God created Jesus, according to John 3:16, because he loved humans and wanted to give them an “out” from the consequences of their sinful selves. How does Jesus give people an “out”? Apparently by being an impeccable role model and showing us it is possible for a human to live a sinless life. If we live a life like Jesus’s, we’re guaranteed a place in heaven.
(It’s clear to me that the Jesus taught to me in Sunday School wasn’t a normal human, though. Maybe if I could walk on the water and then turn that water into wine–things no human has ever done before–then it would be a cinch for me to never steal grapes at the grocery store or covet someone’s Ipod.)
But would an exempliery life been enough for people to believe that he was the son of God? I say no. Otherwise, there would have been no need for all the miracles. God needed a way to separate Jesus from the false prophets and messiah wannabes of his time, and the magic shows did this. But he also needed an act that would get him in the history books. Crucifixtion and resurrection served that purpose.
So did God purposefully sacrifice his son so that we would believe in him more?
Does that mean Judas and the Roman execution team are not to be villified, since they were only carrying out God’s plans?
Of the handful of things that continually surprise me about Christianity, this question ranks up there fairly high.
The bible is clear as to the reason Jesus had to die: To answer for Adamic sin.
The NT cites for this are neither arcane or obscure. Going back to the OT, the Jews had formal ceremonies for the absolution of sin. In those instances, animal sacrifices were made.
In the NT, Paul repeatedly and directly compares Adam to Christ and states specifically that [the perfect, yet rebelling, life of] Adam was answered by [the perfect, yet integrity keeping life of] Christ.
**
A perfect life for a perfect life.**
No [imperfect] man----and all those born of Adam must be imperfect----could answer for the crimes of the perfect man Adam. Only a perfect man could answer the call. Jesus----because of his love for mankind----accepted the sins of Adam and his offspring via the sacrifice of his perfect human life.
Repeatedly Christ is referred to names like “the last Adam”, the great mediator", and as a “ransom sacrifice.” To leave no doubt, those same texts speak of humankind being held ransom by Adamic sin, and cursed as a result. The same texts speak of Christ as the “redeemer”, “savior” and “ransomer” of the curse of Adamic sin.
I would encourage anyone interested to read the NT. (without regard to whether any of it is true) The fact is this,however; the bible is not unclear as to why Christ ultimately had to die.
As a parenthetical aside, one can argue that the sin and punishment of Adam (the near the beginning of the book of Genesis) was, in fact, overcome much earlier – by Joseph, at the end of the book of Genesis. The punishment of Adam (and mankind) is two-fold:
(1) That women shall have pain bearing/rearing children. Genesis thereafter describes siblilng rivalries (Jacob and Esau, Joseph and brothers, etc), spousal jealousies (Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, etc), and all sorts of family problems. Joseph forgives his brothers, and thus ends that curse. The rest of the bible has very few sibling rivalry or spousal rivalry stories (there are a few, but they’re few and far between.)
(2) That mankind shall have to toil for bread. Genesis is then one cycle of famine after another, culminating in Joseph who does rationing and planning, and thus overcomes the famine-cycle. The rest of the bible almost never mentions famine.
On a practical level, Judas did wrong. His actions were not foreordained, and the preists and scribes would have grabbed Jesus anyway; not that night, perhaps, but another night and soon.
The Romans were never a particularly central subject, and they would not presumably be any more wicked than any executioner.
As I remember it when I read the New Testament. It stated that Jesus was thanking the father that all were saved except one (meaning Judas) so the prophecies would be fulfilled. The book of Judas, though not part of the New Testament would back this up.
monstro, that’s not what most Christians are taught. The “Jesus as a role model” idea is given second place to the “Jesus as a sacrificial lamb” concept. That’s why growing up we were enundated with imagery of being washed in the blood of Jesus.
So yeah, God’s excecution was inevitable, under the conventional dogma. Jesus had to be sacrificed in order to redeem man’s sin.
Interesting, but this is man’s attempt to overcome these curses, which though we can struggle against them, in reality it is not a solution.
Also the word famine is mentioned 94 times (using the NIV Bible), only 18 are in Genesis. Revelation mentioned famine twice, so that one is still with us. And about sibling rival, Jesus mentioned that a family will be divided, 2 against 3 and 3 against 2 ect.
But is it a interesting take on it if looked at man’s attempt to deal and tame a fallen world.
Christ’s crucifixtion and resurrection was his act of redemption. This is what redeemed mankind from sin.
no… God sent his only son to die for us to redeem us so we could live in eternity with God.
No, they’re still in big trouble because of what they did. The act of Christ’s death had to be played out, but those involved were screwed. Like Christ said, “it would have been bette if they had never been born”.
No, that’s not what this implies. Christ was born without original sin. He is the son of God.
Because he was condemned and put to death, died and was resurrected does not mean that he is no longer perfect. I’m not sure how you came up with that notion.
