Quick Question for Christians.
Posted on: August 18, 2007 - 2:07am
Offline
Quick Question for Christians.
This is something that has always confused me, and maybe a Christian will be able to clear it up. The basis of your religion is essentially based on sacrafice, and Jesus was the "Perfect Sacrafice." He paid the "ultimate/greatest price for our sin." His life (which he got back 3 days later). But doesn't it seem that the ultimate payment for sin would be for Jesus to suffer in hell eternally? That seems like more of a sacrafice and that would actually be a true genuine sacrafice. That would make more sence then him spending about 9 hours of his life being tortured. I hope that makes sense. So I was just curious what everyone thought.
- Login to post comments
Spare a thought for the thieves that joined Jesus on walking a calvary mile, their lives were not blessed with fortune and they were forced to steal a living.
Life was hard and now they die in agony with that Jesus of Galilee but they can only look forward to eternal torment.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
The whole blood atonement thing is still very much a mystery to me. I mean, it's clearly based on the model that Judaism set forth long before it, but it seems as though the point is, Jesus embraced death, then taking it one step further, he conquered it. So in conquering death, Jesus became the "sacrifice to end all sacrifices" instead of just another sacrifice.
^^^^^
Correct. There is also the issue that Jesus supposedly lived his life without sin, and therefore did not need to die. I do argue that his death was not the greatest sacrifice he could've made - but not the way you do.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Jesus had a bad weekend for our sins.
This is a great question and one I am glad to answer. One other person was exactly right in the fact that Jesus' resurrection was his conquering of death. If Jesus would have died and stayed in hell, where is the hope of salvation? Believers have no fear of death because death has been conquered. What a HUGE sacrifice for God to become a man in order to die on the cross and pay the price for our sins. I am not sure that we can even comprehend the sacrifice that God has made much less attempt to, through our limited perspective, assign more.
I will be glad to give you more of an answer if you need it, but I think this answers your question. The issue of Jesus being the sinless sacrifice is not an issue of length of sacrifice but rather completion of payment. Jesus endured the physical pain and death of the cross. He bore the sins of the entire world. He felt the pain of abandonment from His heavenly Father, because when Christ took on our sin there was a separation from God as there is with us. And lastly, He bore the wrath of God. When Jesus said, "It is finished," He had completed His mission of sacrifice. If you bought a car from me I would not ask for payment forever, but simply until you completely paid for the car. Jesus had completely paid for our sins upon the cross and it was finished.
I hope this helps. As I learn more of the sacrifice that Jesus made for me - I am simply amazed. I hope you will see that as well.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
I was just curious and I mean no disrespect, but where is the source for your statements about the thieves that were crucified next to Christ?
4 gospel accounts
Matthew - We are simply told robbers were crucified on the right and left of him.
Mark - We are told that there are two robbers, one to the right and one to the left
Luke - We are told two criminals, one on his right and one on his left. One criminal railed at Jesus while the other spoke against the first criminal and asked Jesus to remember him.
John - We are told that Jesus was crucified with two others
Here is my point. How do you know what the lives of the criminals were? We do not know if they had a hard life or not. Perhaps they simply thought that thievery was the easy way to live. Maybe they were rich and they wasted it and then turned to a life of crime. How were they forced to steal? Even today people steal who can make honest money, but choose not to. Also, it is clear that one thief states that they DESERVED their punishment (the account in Luke) and we know that he did not have eternal torment to look forward to, but that very day he would be in paradise with Jesus.
We cannot read INTO scripture what we think, believe, or hear. We have absolutely NO information regarding the robber's lives other than the fact that they were robbers.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this issue.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
If the punishment for sin is eternal suffering, and jesus endured eternal suffering, then we don't have to endure it. Voila, salvation.
But according to the story, jesus only worked one evening shift's worth of sacrifice, so apparently we're still on the hook.
To whom was god paying this price? Who rang up the charge?
Then until we do comprehend, we should refrain from believing it.
Couldn't god have just cooled his wrath, rather than sending down jesus? Seems like a needless formality if the end result's the same.
There are no theists on operating tables.
