I believe Jesus Christ existed. I believe he did great, amazing things in his time that transformed the way people worshipped remarkably quickly. I have faith that he was the Son of God, and that his actions here on earth were divinely inspired to provide eternal reward for all mankind.
But I have always been a little fuzzy on what I termed in this thread title as “The Big Transaction.” How did Jesus’ crucifixion ensure our salvation? Why was his torture and death a necessary part of the script? (The resurrection part I get.)
You might say, “It didn’t have to happen. It just worked out that it did, because the powers that were at the time saw Christ as a threat and had him executed.” Except we are told that Jesus was well aware of the fate that awaited him. There are many allusions in the Bible that God more or less considered Jesus not just a teacher for us all, but a sacrifice for us all.
It’s that part I don’t fully get.
One theory that I’ve kicked about - It wasn’t (isn’t) God that was fixated on sacrifice; it was man that was. Because man was used to that form of showing reverence, the life and death of Jesus was transformed by man into a story of ultimate sacrifice. When maybe God’s intention was, “I’m going to change the way things are with the people I have created. And I’m going to take human form and go down and teach them and ring the bell for the new way things are going to be.”
If you disagree, please explain to me your thoughts on how “the blood of Christ” is what gives us salvation?
I wish I had more time to better research this and provide specific references but I’m at work and have limited time so here’s my best shot:
Prior to Jesus man had to have specific sacrifices to atone for his sins and to regain favor with God. (Read the first 5 books of the Bible for more detail than you will ever want on this.) This is often referred to as ‘the old covenant’. Jesus came and served as a human sacrifice… the ultimate sacrifice. He served as the sacrifice for all sins so that man would no longer have to offer sacrifices to God. This is referred to as ‘the new covenant’. Because of Jesus’s death we (Christians) no longer have to have ritual sacrifice to atone for our sins.
(some of the very eloquent and informed Jewish persons may be able to give more informed details on this – for me it is pretty much casual research) I have heard they there are several groups of people in modern Israel just waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt so that they can begin the sacrifices again – exactly as outlined in the first part of the OT. In essence they don’t recognize the ‘new covenant’ so they still abide by the ‘old covenant’.
I hope that this somewhat clear and accurate – anyone please feel free to elaborate or correct where necessary.
(ironically) NP: Black Sabbath – Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Exodus 24:4-8
[/quote]
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
That I’ve read, Libertarian. I guess I was wanting to understand more about why the crucifixion was a crucial component other than, “Because God (and/or The Bible) says so.”
Why didn’t God just decide to create this new covenant, come down in human form (Jesus) to teach it, then provide further proof of it by Jesus’ resurrection upon his death, however that may have occurred? I think that’s essentially what happened, but as I said, I’m a bit fuzzy as to why the crucifixion, the Blood of the Lamb, the Lamb of God, etc. etc. is important.
As I noted in this earlier GD thread of mine regarding sacrifices, the whole thing has a vaguely repulsive, barbaric and unsophisticated quality to it, IMO. I think of Fay Wray (or Jessica Lange) tied up for King Kong.
(Upon reviewing that thread, I see I was basically struggling with the same concept then. Must not have been satisfied with you guys’ answers. Oh well, it’s been awhile, anyway.)
opengrave is correct as to Jewish sacrifice, but I believe the Christains took a somewhat different view. Their contention was that after Adam and Eve sinned man was plagued with everlasting sin (original sin is what they call it). Basically God was upset with man from then on and even tried to eliminate man with the flood. Then He tried choosing a people that would represent him and take his word to all the other people in the world. These people, the Jews, did have sacrifice but some of the prophets such as Amos said God was not happy with the sacrificeshttp://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Amo&chapter=5&verse=22&version=kjv.
When it became clear that his plan wasn’t working God decided he had to do something (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=3&verse=16&version=kjv). It is important to note that there is disagreement as to when the mission of Jesus began. John says Jesus was there in the beginning http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#1. Matthew and Luke say that it was with the birth of Jesus. Mark says it is when Jesus is baptised by John and Paul says it was when he was crucified (i.e. nothing Jesus said or did before the sacrifice was of any importance to Paul**).
