Without the resurrection all of Jesus’ teachings would be as worthless as any other man, what He taught would have just lead to death, again like any other man’s. and their would be absolutely no reason to follow Him. His resurrection shows that what He taught did lead to the resurrection from death.
The sacrifice is much bigger then it first appears IMHO. This goes into my personal experience, Jesus lives in us and bears our pains as well as His.
Is that due to your reasoned research and investigation, or your ignorance of the subject?
When/what did I say I didn’t understand?
I misread your saying the reasons not being succinct as not getting them. Could you fill us in, then?
Neglecting the issue of how much a deity suffers from our pains, how does him being murdered have anything to do with this? Could he ascend directly without dying? As I said, he already proved that he could conquer death. If he wanted to prove something, he could also have returned in a way that more than a small circle of friends would have noticed. It is true that at the time they thought he was coming back real soon now, as he claimed, but since it turned out he didn’t. maybe showing up in front of someone who wrote it down might have helped?
Kanicbird, you seem to be missing the point. The crucifixion and the resurrection were two seperate events - you’re switching back and forth between them as if they were one.
You quoted Corinthians as saying that the resurrection was the key point. If so, then was the crucifixion necessary? If Jesus had died of natural causes and risen from the dead after that, would it have been the same as his dying on the cross?
So you’re saying that without the proof, his teachings and sacrifice alone wouldn’t have been enough. But doesn’t this mean that proof is needed? That faith alone is not sufficient?
Actually I believe He has returned many many times, at the end of ages, which IIRC are about 70 years, there is a harvest of the earth, where Jesus comes for those who believe in Him. This stretches back IMHO to OT times as well. The story is the same, the plagues of Exodus are that of Revelation, it is the same pattern over and over.
The reason Jesus must die is summed up in John 15:13
“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
It is the ultimate, the King of Kings laying down His life for His people, refusing to spread violence by taking by force, but to put a end to suffering for everyone forever.
He relied on the Father being just, and Jesus did not know for sure the result:
Just that the Father is in control and the Father’s will will be done, and I would assume that Jesus just Loved us that He was just following the path of Love.
The Jews had a long experience with sacrifice[s] as part of their worship. Up until that time all sacrifices (for sin atonement etc) had been animal sacrifices. All of these sacrifices were quite specific both in their execution (no pun intended) and their purpose.
Now without regard to whether any of this is true, or nonsense, it is clear that the Church Paul led considered the sacrifice by/of Jesus to be one of [essentially] atoning for Adamic sin.
In Paul’s theology (and if this constituted a divide from Jesus is another discussion) Jesus was a “corresponding ransom”, or a “propitiatory sacrifice”, or “mediator” between man and God.
Paul et al considered Jesus’s death to be consistent with the concept/practice of sacrifice that Jews had known for centuries.
This time, however, the stakes are/were much higher. Adam was without sin; perfect. With Eve they constituted the first human couple, and were born without sin. Presumably they were to be the original parents for all human kind.
Yet they rebelled. As a result, all humans “inherited” sin and were [figuratively] condemned as a result. They were as kanicbird put it “separated” from God.
As a perfect man----born without sin------Jesus was uniquely qualified to answer for Adam’s sin. A perfect life----Jesus’s-----was given in behalf of all Adam’s descendants to answer for the perfect life of Adam, the rebel.
In short, Jesus “covered over” the sins of Adam, and provided mankind a means of 'reconciliation" to God. IOW, we incurred the debt of sin----and the certain death that comes from it----and Jesus came and paid our bill.
These texts are not entirely infrequent, arcane or obscure. Clearly the NT identifies the death and resurrection of Jesus as freeing man of the condemnation of Adamic sin.
Yes, the crucifixion was needed as it was the lowest form of death, incurring a curse in itself, and leaving a person/soul rejected by man and God - literally lifted up suspended between heaven and earth. Jesus had to suffer that.
No as pointed out above.
If Jesus said that he would be raised from the dead, and He is the way, and Jesus did not get raised, Jesus has proven Himself not to keep His word.
