View Full Version : Was it really a sacrifice?
DRMIZER
10-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Here is a challenge to believers and the Holy Spirit that supposedly guides them.
Christian mythology maintains that Jesus sacrificed himself willingly for the sins of humanity and that he ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. Christians even go so far as to maintain that Jesus was totally God and Man.
Before we go any further we need to determine: what is a sacrifice? A sacrifice means to permanently lose something of value. One is poorer for the sacrifice. To sacrifice is to lose something.
In light of what sacrifice means, I challenge any Christian to show me what Jesus sacrificed. What did Jesus permanently give up; what did he do that left him poorer for the sacrifice?
-----------------------
The only sacrifice that comes to my mind is Jesus sacrificing the pleasure of torturing us for all eternity for not obeying his impossible teachings. For example, in a single chapter (Matt. 18) a mere four verses apart Jesus gives contradictory teachings to Peter about forgiveness; he tells Peter to treat the offending brother as a tax collector and in effect no longer speak to him, then he reverses himself and says to forgive seventy times seven -- it is impossible to do both -- it is an contradictory teaching.
Ohh you're using definitions and stuff. That doesn't mesh well with Christianity.
eugene40
10-04-2005, 01:38 PM
I always thought it was his job and the reason he was supposedly put here. (not that he really existed,, :D ) But if it was his job then it wasn't really a sacrifice,, I mean what did he lose,, he (supposedly) went up and chilled with his dad and to heaven, ooo such a sacrifice... lame.
DRMIZER
10-04-2005, 01:56 PM
Ohh you're using definitions and stuff. That doesn't mesh well with Christianity.sorry. . . . :lol:
Scaryclouds
10-04-2005, 11:20 PM
If I gave you an answer would you believe it? It's hard to tell a person something if they have their fingers in their ears and singing "lalalalalalala"
cpwill
10-05-2005, 12:21 AM
:) YOU get tortured to death willingly and see what your opinion of it is.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 12:24 AM
you forgot it also means a play in baseball.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 12:52 AM
Here is a challenge to believers and the Holy Spirit that supposedly guides them.
Christian mythology maintains that Jesus sacrificed himself willingly for the sins of humanity and that he ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. Christians even go so far as to maintain that Jesus was totally God and Man.
Before we go any further we need to determine: what is a sacrifice? A sacrifice means to permanently lose something of value. One is poorer for the sacrifice. To sacrifice is to lose something.
In light of what sacrifice means, I challenge any Christian to show me what Jesus sacrificed. What did Jesus permanently give up; what did he do that left him poorer for the sacrifice?
-----------------------
The only sacrifice that comes to my mind is Jesus sacrificing the pleasure of torturing us for all eternity for not obeying his impossible teachings. For example, in a single chapter (Matt. 18) a mere four verses apart Jesus gives contradictory teachings to Peter about forgiveness; he tells Peter to treat the offending brother as a tax collector and in effect no longer speak to him, then he reverses himself and says to forgive seventy times seven -- it is impossible to do both -- it is an contradictory teaching.
His life? Blood?Long life on earth? A family and children on earth,being a grandfather?limiting himself by becoming a physical being.He gave up everything It was the Father who restored him and it is the Father who will restore us also.
no contradiction at all in matt 18, forgiveness and restoration are two different things. You can forgive an abuser but do not stck around to be abused.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 01:01 AM
Ohh you're using definitions and stuff. That doesn't mesh well with Christianity.
The proper definition would be , the act of offering to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.There is more than one definiton in the dictionary so it is convenient for some to pick one and leave out the rest. If you only give one choice with the definition it seems a point could be made but when you purposely leave out the choices you show only attempt at deceit.
His life? Blood?Long life on earth? A family and children on earth,being a grandfather?limiting himself by becoming a physical being.He gave up everything It was the Father who restored him and it is the Father who will restore us also.
Of course if you're working with the 100% god and man, had no limits, gave up everything and nothing, he restored himself, and sacrificed to himself.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 01:18 AM
Of course if you're working with the 100% god and man, had no limits, gave up everything and nothing, he restored himself, and sacrificed to himself.
