Was Jesus dying on the cross a meaningful act?

[FriarTed]

@Auntbeast

So they knew about Jesus dying in the old testament?

So much regarding Jesus and the crucifixion strike me as a gigantic, un-fun game of “It is my ball and I make the rules.”

Uh, if there is a God, then it IS His (or Her, just to be PC) ball and He (or She) DOES make the rules.

[Boyo_Jim]

@FriarTed

I didn’t say that. Jesus didn’t just suffer physical death. I said that He paid the price by the time He died physically. He also experienced the real agony of Hell when He cried “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The ‘three days in Hades’ were distinct from His actually experiencing Hell.

And even if physical death cancelled out your sin, all that means is that you would die & not experience any further punishment. That does not mean you would be guaranteed an Afterlife or Immortality or Resurrection. Immortality & Resurrection are in Jesus Christ alone and one must be among His people in order to be guaranteed them. Now, I believe that there will be an Afterlife for all in which all will be graciously offered that opportunity of joining Him, provided they have not knowingly and definitively rejected that offer in this life. I have no way of knowing who is or isn’t in such a condition. All I can advise is not to risk it.

Whoa! You mean JESUS didn’t live a good enough life to go to Heaven, and instead went to Hell? Christ, what chance does anyone else have?

Oh, and who or what did he pay this price for? Did he buy everyone who live up and until his time passage to heaven? Or everyone forever? I remember from Catholic grade school that he “died for my sins”. So what exactly was I supposed to gain? I think that Catholics at that time still kept the concept of original sin, so washing it clean wasn’t it.

[Der_Trihs]

@FriarTed

Uh, if there is a God, then it IS His (or Her, just to be PC) ball and He (or She) DOES make the rules.

But in this context, that DOES make Jesus’s death meaningless, since it was “demanded” by rules that God could have waived at any time.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Luke says that Jesus went to “Paradise” the same day he was crucified. This could still be interpreted to mean that he went to the “good” side of Hades, but it would still also mean that it wasn’t any hardship for him. It was like staying at a luxury hotel for a weekend.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Der_Trihs

But in this context, that DOES make Jesus’s death meaningless, since it was “demanded” by rules that God could have waived at any time.

Possibly God also demanded that it be “meaningful”.

[ashman165]

@Sandwich

The usual way, by assertion. “The ninth god of Sandwich is not omniscient”. Disprove that, if you can, or accept the truth of all you read here!

Slightly more seriously, your tone suggests that you believe that all the gods and goddesses have to be omniscient. Why is that? There are plenty of examples (I’m thinking Norse mythology) which prove that some gods are not omniscient (or at least, not all the time). That’s mighty hard evidence!

Blessings

Sandwich

And yet we’re here talking about the christian ones. I know this because the thread is entitled “Was Jesus dying on the cross a meaningful act?”. It would seem that we’re talking about the Christian gods; unless by chance, you happen to know of another religion in which Jesus is god. So yeah, it simply won’t do to bring up some Norse gods any more than it will to bring Greek gods; they simply aren’t Jesus, and thus are irrelevant.

[ashman165]

@FriarTed

I didn’t say that. Jesus didn’t just suffer physical death.

He enjoyed every minute of it?

[FriarTed]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

A prophet was defined as one who was a sort of “channeler” for God – someone who who could supposedly divine God’s will and communicate it, not necessarily as someone who could predict the future (although they sometimes tried). There are no examples of authentically fulfilled predictive prophecy in the OT. The passage from Isaiah (which is mistranslated, incidentally) was not only not about Jesus, but was not a messianic prophecy at all. In fact, it wasn’t even supposed to be a prediction. It was a poetic rumination about Israel’s past. The “he” is a personification of Israel.

Friar Ted was right that the hymn in question was quoting (a Christian translation of) Isaiah, though.

I think the various exiles and restorations of Israel definitely constitite authentic fulfilled prophecy.