.
Reason alone is sufficient, but research and investigation haven’t turned up any other way for this to work.
We have two points where Jesus may have saved humanity in some way: his death and his ressurection. We’ll take these one at a time.
So. What is the function of Jesus functioning and/or dying? What does it cause, and what is the mechanism by which this comes about? Well, there’s only one mechanism that a sacrifice functions through - by pleasing the god it’s a sacrifice to. There are two mechanisms this can function through; pleasing the god directly by the sacrifice itself, or pleasing him that his servants are sufficiently devoted as to suffer loss just on his say-so.
In the first case, God ‘eats’ the sacrifice, enjoys the flavor and taste and smell, and is made happy. If this is the argument, then God is bloodthirsty - kind of scary. Even put as charitably as possible, blood and pain become a currency that God trades in; you pay in blood and buy a reward. In theory this could work - though it’s a sick, sick god that trades in pain. If we choke this down, though, we can continue: skip down to “10”, below.
In the second case, the people killing Jesus weren’t showing devotion to God in doing so - Jesus even feared that God would be wrathful towards them for killing him, asking for their forgiveness. This leaves only the possibility that Jesus himself was the one making the sacrifice (which can be reasonably argued), and with his own death was earning the favor. This works reasonably well: goto 10.
10: We now have a god that’s been pleased by the sacrifice of Jesus, and then proceeds to forgive humanity. But wait - this means that God could have chosen to forgive humanity anytime. The sacrifice of Jesus didn’t enable the event; it just prodded God to do what a good God would have done right off the bat. This is consistent with the jealous and angry bronze age tribal diety that God originally was, but not with any benevolent diety such as the one he’s been whitewashed and painted as being now. And even if we choke that down, we’re still left with there being nothing particularly special about the Jesus sacrifice; nothing about the sacrifice itself changed humanity’s state.
Looking at the ressurection helps even less - I’ve heard no explanations of how it was supposed to cause salvation. I’ve heard it’s a symbol of salvation, or a proof of or demonstration that Jesus had the ability to transcend death - but then even if he hadn’t done it, he still had the ability to transcend death, or he couldn’t have ressurected himself. And there is of course no causal connection between Jesus rising from the dead and the rest of humanity’s relationship with God changing; that just doesn’t make sense. I honestly see nothing here to make an argument based on; somewhat disturbingly the best argument I see for it here is kanicbird’s that once he said he would do it, he had to do it, or else become a liar. (Though I’m not sure how it matters if he’s a liar.) Regardless, in that case he only had to be reborn because he shot his mouth off beforehand; kind of a flimsy pillar to balance a salvation on.
Probably the best non-classic argument I’ve heard justifying Jesus’s claimed role as a salvational figure is that only by living on earth and suffering and dying did he acquire the sympathy to be able to argue our case before God as an intercessor. The thing about this scenario, though, is that it presumes that God doesn’t understand our pain, which is a problem for both the sparrow-falling diety, not to mention omniscience, which is a lot to throw out of the God definition just to justify the Jesus thing.
Very nice post Begbert2. I especially like how you use the conventions of BASIC, a computer language and hence pure logic, in your logical deconstruction of the whole silly mess.
To add, since Begbert2’s post was far better reasoned than anything I was going to write, we must consider the most significant sacrifice in the Bible up to this point - that of Isaac. The significance of this is that Abraham was willing to give up the most important thing he had, his son, at God’s command. I suppose it could be argued that God was willing to give up his son for mankind.
But there are two problems. First, God did not need Isaac, and was satisfied with the ram in the thicket. By this analogy God did not need Jesus as a sacrifice, and in a sense Jesus survived the experience, just as Isaac did. The difference is that Abraham acted unaware that he was going to get a break, while God obviously knew just what was going to occur.
I think kanicbird’s best argument is that Jesus did not know he was going to be resurrected, and thus gave up something valuable. But he predicted it, and if he was not as sure as he sounded he was either lying or stretching the truth - which would make him less than perfect, and so which is unlikely. So Jesus did know he would return. Now, he did suffer, but as suffering in those days went it wasn’t much, since he was put out of his misery early because of the holiday. So, as I’ve heard it put, Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins.