Everything jesus did on earth was as man and all his trust was in the Father. It was the Father who moved on his behalf and it is this example we are to follow and the Father will move on our behalf. What the father did for him he will do for us. This is the great mystery many fail to see that we can have what Christ had . The bible says we can do even greater things than what Jesus did.We can combine God and man in us also. He will be with us and will be in us. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is the dwelling place of God. We are in Christ and He is in us.
The proper definition would be , the act of offering to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.There is more than one definiton in the dictionary so it is convenient for some to pick one and leave out the rest. If you only give one choice with the definition it seems a point could be made but when you purposely leave out the choices you show only attempt at deceit.
Well, that's one definition. I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't bring in definitions of omnipotence, love, hate, jealousy, purity and all that.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 01:42 AM
Well, that's one definition. I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't bring in definitions of omnipotence, love, hate, jealousy, purity and all that.
There are other threads on those definitions, but the point was the purposely limiting the definition and creating a false support. acting like it was the only def to choose from.So the challenge was taken up and the question was shown to be deceptive from the start. I did include the baseball definition in an earlier post also.Now choose which one was the meaning.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 01:43 AM
I think it is more of a challenge to define red herring.
Redratio1
10-05-2005, 01:52 AM
:) YOU get tortured to death willingly and see what your opinion of it is.
Willing get tortured? Is that what you believe? Uhuh.
There are other threads on those definitions, but the point was the purposely limiting the definition and creating a false support. acting like it was the only def to choose from.So the challenge was taken up and the question was shown to be deceptive from the start. I did include the baseball definition in an earlier post also.Now choose which one was the meaning.
Alright, when talking of the sacrifice of Jesus, which definition are we supposed to use? An offering to a deity, or a loss of something valuable? It couldn't possibly be the first, as you suggest, since Jesus is said to be the deity by which the offer is made. This would be irrational. Now, if it is the latter definition, what, exactly did Jesus sacrifice?
Scaryclouds
10-05-2005, 02:25 AM
YOU get tortured to death willingly and see what your opinion of it is.
His life? Blood?Long life on earth? A family and children on earth,being a grandfather?limiting himself by becoming a physical being.He gave up everything It was the Father who restored him and it is the Father who will restore us also.
Beyond this did he not take a vow of poverty? Did he not help many others out while asking nothing in return? (which in turn would diminish him in some sort) At the very least if you believe noting of what Jesus said is he not atleast on the same level of MLK or Ghandi and would you not say these men lived a life of sacrafice? Maybe you should read a post before writing one :)
Willing get tortured? Is that what you believe? Uhuh.
If you refuse to believe anything in the bible than its impossible to prove to you otherwise.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 02:37 AM
Alright, when talking of the sacrifice of Jesus, which definition are we supposed to use? An offering to a deity, or a loss of something valuable? It couldn't possibly be the first, as you suggest, since Jesus is said to be the deity by which the offer is made. This would be irrational. Now, if it is the latter definition, what, exactly did Jesus sacrifice?
Well what do you think the bible is talking about when you read Christ as a sacrifice? The man Jesus gave his life , his physical body was killed. The prophecies of that death were related to the sacrifices instituted in the OT and were just ceremonial acts looking forward to the actual sacrifice that accomplished the actual atonement and propitiation.The law that required death for punishment of sin was satisfied by his death. A perfect sacrifice had to be made , a spotless lamb and Christ was called the Lamb of God spotless and without sin , uniquely qualified to be that sacrifice for all. Tha law said a substitute could be made to atone for sin and He became that substitute for all.
God gave His Lamb because it was the only one qualified to do it. He had to be born a man just as sin came into the world through one man Adam, sin was also defeated by one man Jesus, the second Adam.
I know this is a lot of extra going into this btu that is why I believe it is so deceptive to try to discredit the work of Christ through the use of a definition
in such a deceptive way. Their is a whole lot more to the Death of Christ and what it menat to us. To try to bring it down to a misrepresented definition is a slap in the face of God himself.