We’ve duked it out on the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 already.

Btw, the footnotes in The Jewish Study Bible (NOT a Messianic Jewish product) admit that some Rabbis over the centuries have regarded Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy.

[FriarTed]

@ashman165

He enjoyed every minute of it?

sigh

He didn’t ONLY suffer physical death…

Blasphemer!

[FriarTed]

@Boyo_Jim

Whoa! You mean JESUS didn’t live a good enough life to go to Heaven, and instead went to Hell? Christ, what chance does anyone else have?

Oh, and who or what did he pay this price for? Did he buy everyone who live up and until his time passage to heaven? Or everyone forever? I remember from Catholic grade school that he “died for my sins”. So what exactly was I supposed to gain? I think that Catholics at that time still kept the concept of original sin, so washing it clean wasn’t it.

You went to Catholic school, but did you pay any attention?

[Little_Nemo]

He also experienced the real agony of Hell when He cried “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

How could God forsake Jesus? Jesus is God.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@FriarTed

I didn’t say that. Jesus didn’t just suffer physical death. I said that He paid the price by the time He died physically. He also experienced the real agony of Hell when He cried “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The ‘three days in Hades’ were distinct from His actually experiencing Hell.

And even if physical death cancelled out your sin, all that means is that you would die & not experience any further punishment. That does not mean you would be guaranteed an Afterlife or Immortality or Resurrection. Immortality & Resurrection are in Jesus Christ alone and one must be among His people in order to be guaranteed them. Now, I believe that there will be an Afterlife for all in which all will be graciously offered that opportunity of joining Him, provided they have not knowingly and definitively rejected that offer in this life. I have no way of knowing who is or isn’t in such a condition. All I can advise is not to risk it.

The only problem that I, as a quasi-Christian, have with this view is that it assumes that all human life on Earth while living is some kind of punishment unto itself, and that the promise of an afterlife (which I believe in, btw, just not under these circumstances) is a promise of a better, less suffering life than the one you are currently living.

[Clothahump]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am curious as to what Jesus understood of his own divinity. Speaking with my GF the other day we discussed how Jesus dying on the cross could be meaningful if Jesus knew full well he was God.

There are some questions that you need to answer first before trying to ask this one.

1. Did Jesus even exist?
2. Did he have supernatural powers of any kind.
3. Does a god of any kind exist?

[cosmosdan]

@Little_Nemo

If you’re going to depart from mainstream Christian belief in a discussion on Jesus, then you should at least mention that you’re doing so. It would be even better if you’d explain how your beliefs differ from the mainstream so people know what you’re discussing. As for a point, this is a thread on beliefs about Jesus so I think it was on-topic.

Evidently you missed the big “Tangent Alert!” title above my post. I guess I should have used a bigger font.

Not only that, in a public discussion board populated by a lot of non Christians you might expect a few posts that don’t relate to mainstream Christian beliefs. So, friend , I think you might expect a little more of yourself rather than suggest I should be explaining anything.
Perhaps on topic to the thread although the thread is about a specific aspect of Jesus rather than beliefs in general. It was pointless in regard to the post you responded to.

[cosmosdan]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’m suggesting it is not as big a deal to do something life threatening when you know you are immortal and eternal (as mainstream Christian belief has him).

I’ve wondered the same thing. When people refer to Jesus death as a sacrifice for us my question is , “how is it a sacrifice?” If you know when you die you’re going to paradise and then rule the universe, what kind of sacrifice is it?

I was only commenting on the possibility of meaning with Jesus as man. Even if he was divine and knew Heaven was waiting for him he might still have been pointing the way by teaching , “You must embrace and live certain eternal principles without fear of the physical repercussions”

MAt 6; 19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

So the point wasn’t whether it led to physical deprivation or even death but the dedication to living the principles regardless of physical consequences. That was also the point of the denial by Peter. He was very dedicated until he felt his life was in danger.