But the critical item is the one touched on - why God needs a sacrifice. He gave up the greater one for a lesser one in the Isaac story. Why not, as I learned, allow people who honestly atone be written in the book of life? Why condemn 40 generations or so of his chosen people to whatever punishment they’d supposedly get for not being saved - not to mention the gentiles for whom no commandment to convert was ever issued. A cruel God I can see, but this is a self-contradictory and irrational one.
The whole idea is that, while Jesus sacrificed himself, he didn’t do it for himself. He was already sinless. He didn’t need to please God. The idea is that God is the giver of life, and that sin means not accepting that life. Therefore, by sinning, you’re killing yourself. The death of Jesus is a loophole, because he allows himself to die without committing sin, therefore taking on all the sins of the world.
The reason why Jesus assumed God would be mad at the people crucifying him was because he knew their motives: they weren’t doing it in order to remove their sins, they were doing it because they were worried he was a troublemaker. One of the core tenants of Christianity is that it is the motive, not the action, that counts.
In other words, according to Christianity, your assumptions for the reason for the sacrifice are invalid.
You were doing great until the last sentence, which doesn’t make a lick of sense. The death of jesus is a loophole in what? How does it become a loophole in…whatever it’s loopholing? How does an innocent dying break the system? Why doesn’t every infant that dies do it? What about the abortions - we can kill 'em before they have minds now, that’s about as innocent as you can get!
Seriously, I’m looking for a mechanism, because there are only two ways this can go: “There is a rational reason why the specific act of an innocent man dying changes the way things work”, or “God is unbounded by rationality, reason, and sanity”. I’m kind of looking for the former, if for no other reason than that if there was no particular reason why jesus’s death deactivated our sin, then there’s no reason why the death of a fly next week won’t turn it back on.
In all seriousness, this is a whoosh, right?
I think the point he’s making is that death is a result of original sin. Therefore Jesus, being sinless, would not die unless he chose to allow it. All the rest of us have to die because of original sin so our deaths can’t be sacrifices - you can’t sacrifice eternal life if you don’t have it in the first place. But the loophole was that Jesus didn’t have to die so he could make a sacrifice of his death.
I don’t see how doing something that could have been avoided is a “loophole”. If I replace my computer before I must replace it, is that a loophole in something too?
Can you elaborate on how that takes on the sins of the word, or that a “mysterious ways” thing? Because I don’t see it.
Revtim &
The transfer of salvation to us from Jesus is in
Adam died (accepted death) to be with Eve, Jesus died to be with His bride, which is the church (which is all believers), but Jesus has the power to overcome death. In marriage the 2 become 1, so believers become one with Christ and inherent eternal life because of their union with Christ. This is also the reason that traditional vows have the woman submit to the man, and why the woman takes the name of the man, we submit to Jesus and we get to use His name and His power with his full authority (unfortunately many (human) marriages neglect this full authority transfer from the male to the female, not giving her full authority to act on their behalf in his name represses women, which is not waht God shows us).
It is the marriage, we become one person with Jesus that frees us.
As for infants and abortions, that is another subject, and yes many suffer but God will deliver them.
Here’s an example. It’s wartime and the country is drafting people. I have a low draft number and I’m going to be drafted at some point. So I decide to voluntarily enlist - I didn’t sacrifice anything because I knew I was going to have to join the military anyway. You on the other hand have a full exemption. So if you voluntarily enlist, it’s a sacrifice - you’re giving up a civilian life that you were not going to lose.
That’s the way it worked for God. He needed a death as a sacrifice (why he needed it is a seperate issue). But it wouldn’t count as a sacrifice if it was given by somebody who was going to die anyway. God needed somebody who wasn’t going to die to make the sacrifice of their death. Which is the paradox - how can somebody who doesn’t die sacrifice their death? The loophole was that God, who is immortal, could manifest himself as the mortal Jesus and then die.