God provided the lamb himself and He would not hold back even his own son from us. He stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided a sacrifice in the thicket . In this same way if Christ had not come we would all have to pay for our own sins with the punishment that sin requires.
We are told that if we sacrifice and work hard we can accomplish great things and get a desired result. That is gaining from sacrificing. This is the same thing with Christ. He still had to go through with the actual death of his body . It was not a walkin the park it was a horrific torture and death that no person would choose for himself. Sacrifice denotes loss ,yes but with a trade off of gaining something else and it was the gain that drove Christ to do what he did. We were his motivation and His gain. God risked all by allowing man to choose and then he gave all to allow man to choose.
Beyond this did he not take a vow of poverty? Did he not help many others out while asking nothing in return? (which in turn would diminish him in some sort) At the very least if you believe noting of what Jesus said is he not atleast on the same level of MLK or Ghandi and would you not say these men lived a life of sacrafice? Maybe you should read a post before writing one :)
Has anyone debated the nobility of Jesus? In fact, can you even prove his existence?
If you refuse to believe anything in the bible than its impossible to prove to you otherwise.
That statement works in reverse. If you submit yourself entirely to the words of the Bible, or any doctrine, it is impossible to prove to you otherwise. Rationality is not a factor.
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 02:40 AM
Beyond this did he not take a vow of poverty? Did he not help many others out while asking nothing in return? (which in turn would diminish him in some sort) At the very least if you believe noting of what Jesus said is he not atleast on the same level of MLK or Ghandi and would you not say these men lived a life of sacrafice? Maybe you should read a post before writing one :)
If you refuse to believe anything in the bible than its impossible to prove to you otherwise.
Who are you talking to?
DRMIZER
10-05-2005, 11:03 AM
Has anyone debated the nobility of Jesus? In fact, can you even prove his existence?
That statement works in reverse. If you submit yourself entirely to the words of the Bible, or any doctrine, it is impossible to prove to you otherwise. Rationality is not a factor.Nice, very nice. :flowers:
Churlant
10-05-2005, 11:16 AM
Heh... I'm gonna jump into the pirana tank and say...
The thread is based on a false premise. Jesus didn't sacrifice himself willingly. In fact, he begged God to get him out of it. God, in His infinite wisdom and infinite love for His only son, told Jesus to shut the Hell up and take his medicine.
Paraphrasing mildly, of course.
-JC
mataj
10-05-2005, 11:32 AM
In a word: God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself.
Churlant
10-05-2005, 11:33 AM
In a word: God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself.
If that's the case, I believe He failed in his objective. :D
-JC
That's not far off from the Gnostic belief which, if I remember correctly, is that Jesus died to protect us from the evil destructive god of the OT.
Well what do you think the bible is talking about when you read Christ as a sacrifice? The man Jesus gave his life , his physical body was killed.
Jesus is the Lord. Sacrificing that which you gave yourself with the intention of sacrificing is no more noble than raising a cow for beef, then actually slaughtering it.
The prophecies of that death were related to the sacrifices instituted in the OT and were just ceremonial acts looking forward to the actual sacrifice that accomplished the actual atonement and propitiation.
A God which requires appeasement for the evil He created by murder and death is a vindictice, cruel being. This flies in the face of his supposed "purity." If your belief in the NT's validity is sustained through the writing of the OT, then you really have lost the ability to think freely. Anyone could have read the OT and assumed Jesus' position. The world was no different or Good than it is today despite his alleged sacrifice, as there are still people being stoned to death, animals killed by primitive beings religiously, and all the activities that were common in the days before the NT. We live in the same world, with the exception now being that modern technology has raised society's ability to think independently, thus sparking the end of the primitive style of religion.
The law that required death for punishment of sin was satisfied by his death. A perfect sacrifice had to be made , a spotless lamb and Christ was called the Lamb of God spotless and without sin , uniquely qualified to be that sacrifice for all.
Was Jesus married? Did he lust? Did he have children? Can you even verify his skin color? Did he even exist? You don't know, therefore you can't possibly claim he was sinless without first uniformly submitting to the writings of the Bible in its entirety.
Tha law said a substitute could be made to atone for sin and He became that substitute for all.