My comment is based on the general knowledge I have aquired from multiple sources depicting the crucifixion, if I could relate sources to everything I know I would only know half as much. I thank you for the qualifying statements from the gospel accounts.
My post was to further emphasize the puzzlement expressed by the originator of the thread. Although my words may seem glib, due to the lack of depth in knowledge concerning the atrocities that warrant the torture and execution of the robbers; their purpose is not confounded by the issue you take. Verily and pardon the cynicism, if these robbers had wealth or were blessed with the artful cunning of those with a predilection to skullduggery they would have likely found a means for ransom.
The possibilty of them being tyrannous leaders of an unscrupulous cartel is limited as such an organisation has roots that run deep. The probable candidates for the privileged crosses adjacent to Jesus would be those men who make up the thinning tendrils of such an association, if indeed they belonged to one. Being as the described unfortunate fellows forced into thievery through circumstance pertains to either situation. I will let the matter lie at being reasonable.
However, my original point is being suffocated by such pointless delineations. There is a derisive irony in the comparison to the acclaimed ultimate sacrifice of Christ to the woeful reality that can be seen - but is usually ignored - across the globe. Clearly the natural pain and suffering Jesus had prior to his recovery could by no means equate to the worst experiences of the most hapless.
Rest assured I read your interpretation of the event yet you fail to illuminate a realistic description of the incident. I conclude that you accept the lack of significance in the mundane sacrifice of Jesus and find solace in the appeal to supernatural shenanigans.
I think we will both agree in that to understand your opinion one would require faith.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
The original question reminds me of the Chinese legend of Kuan Yin. From Wikipedia:
The reason that man will suffer for eternity is that man cannot ever complete the payment for his sin. As I said before, the issue is not eternal payment but payment in full. Jesus did not need to suffer for eternity because he FULLY paid for our sins and His mission to save mankind was complete. Why would Jesus suffer for all eternity when the payment was paid in full. It just doesn't make sense.
"Jesus only worked an evening shift of suffering" . . . the only thing you accomplish with that statement is you demonstrate your inability to understand scripture and who God is. There is not enough time for me to even begin to explain this to you, but let me just say this in order to give you a comparison. If I offered to you a chance to become a roach in the sewers of any big city where you could crawl around in the filth of this world . . . would you say "SIGN ME UP." And yet God who is Holy, All powerful, All knowing, Pure, Righteous, etc. . . . said I will become a human, live among them, be subject to their authority, and even subject myself to their punishment and cruelty . . . He still did it. That was just the beginning of His sacrifice.
Who rang up the charge and to whom was the price paid? Great question and easy to answer. We rang up the charge. We decided to rebel against the one who created us. We decided that we knew better than God. We are totally responsible for sin in this world. To whom the charge has to be paid???? It must be paid to God. Man could never pay that debt, only God could and yet a man must suffer. Therefore you have Jesus Christ, the God/man. Only God could fully pay the cost of our sin and man was responsible for the cost. Before you ask, Couldn't God just simply cancel the debt - He absolutely could not - God is a good and just God. Would you consider a judge a good judge if he simply allowed murderers, rapists, thieves, etc . . . to just simply go free. I think not.
So, if we cannot fully comprehend - Just don't believe. What a very small world you must have. Can we fully comprehend how the human body functions and yet we believe it functions. Do you fully comprehend all of life around you. There is nothing in your life that has ever been beyond your comprehension. Do you fully understand love or hate, and yet I would certainly say you believe those things exist. If you say you believe in those things because you have experienced them - I will also tell you that I have experienced God working in my life.
Cooled the wrath - in other words, just over look the sin that you and I have committed. I would again refer you to the good judge. Are you suggesting that people should not pay the consequences for their sin? I would venture to say that even if you typed that, you do not live it. If someone took the life of someone you loved, a child, spouse, brother or sister . . . let them continue to have freedom and live life as they want until your anger cooled - what is the difference. Our God is not just a loving God as some Christians like to present. He is a just God and a righteous God. God's righteousness demands justice for sinful man. To simply look over the sin of mankind and there be no payment for that sin, would be in contrast to the character of God. Simply put - it is not possible.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
A couple of interesting things about your writing:
You speak of sources - unless there are Roman records or Jewish records of the crucifixion event that I am not aware of nor have I ever heard some speak of - all of your sources are 100% pure speculation concerning the life of the two thieves.