[Sandwich]

@ashman165

And yet we’re here talking about the christian ones. I know this because the thread is entitled “Was Jesus dying on the cross a meaningful act?”. It would seem that we’re talking about the Christian gods; unless by chance, you happen to know of another religion in which Jesus is god. So yeah, it simply won’t do to bring up some Norse gods any more than it will to bring Greek gods; they simply aren’t Jesus, and thus are irrelevant.

Hmmm. Not sure I follow your logic. The Christian gods must all be omniscient because the Norse gods are irrelevant?

And how can any of the gods be irrelevant? They’re gods! You can’t just ignore them? Unless… some of them might be fictional?

Blessings

Sandwich

[tagos]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So Plato was as much a theologian and a fantasist at times as he was a philosopher. So what? How does that make medieval theologians expounding endlessly on “god-men” and magical spirits any less silly than talking about elven swords?

Just want to chip in that I’ll lay any odds you can get a more humane, sensible and consistent guide to living ethically from Lord of the Rings than you can from the farrago of nonsense, interspersed with dreadful crimes touted as ‘just’ and god-ordained as found in the Bible.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sandwich

Hmmm. Not sure I follow your logic. The Christian gods must all be omniscient because the Norse gods are irrelevant?

And how can any of the gods be irrelevant? They’re gods! You can’t just ignore them? Unless… some of them might be fictional?

Blessings

Sandwich

The Christian God is omniscient by definition, just like Hades is a god of the underworld by definition. If he’s not omniscient, he’s not the Christian God.

Ashman wasn’t saying that the Christian God is omniscient because the Norse gods are not, he was saying that your own comparison to the Norse gods is irrelevant because the theological assumptions are different. It is not relevant to Christian theology or Christology what the Norse thought about their own gods, nor is it relevant whether either theology is real or fictional. It’s beliefs that are being compared. The Christian theological premise is that God is omniscient. Any further discussion or debate has to accept that premise, not as objective fact, but as a function of being able to discuss that particular theology. This is especially true in a debate about whether or not a particular theological system is logically consistent with its own premises. As soon as you change the premises, then you’re no longer talking about Christianity.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FriarTed

I think the various exiles and restorations of Israel definitely constitite authentic fulfilled prophecy.

But that passage is not supposed to be a prediction of the future, but a rumination on the past. It’s talking about what has already happened to Israel contemporaneously with authorship. It can’t be a fullfilled prediction of the future because it isn’t trying to say anything about the future.

Btw, the footnotes in The Jewish Study Bible (NOT a Messianic Jewish product) admit that some Rabbis over the centuries have regarded Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy.

I typically see a single medieval Rabbi quoted as saying it might be about the Messiah (but not about Jesus). The vast majority of Rabbinical scholarship does not view the passage as Messianic (and it’s not like you can’t find individual Christian commentators who come up with some unorthorthodox or idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible).

Later Rabbinical commentary is irrelevant anyway. All that matters is what the author intended, and the author did not intend the passage to be either Messianic or predictive, but as a meditation on Israel’s past trevails.

[Little_Nemo]

Evidently you missed the big “Tangent Alert!” title above my post. I guess I should have used a bigger font.

Not only that, in a public discussion board populated by a lot of non Christians you might expect a few posts that don’t relate to mainstream Christian beliefs. So, friend, I think you might expect a little more of yourself rather than suggest I should be explaining anything.

Perhaps on topic to the thread although the thread is about a specific aspect of Jesus rather than beliefs in general. It was pointless in regard to the post you responded to.

I’m pretty sure everyone grasps the fact that Jesus dying on the cross was not a meaningful act to non-Christians. So this discussion was being discussed within the parameters of Christian belief. For the most part.

Writing Tangent Alert! doesn’t qualify as an explanation. If you’re going to depart from mainstream Christianity in a discussion of mainstream Christianity, you should mention the fact. Something like “My opinions don’t follow the mainstream view” would be helpful.