The murder of God's creatures was a law in order to cleanse the sins which he made possible to commit. This is a joke.
God gave His Lamb because it was the only one qualified to do it.
God created the Lamb, God is the Lamb.
He had to be born a man just as sin came into the world through one man Adam, sin was also defeated by one man Jesus, the second Adam.
God created the possibility of sin solely for us to be punished, then? He needs to vent every once in a while? He creates these tempations and creates our natural inclination to desire what is wrong, then eternally punishes us for it. Seriously, think things through.
I know this is a lot of extra going into this btu that is why I believe it is so deceptive to try to discredit the work of Christ through the use of a definition
in such a deceptive way. Their is a whole lot more to the Death of Christ and what it menat to us. To try to bring it down to a misrepresented definition is a slap in the face of God himself.
God provided the lamb himself and He would not hold back even his own son from us. He stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided a sacrifice in the thicket . In this same way if Christ had not come we would all have to pay for our own sins with the punishment that sin requires.
We are told that if we sacrifice and work hard we can accomplish great things and get a desired result.
That is what we are told. The truth is, we create our desires, so we create our successes and accomplishments. I can become a homeless drunk if I wish and view that with pride. It is of my own making and as is success.
That is gaining from sacrificing. This is the same thing with Christ. He still had to go through with the actual death of his body .
It was his whole purpose for coming into existence. He did it to himself.
It was not a walkin the park it was a horrific torture and death that no person would choose for himself. Sacrifice denotes loss ,yes but with a trade off of gaining something else and it was the gain that drove Christ to do what he did. We were his motivation and His gain. God risked all by allowing man to choose and then he gave all to allow man to choose.
Yet he'll punish us for the wrong choice.
Craig
10-05-2005, 02:47 PM
Well what do you think the bible is talking about when you read Christ as a sacrifice? The man Jesus gave his life , his physical body was killed. The prophecies of that death were related to the sacrifices instituted in the OT and were just ceremonial acts looking forward to the actual sacrifice that accomplished the actual atonement and propitiation.The law that required death for punishment of sin was satisfied by his death. A perfect sacrifice had to be made , a spotless lamb and Christ was called the Lamb of God spotless and without sin , uniquely qualified to be that sacrifice for all. Tha law said a substitute could be made to atone for sin and He became that substitute for all.
God gave His Lamb because it was the only one qualified to do it. He had to be born a man just as sin came into the world through one man Adam, sin was also defeated by one man Jesus, the second Adam.
The thing that I have never really understood is the emphasis upon Jesus living a perfect life. People describe this as though it is an accomplishment, which it appears to be on a superficial level, but under closer inspection it is not. According to most Christian doctrine, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. However, we must bear in mind that while Jesus is human, he is in truth, God incarnate. As we have established from previous discussions, it is supposedly impossible for God to sin. If this supposition is true, then inevitably, Jesus' life free of sin is not an accomplishment, because it was never really possible for him to have sinned in the first place. To use a similar example from within Christian theological tradition, this is the equivalent of asserting that it's an accomplishment for a person to have lived a life of sin. Any person, no matter what they do, will inevitably sin during their life, so to speak of something as an accomplishment if it's an inevitability is meaningless, in the case of a human sinning or God living a life free of sin.
Redratio1
10-05-2005, 03:27 PM
Or he was just a really popular guru who got in over his head(like many other Messiah type at the time), then when he was finally put to death in the way Romans usually do his followers blew his life accomplishments way out of proportion.
Wouldn't he likely have been arrested and executed immediately for going berzerk on the money changers?
Churlant
10-05-2005, 04:12 PM
The thing that I have never really understood is the emphasis upon Jesus living a perfect life.
I have never understood it because such a statement is contradicting.
If Jesus was human, he could not have lived a life without sin. Period.