I find it interesting that twice you have chosen to paint the picture of these two robbers as victims because they were "forced" to steal. How is it that they were forced? I have done mission work in very poverty stricken areas and I have seen men and women who still chose not to steal, even to the point of going hungry. How did these men not have a choice? How is it that even one of them saw the punishment they received as justified and yet you seem (unless I am wrong) to struggle with this reality.
Jesus' sacrifice as a man does not have to be more than any man has suffered. How could any man or woman know this? This would be simply an assumption and the Bible certainly does not make this statement. Why is it important for Jesus' sufferings to be MORE than any other man for you. Would that make it significant to you? How could you have this knowledge? The difference in my view of the cross and yours (at least one of them) is that you see the death of a man. I see the completion of God's work in redeeming mankind. The sacrifice that God made for mankind is certainly more than any man has endured in all of history. You are correct in the statement, "I think we will both agree in that to understand your opinion one would require faith." It is my faith, and those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, that makes what you see as the "mundane sacrifice" completely "unmundane." I would even argue that according to scripture, there were many who were present that would also disagree with you.
Of the two thieves, one would certainly take issue with you. Even if you did not have faith in Jesus as being the Son of God, one thief makes the point that Jesus had done nothing wrong and Jesus DID NOT deserve to die as they did. If you consider the torture and death sentence of an innocent man mundane, that is your prerogative. Also, evidently the circumstances surrounding this particular crucifixion caused one Roman Centurion to simply state, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" Did that kind of event occur at many crucifixions. It sounds to me that there was something significantly different about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Concerning my faith, it was not just the death of a man, but the sacrifice of God's Son and the complete payment of the sins of mankind that make this crucifixion different than all the others that were performed by the Roman government. Would someone who did not believe in God simply write this off as another death sentence in the history of Rome??? Certainly they would. But I would challenge you in the fact that if it was simply a mundane act done to a mundane man . . . . then why are you and I, 2000 years later still conversing about it. You can blame all you want, but the fact of the matter is - there was something different about that crucifixion. I will say this, please do not come to the conclusion again in attempting to state what I accept or reject. Even now, if I need to clarify my understanding of this event, I will be more than happy to devote the time to writing it out. I know that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, unlike any other crucifixion in history, affects my life today. And even if you don't like to admit it, it is affecting yours right now as you read and respond.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
So in short:
1. God makes the rules people must follow.
2. People brake the rules.
3. God suffers to attone for the rules broken by the people.
4. God will not punish a person for braking the rules if that person believes that God suffered in his place.
I'm sorry, but there is no way I can make sense of this.
Wish you the best in this life, the only one we are certain we have.
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
Your not in a car Richard. It's break, not brake. Sorry for being an ass, but I had to point it out.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Shit! Grammer Police!!! Quick, get in the car, we gotta get outta here!
It's spelled "you're", not "your", christos. Sorry for being an ass, but I had to point it out.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Pssst! It's grammar.
{Sorry. I just couldn't help myself.}
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Gaaaaah!!! They're everywhere!!! Susan is an undercover cop... traitor.
Thank you for the correction.
So in short:
1. God makes the rules people must follow.
2. People break the rules.
3. God suffers to atone for the rules broken by the people.
4. God will not punish a person for breaking the rules if that person believes that God suffered in his place.
I'm sorry, but there is no way this makes sense to me.
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
RevLyle,
You appear to take umbrage at this novel portrayal of the two robbers. I unreservedly admit my story is but a canard, the connotations nonetheless remain steadfast despite the fanciful imagery. It matters not whether the thieves were have-nots or nefarious denizens or if they even existed. My description that makes you question my sanity was a mere pondering over plausibility. Are you so sure they existed and that they were genuinely nasty? I did state my claim was reasonable, that is, not absolute.