The idea is that Jesus suffered for our sins so that we can have everlasting life. Of course, that overlooks the question of why a Loving God would demand such a thing. At one time the church believed that it was a payment that God made to the devil. That idea was abandoned long ago and today you just aren’t supposed to question the idea that everyone needs to be saved from their sins and moreover we cannot earn it. It is a gift from God (Amazing Grace).
I personally feel that this is why fundies are so insistant on the story of creation. Without original sin the idea of Christainity falls apart.
**I do not know how to document the fact that Paul said nothing about earlier events during the life of Jesus.
Why did God decide a new covenant was necessary? What was wrong with the old one? What changed, God or Man? Why couldn’t an all-knowing God anticipate these changes? Why would an all-knowing God ever need to change His mind? Why would He regret (repent of) anything He had ever done?
Actually, I think you’ve overlooked a question: How can a Loving God allow evil in the paradise He has prepared for us?
Milossarian
You might not know this, but I am actually a great admirer of yours who mostly lurks in threads where you post, but who always considers you to be a great thinker and an interesting and intriguing man. Please believe that I did not mean to imply your ignorance of the passages I cited, but thought that perhaps seeing them juxtaposed with a re-read might give new insight. I know that often I will see new things in something that I’ve reviewed over and over, simply because a new context is presented and new meaning arises.
I can understand why, in this age of computer graphic wars, the naked nature of physical death and suffering might be seen as repulsive or barbaric. But there is nothing barbaric about laying down your life for a friend. In fact, it is the greatest love you can have for him, and at special times, we honor those who laid down their lives for us in noble battles. We honor Jesus for the same reason. In God’s battle with evil, Jesus took upon Himself all the evil that there is, and then flung Himself onto the grenade. It is a good, not a bad, thing. A noble, not a barbaric, thing. And because of it, we are left with a covenant of Love.
**
This is exactly what I’ve heard my entire life. I just have difficulty with why the equation works: J+S+D=ES (Jesus + suffering + death = eternal salvation)
Libertarian:
Thank you very much for your compliment. And I didn’t mean to imply that what you posted wasn’t helpful, or was insulting. My only point is that the “book version” has always left me desiring more understanding on the sacrificial, transactory aspect of Christ’s crucifixion.
And your latter comments in your second post is probably the best explanation I’ve heard yet. Although I wouldn’t say it’s the idea of suffering and death that seems so barbaric in this day and age; it’s the idea of sacrifice - suffering, death and blood, on an altar, as worship.
But upon reflection, I note that suffering (or at least denial of self-gratification) is still practiced by the devoutly religious of almost all sects to this day.
So he figures out a loophole: Someone has to pay for our sins . . . but it doesn’t necessarily have to be us.
He slpinters off a piece of himself, the Christ, to live as a man, be brutally tortured and executed, and spend three days suffering in Hell, taking the punishment for our sins.
The fact that Christ was “pure” (i.e. sinless), and went to the cross voluntarily, makes his sacrifice all the greater.
From then on, as long as we play by the rules and show Christ proper gratitude, God allows us to get into Heaven on Christ’s buddy pass.
I think that the sacrifice was more to show what Jesus would do in such a situation. Jesus throughout his life mostly taught, and the sacrifice was at least partially to show that Jesus would actually do what he had taught.
I’ll keep this short because I do NOT want to get in a protracted debate over religious issues with anyone.
I think perhaps Libertarian’s got a good chunk of it with his laying down ones life for others idea, but a couple other possibilities spring to mind:
What better way to teach people what jerks they are than by becoming human, being Good, getting yourself crucified for it by the people, and the idiots in power, and then coming back from the dead and STILL not griping about how we are all a bunch of hopeless losers.