:shrug:
-JC
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 04:23 PM
The thing that I have never really understood is the emphasis upon Jesus living a perfect life. People describe this as though it is an accomplishment, which it appears to be on a superficial level, but under closer inspection it is not. According to most Christian doctrine, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. However, we must bear in mind that while Jesus is human, he is in truth, God incarnate. As we have established from previous discussions, it is supposedly impossible for God to sin. If this supposition is true, then inevitably, Jesus' life free of sin is not an accomplishment, because it was never really possible for him to have sinned in the first place. To use a similar example from within Christian theological tradition, this is the equivalent of asserting that it's an accomplishment for a person to have lived a life of sin. Any person, no matter what they do, will inevitably sin during their life, so to speak of something as an accomplishment if it's an inevitability is meaningless, in the case of a human sinning or God living a life free of sin.
Jesus divinity never got in the way of his humanity. He lived on earth as a man with His faith in the Father, He did not use His divinty within Himself to help himself. His life was lived in full reliance on the Father to support and provide. This was to show how we were to trust in the Father also and fully rely on Him.It was not impossible for Jesus to sin because the scriptures say he was tempted by satan. If Jesus at any time used His own divinty he would be disqualified as savior because man had to pay the price of sin.
This brings us to the notion that Jesus was sacrificed because to God, well it was not a requirement of God to appease sin it was the requirement of sin and the Law of sin. The wages of sin is death ,this is the reason God warned and warns so greatly against it. Sin requires death and Christ whole heartedly paid that price. Any other way and God would have been stacking the deck and free will would mean nothing. This is the harsh reality of sin, it causes death and death is the only way to get around it.
jesus wasw born a man lived as a man and died a man with full faith in the Father and this is our calling also. The combination of God and man did not stop with Him. it continues with us as we are in Christ and He is in us. But we still have to trust in the Father and He makes power available to us to live a life pleasing to Him and one that is full and abundant.
Your assertion that we cannot live sin free is also not accurate because in Christ it is just as if we never sinned in the eyes of God when our lives are hidden in God.
Many seek proof of God from those who profess God,but I say it is not proof of Godbut proof from God that makes one believe . it is not our job to provide proof of God but to allow God to work through us to give proof from Him.One man plants and one man waters but it is God who gives the increase. No man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. no amount of words and arguments bring God to you He does that himself.
For those to whom He has revealed Himself no amount of human attempts to discredit or disprove can work because once you know Him you cannot believe anything else. and as you grow with Him the questions and uncertainties become plain and clear. God is a revelator and is continuously revealing Himself more and more.
there will come time when God will contact you and draw you to him, when He will make Himself known then it will be your responsibility to choose , to decide for yourself, not for the whole world, not for a website , not even for your family btui for yourself. Then it will be clear.
i write this because we here argue and explain and express views that are in concepts of the possibility of God etc , and we speak of Him as philosophical thought. When in fact He is a real person that has to be known just like a new friend . The concept of God is easily discussed but the person of God is most of the time completely left out and that is where the truth of the matter lies. the concepts are ours and we can easily separate them from God and not be bothered with the actual person and personality of God.
when I express my views I try to address the subjects at hand but at no time am I worried whether I win the argument , even though I do my best, because His existence is not dependent upon me defending Him.But my existence is dependent upon Him defending me against more than some intellectual hodge podge of concepts and philosophies.The clarity of logic in these matters is unm,istakeable when revealed by God and the wisdom of man falls woefully short in the light of that revelation.
Craig
10-05-2005, 04:23 PM
I have never understood it because such a statement is contradicting.
If Jesus was human, he could not have lived a life without sin. Period.
:shrug:
-JC
Is not Christian doctrine that even if someone can live a life free of sin, the very fact that we are born in this world means that we have the original sin of Adam upon us? If so, how did Jesus live a life free of sin?
I suppose the response for this is "Jesus was not the product of a conception between a man and woman, and therefore was not tainted by the original sin."
heel31ok
10-05-2005, 04:28 PM
Is not Christian doctrine that even if someone can live a life free of sin, the very fact that we are born in this world means that we have the original sin of Adam upon us? If so, how did Jesus live a life free of sin?
I suppose the response for this is "Jesus was not the product of a conception between a man and woman, and therefore was not tainted by the original sin."
That would be the response.
Scaryclouds
10-06-2005, 12:01 AM
That would be the response.
Watch it your using logic and athesists don't like that.
