is my problem. But those who do should take that into consideration.