Perhaps God needed to experience the full range of human weaknesses before he could work out how to forgive us for them. Before anyone starts the “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent” chant on this one, recall that God created the world for a purpose, which implies he uses tools to achieve his ends, which implies that there are practical limits even to omniscience…
You can read some previous posts on the nature and necessity of the crucifixion in Why would God sacrifice Himself…? and Christianity and Love (about halfway down the page I start a very lengthy back-and-forth with our Friend FriendofGod re the justice and need for substitutional sacrifice).
That would be a very good point if I believed that God prepared a paradise for us. Actually I believe in evolution and therefore that what you see is what He prepared for us.
There are many ways to pay for sin from regret to spending eternity in hell. But your point is valid.
Read the OT for many cases to dispute that, but for now I’ll settle for the book of Job
You started off saying that “we gotta pay for our sins.”, and now God has changed his mind?
Never heard about the splintering action and I believe that the suffering was done on the cross. He descended into Hell so that he could get people like Adam, Eve, Moses, the prophets and others who were to be taken to Heaven (he went to Limbo, which is a part of Hell). I don’t know of any protestant churches that believe in that though.
Matt 19:17"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." This to me says that Jesus was not sinless and that he is not part of a trinity.
Probably if it is said in the bible that Jesus was sinless it was Paul who used the word “sin” 91 times compared to Jesus using it 9 times. I would like to know where it is said though if you know.
You cannot get to Heaven by your works, only by accepting Jesus as your savior, so that is the only rule you have to abide by.**
[/QUOTE]
I, too, “believe in” evolution, as do many people of faith.
But you are skirting the issue if you say that a particular point about God would be fine if only you believed, while another particular point is fine because you don’t believe. In other words, you allow yourself to hypothesize that there is a flaw in the faith, since, by your reckoning, it leaves a question unanswered. But you will not allow an argument against your hypothesis that exposes your unanswered question as a red herring and raises a question of its own. Is this fair debate in your view?
Of course, not all Christians agree that Jesus’ death was a vicarious atonement for our sins. Luke, for instance, seems to disagree with such a position. Compare:
Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Mark 10:45
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
No comparable verse is in Luke, even though Luke obviously knew of such verse, working with at least Mark and possibly Matthew as a source.
Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24
And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Luke 22:20
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Again, while Luke recognizes the New Covenant, he denies that blood must be shed for forgiveness of sins. The grammar is a bit tricky, but I consulted several translations and Luke appears to change the sentence to indicate that the New Covenant is through the blood of Communion, not the subsequent shedding of blood on the cross.
I’m not a Christian, but I think rather the equation goes:
Sin = Death(of your soul, AKA Hell)/seperation from God, etc
Sin + Imperfect Blood Sacrifce (IE A lamb, a calf)=temporary freedom from Death(of your soul…not your body)/not being separated from God. But you haveto sacrifice regularly, since you keep sinning and an imperfect sacrifice only washes away the old sins, and you keep accumulating new ones.
Sin + Unblemished Blood Sacrifice(AKA Jesus)=Permanant Freedom from Death(of your soul)/permanatly with God AND freedom from having to do more blood sacrifices since a perfect sacrifice washes away all sins, past and future.
For me, the question is "Why did God set up the rules such that it takes blood to expiate sin in the first place?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**kniz
Actually, I think you’ve overlooked a question: How can a Loving God allow evil in the paradise He has prepared for us?**
O.K. Libertarian here is an answer for you.
The god that created everything whether it included the Garden of Eden or not must have been an inferior god since he didn’t create the paradise that we all deserve. This god had some of the genes of The True God but these had been diluted and polluted (sounds like Jesse). So what this inferior god created was not perfect and we are suffering the consequences.
Later The True God (also called the Unknown God because he doesn’t have anything to do with humans directly) told his assistant to send a messanger. The messanger was Jesus and he told us the way to live and his death had nothing to do with suffering for our sins.
You’re entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion, them apples have nothing to do with the paradise He created for us. What we think is our “life” is nothing but a fart in the wind. True Life begins when we find Love, and then it never ends.