Nuke the Oil
10-06-2005, 01:57 AM
And who ordained the law of sin? Who made the wage of sin death? Who created evil?
Craig
10-06-2005, 02:09 AM
Watch it your using logic and athesists don't like that.
On the contrary, atheists love it. However, heel31 still hasn't adequately accounted for the problem. Really, the paradox comes down to the issue of being fully human and fully divine. If one is fully human, then one most certainly has the capacity to sin. But, if one is fully divine, according to what we've established in previous discussions, it is impossible for one to sin. Essentially, we have a contradiction- it is both fully possible and fully impossible for Jesus to have sinned. Heel31's answer seems to imply that sin is possible because Jesus was tempted, which is consistent with Biblical scripture. I have one of two options here: I can claim that Jesus being tempted implies that He does not share in the same divinity of God, because it is impossible for God to sin. My other option is to claim even if Jesus was tempted, there never really was any real possibility that he'd succumb to the sin, so in actual fact we only have the illusion that it was possible for him to sin. After all, if Jesus does sin, then he's obviously not divine according to Christian theology. Therefore, necessarily, there must be no real possibility that he can sin.
You said "Jesus' divinity never got in the way of his humanity". But what does this really mean? Does it mean that when God is in the flesh, He is subject to the temptations of sin just like everyone else? If so, He isn't really fully divine- because we have already established that it is impossible for God as a fully divine entity to sin. Your point about Jesus' "full reliance on the Father to support and provide" is also problematic as well, because it is essentially treating the Father and Jesus as seperate divine entities, which is heretical in Christianity because it implies a pluralism. We musn't forget that Jesus and God the Father are one in the same, just different aspects of the same entity, which means they still share the same essential characteristics.
The essential problem is that you tried to resolve the paradox, but in order to do so, you necessarily had to subordinate one aspect of Jesus' nature to the other. The difficulty with the paradox is that neither aspect of Jesus' nature allows subordination to the other aspect. In other words, his fully human status and fully divine status are mutually exclusive. So subordinating one to the other is not a solution to the problem.
Sauniere
10-06-2005, 02:27 AM
Okay, enough!
Let's look at this logically. Mary AND Joseph had a child. Jesus, House of David, descendant of Kings. Born on a manger, BS.
Regardless.
He MAY have been a martyr, sacrificing himself for his beliefs.
More likely than not, he wanted out.
You know, going around and preaching his new ideas for Judaism, not Christianity.
Starting a new religion was never in the plan.
He wanted to include women and gentiles into Judaism because otherwise the religion was too restrictive and was doomed to second-rate status because of its harsh restrictions on membership.
The leaders, the orthodoxy, wanted Jesus out of the way because of his heretical views.
He never sacrificed himself. He was a Jew. Come on. He cut a deal to get out of the way. He took hisself east and let his disciples carry on his teachings.
Meanwhile he married some nice oriental women and had many children and lived happily ever after.
Redratio1
10-06-2005, 04:38 AM
The idea of a GOd coming down to Earth to have sex with a mortal is so Greek.
'nuff said?
Hawkins
10-06-2005, 04:48 AM
:) YOU get tortured to death willingly and see what your opinion of it is.
And get laughed at and insulted the next couple thousand years.
Churlant
10-06-2005, 07:47 AM
Is not Christian doctrine that even if someone can live a life free of sin, the very fact that we are born in this world means that we have the original sin of Adam upon us? If so, how did Jesus live a life free of sin?
I suppose the response for this is "Jesus was not the product of a conception between a man and woman, and therefore was not tainted by the original sin."
Doesn't really matter. If we accept that humans are imperfect beings, and Jesus was in fact human, then he was inherently imperfect and vulnerable to sin.
-JC
Scaryclouds
10-06-2005, 12:31 PM
Okay, enough!
Let's look at this logically. Mary AND Joseph had a child. Jesus, House of David, descendant of Kings. Born on a manger, BS.
Regardless.
He MAY have been a martyr, sacrificing himself for his beliefs.
More likely than not, he wanted out.
You know, going around and preaching his new ideas for Judaism, not Christianity.