A sacrifice generally means giving something up. raindog’s post gives three possibilities; perfectness, humanity, or life. Plenty of people have humanity and life that they could choose to give up, and Jesus’s difference is highlighted by raindog as being his perfectness; since to me that implies that Jesus’ sacrifice meant he was no longer perfect, and that doesn’t sound all that likely to be the raindog’s view, i’m asking him about it.
IOW, it’s a point addressed to him specifically, not Christians in general, unless you share his particular beliefs in this matter.
If it was a matter just of dying, then anyone could do it, right? Therefore, what he must have given up was the quality that his sinless life had that us inherently sinful beings did not have. Ergo, upon his resurrection, he no longer had it. If he still had a sinless, perfect life, then he gave up nothing besides his life.
Maybe I’m being dense, but isn’t the answer obvious? He gave up a perfect human life.
Standard humans don’t get to give up their life at all. We are all born into sin, and as a result we will all die. At best we can choose to give that life up a few decade sooner than we mighthave, but we have no choice but to give up our lives.
Only three people have ever had the choice of whether to give up their lives: Adam, Even and Jesus. Adam and Eve were told in no uncertain terms how to give up their lives and they made the choice to do so. Jesus likewise was given the choice and and gave up his life willingly.
No one else could make that sacrifice because no one else has ever had a choice between giving up thier life or not giving it up. Everyone else has to give up thier lives whether we like it or not because of inherited sin.
Your question is a bit like asking what the man with the magic bottomless cup give up that no one else could. The answer is the same: everything. He gave up an infinite amount of what the cup held. Nobody without a bottomless cup can give up an infinite amount because nobody else every posessed an infinite amount to give up.
So somehow Jesus’s death redeems us from sin. But most Christians are taught that believing in Jesus is necessary for obtaining eternal life. Not believing in Jesus = going to hell. Which seems to indicate that Jesus’s sacrifice didn’t transform anything in humankind. If you don’t believe in Jesus and follow his example, you’re no different than Moshe Q. Hebrew who lived prior to Jesus.
The sequence of events as I understand it:
-Jesus starts a ministry after 30 years of blameless life.
-He has an entourage and a dedicated following because of his wise teachings.
-Some bad people don’t like him because they’re h8ters and he soon becomes Israel’s most wanted.
-Jesus knows this is going to happen and doesn’t like it, but he surrenders to his father’s will anyway.
-Jesus gets nailed on the cross and dies, then comes back to life. The suffering he experiences somehow takes away human’s ugly inheritance and makes them worthy of heaven again.
If all the above is correct, then shouldn’t we automatically be “saved”? If this conclusion is wrong, then exactly what did Jesus’s death accomplish, except to serve as an attention-getting device?
As I understand it (and this is obviously just the views of some Christians and only my perception of them), before Jesus we were automatically damned. After Jesus, we just automatically die. To be damned we actually have to do some sinning of our own, whereas before his death we assume the sins of our forebears.
Let me explain it by analogy. I purchase a single match ticket for the local sports team, and you purchase a life membership seat for the same team in the same venue.
By your argument we can both both make exactly the same sacrifice by declaring that we will never watch the teamplay. After if it’s just a matter of not watching the match then we can both make that sacrifice, right?
But you make by far the bigger sacrifice. I only rented a seat for a while, a seat that I would have had to give up after a brief period of time anyway. At most I can sacrifice a single match. You OTOH could have enjoyed an infinite number of matches. You can sacrifice somehting that I never could because you posess something that I do not. You give up far more because you potentially posess far more. I gave up a single epehemeral event that I was obliged to relinquish soon anyway. You gave up an infinite number of events that you could have enjoyed forever.
Yes, that too.
No, all perfect sinless lives are not equivalent. What if Jesus had been reincarnted as a slug, a sinless perfect slug, but a slug nonetheless. Would you still say that he had lost nohting in the deal? Would you agree to trade your current imperfect human existence for a perfect slug’s life? Of course not, that’s because you recognise that not all lives are equivalent.
Christ gave up a sinless perfect human life. He was resurrected into a non-human body and a non-human life.(whether immediately or after his assention is of litte consequence). He gave up a sinless perfect human life. He retained the sinless pefect non-human life that he had from the very beginning.
Blake, I get what you’re saying, but I still think there’s a flaw. I can understand why what Jesus gives up is something we cannot give up; i’m asking the question of what exactly it was that he gave up, because if he gave it up he should no longer have it anymore. the raindog’s post led me to believe what he considered to be that which was sacrificed was the perfectness of the life, hence my question to him. Your interpretation is rather that what he gave up was the perfect human-ness aspect of his life, retaining the perfect spirit (I guess) life that he’d always had. That makes sense to me, assuming he no longer retains his humanity. It depends really what the raindog’s idea of the sacrifice is.