Starting a new religion was never in the plan.
He wanted to include women and gentiles into Judaism because otherwise the religion was too restrictive and was doomed to second-rate status because of its harsh restrictions on membership.
The leaders, the orthodoxy, wanted Jesus out of the way because of his heretical views.
He never sacrificed himself. He was a Jew. Come on. He cut a deal to get out of the way. He took hisself east and let his disciples carry on his teachings.
Meanwhile he married some nice oriental women and had many children and lived happily ever after.
If you ABSOLUTELY reject anything in the bible pertaining to spirituality (i.e. Jesus is the son of God) than this is the likely scenario. If you do accept the bible as the truth (both the factual and spiritual side) than Jesus willingly sacrificed himself fo us.
Basically this is what the debate comes down to those who do not accept any of the spiritual side of the bible and those who do. It would be impossible to move either side from their position as each side is using only one narrow view of the facts. So basically other than for the sake of argument this whole topic is pointless as no side learns anything other than further suspicion of the other side. If you want to continue debating this subject go ahead but keep the above stated in mind.
Churlant
10-06-2005, 01:20 PM
If you ABSOLUTELY reject anything in the bible pertaining to spirituality (i.e. Jesus is the son of God) than this is the likely scenario. If you do accept the bible as the truth (both the factual and spiritual side) than Jesus willingly sacrificed himself fo us.
Basically this is what the debate comes down to those who do not accept any of the spiritual side of the bible and those who do. It would be impossible to move either side from their position as each side is using only one narrow view of the facts. So basically other than for the sake of argument this whole topic is pointless as no side learns anything other than further suspicion of the other side. If you want to continue debating this subject go ahead but keep the above stated in mind.
Ahhhh... why dismiss the middle ground entirely? :)
-JC
If you ABSOLUTELY reject anything in the bible pertaining to spirituality (i.e. Jesus is the son of God) than this is the likely scenario. If you do accept the bible as the truth (both the factual and spiritual side) than Jesus willingly sacrificed himself fo us.
Basically this is what the debate comes down to those who do not accept any of the spiritual side of the bible and those who do. It would be impossible to move either side from their position as each side is using only one narrow view of the facts. So basically other than for the sake of argument this whole topic is pointless as no side learns anything other than further suspicion of the other side. If you want to continue debating this subject go ahead but keep the above stated in mind.
Well, ironically, that's a very narrow-minded assumption of the people on this thread.
heel31ok
10-06-2005, 01:40 PM
Doesn't really matter. If we accept that humans are imperfect beings, and Jesus was in fact human, then he was inherently imperfect and vulnerable to sin.
-JC
Yes partly,and yet was without sin.Vulnerable, but did not give in and actually sin.As a man on earth he did what God wants us to do, rely on the Father. All through the scriptures it shows his reliance on the Father and his attitude of " not my will..."
His life shows that we can live like that.Her had the same opportunity as Adam who was born woithout sin also. He is called the second Adam but did not partake in the fruit of sin.WQe can follow after the first Adam by doing nothing or we can follow the second Adam but believing in Him.
i would disagree in the Jesus was not inherently imperfect but was vulnerable to sin just as Adam. The inherently imperfect part comes through Adam and is transferred through the father of all born.
Churlant
10-06-2005, 01:52 PM
i would disagree in the Jesus was not inherently imperfect but was vulnerable to sin just as Adam. The inherently imperfect part comes through Adam and is transferred through the father of all born.
I'm sure you would disagree, but the facts remain... if he is human he is inherently imperfect. I realize you may want to use your own definitions for these things... but that's your perspective I suppose. For those of us who prefer dictionaries, we must accept Jesus was human and therefore nowhere approaching perfection.
-JC
Scaryclouds
10-06-2005, 01:53 PM
Ahhhh... why dismiss the middle ground entirely?
-JC
Unfortuantley unless you have no opinion on this there really isn't a middle ground in this debate its mostly a yes no thing. I'll change my opinion if you can give me an example of the middle ground though.
Well, ironically, that's a very narrow-minded assumption of the people on this thread.
Am I wrong though? Unless many people here are playing devils advocate by either fully believing or disbelieving in the spiritual side othe bible. I have yet to see anything in this thread to prove me otherwise.
Churlant
10-06-2005, 01:57 PM
Unfortuantley unless you have no opinion on this there really isn't a middle ground in this debate its mostly a yes no thing. I'll change my opinion if you can give me an example of the middle ground though.
Heh... you think so, eh? And why can't I reject only portions of the Bible's "spirituality" ?
Am I wrong though?
Yes. :shrug:
-JC
::Major_Baker::
10-06-2005, 02:05 PM
Watch it your using logic and athesists don't like that.
I suppose the response for this is "Jesus was not the product of a conception between a man and woman, and therefore was not tainted by the original sin."
Oh, yeah that is completely logical. Magical conception.
Scaryclouds
10-06-2005, 10:56 PM
Heh... you think so, eh? And why can't I reject only portions of the Bible's "spirituality" ?
The topic of the debate was whether or not what Jesus did was a sarifice and it really is a yes or no question if you give your opinion on the topic. So you really don't give a middle ground in the argument.
You don’t have to understand the bible you just have to believe what it says. Adam and Eve sinned so God made a plan to redeem the rest of humanity. His plan was to send himself down to earth in human form and then have Roman solders nail himself to a cross and thereby free us from Adam and Eve’s sin.
All you have to do is believe it. If you decide to think about it or consider its merits you are dammed to the fires of hell for eternity. So what’s it going to be, are you going to hell or are you going to believe a bunch of malarkey?
I almost forgot the important part. Its too late to edit my post but please follow along. After the Romans nailed God in human form (Jesus) to a cross he died. He was then risen from his dead state and re-animated in living form thus providing proof beyond question that this was in fact God and at the same time the Son of God.
This would be weird if we were discussing something like Voodoo or some green, glowing liquid but this is nothing like that, this is the heart and soul of Christianity! Somewhere the Holy Spirit figures in here to create the trilogy but I am at a temporary, perhaps permanent, loss to figure this into the salvation principle right now, perhaps a few more drinks will do the trick.
It’s all becoming clear now. This is why children hunt eggs on Easter, the Easter bunny is the hook God uses to save the children. As the bible say “you must be like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven.” The child finds the eggs and believes the Easter bunny put them there. When the child becomes an adult you swap Easter eggs for Jesus and Walla your saved!
heel31ok
10-15-2005, 03:24 AM
You don’t have to understand the bible you just have to believe what it says. Adam and Eve sinned so God made a plan to redeem the rest of humanity. His plan was to send himself down to earth in human form and then have Roman solders nail himself to a cross and thereby free us from Adam and Eve’s sin.
All you have to do is believe it. If you decide to think about it or consider its merits you are dammed to the fires of hell for eternity. So what’s it going to be, are you going to hell or are you going to believe a bunch of malarkey?
After thinking about it, It makes perfect sense to me. The merits are fully understandable.
What is a malarkey? I could just believe what you say or I can consider the merits of what you say and come up with the proper conclusion. From the merits of what yousay I can conclude you do not believe nor have sincerely considered the merits of the Bible and what it really says. so you have chosen neither of the choices you have offered here.
What is a malarkey?Excellent question! My 8th grade English teacher would be very proud of me for using that word. After some lame excuse I made to him he said “malarkey Mr. Kong!” I didn’t have a clue what the word meant but I knew it couldn’t be good.
He then questioned me asking me “Mr. Kong, do you know what malarkey is!?” I just stared at him in shock and fear as he thundered on.
He went on to explain using many synonyms, the only one I clearly remember is “baloney”, I prefer BS (not the abbreviation but the full written and spoken meaning but I’m not sure if that is allowed on this forum).
From the merits of what yousay I can conclude you do not believe nor have sincerely considered the merits of the Bible and what it really says. so you have chosen neither of the choices you have offered here.Don’t jump to conclusions amigo. I am slow and take a great deal of time to consider things. Burning in hell for eternity is not always a laughing matter (sometimes it is :lol: )
vBulletin v3.6.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.