The value of my account is in the realisation that the unconditional veneration given to a man dying a cross is preposterous. It is apparent that many laud over this specific event rather than other ostensibly more miraculous claims in Christianity. The predominant symbol of Christianity is that of the cross. A symbol that borrows from pre-christian cultures, it symbolizes one of mans darkest hours and is able to invoke powerful emotion. I would find it strange that the tool for Jesus' demise is the chosen emblem of Christianity if it weren't for the reasons above.
The real boon from remembering the crucifixion is that it is something we can relate to directly (it is natural). We do not embrace death and are compelled to the side of those who suffer, even more so when it appears to be needlessly. Some of the crazier claims would leave many dumbfounded with disbelief! The pull via the emotions from the uncalled-for death of Jesus in fact brings vitality to Christianity. The picture painted will mesmerize a person with guilt, so much so that the whole affair reeks of a misbegotten scam when ones nous is not compromised by belief. I do not deny the possibility of the crucifixion I just imply hagiographic scripture - surely you have seen how stories get more fantastic as they get re-told...it is even evident in the Gospels. This idealizing indeed sets the acclaimed life of Jesus apart from others without requiring any actual miracles.
You speak of my speculation and request appropriate Roman records, were you expecting me to produce some unbeknownst affirmation of the crucifixion? Do you treat your own assertions with such pragmatic requirements?
There are many instances that illustrate the very nature of those attempting to consolidate a belief. There are passages that have been added to texts to create a firmer grounding for the existence of Jesus, such as the Testimonium Flavianum. I do not argue over the actuality of Jesus here, I merely wish to point out that skepticism is a required course when justifying a position.
You place great weight in the robustness of Christianity due to it lasting around 2000 years. I hope you realise it has gone through many changes, there have been countless splinter groups some that even rival eachother. Moreover I trust you profess the veracity of the beliefs held throughout the 3000 year reign of the ancient egyption culture, their pyramids surely couldn't be tombs for mere mortals.
I will accept that Christianity gets in my way today. Although you can now eat meat in most schools on a friday.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
I love this type of discussion. No matter how much the theists try to paint this tale of woe, I will never understand how God incarnate on Earth can ever make any kind of sacrifice.
We're talking about a being that is omnipotent and omniscient, supposedly. It is nothing to Him to create a being of flesh in the physical world, have him teach for a while, then die and return back to the non-physical realm of "heaven".
Sorry, but what has God "lost"? Where is the sacrifice in that?
The whole thing is much more touching and impressive if Jesus had no real connection to God and was an otherwise normal human with a gift of insight. His pain and sacrifice at the end of his life would have real meaning on a personal level if he were a normal human.
But nooooo. He has to be a facet of God's trinity. For any thinking person, it ruins the whole story.
-----
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
- Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
It is exactly the opposite. Jesus, God become Man, is pwerless to stop waht's about to occur. He pleads with the Father to let this bitter cup pass Him by. It is this omnipotence which Christianity realizes makes God complete.
God was forsaken of God. God lost faith in the love of the Father. G.K. Chesterton writes of this, "When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God."
Chesterton finishes his thoughts on the subject thus, "They (atheists) will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
It doesn't matter if Jesus had the full power of God or not. He was a part of God before he went to earth, and a part of God after he went back, so where is the sacrifice?
Even though you believe in God, you are stuck in this bizarre point of view that is very, very human. God has power over life and death, heaven and earth. Torture and death mean nothing from that perspective.
So God makes a mini-me who has a moment of fear and doubt as he is about to be killed. That somehow is supposed to mean "sacrifice" to a being of unlimited power? That makes absolutely no sense.
-----
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
- Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
God decides to abandon his power and become a man (Jesus). He pleads with "his father" (is this himself or the part of God that decided to not forgo authority?) to change his 'fate' - he didn't for he was he. Maybe Jesus just went a bit mad with the reality of the situation and forgot he was God the everlasting. Then the world shook, THUNDER, THUNDER!!
Give me sight beyond sight...
What is the realised omnipotence?
God deserted himself? Cast himself off? Ditched his identity and left himsef in the lurch?
Clearly this all means something to you, can you understand how weird it all sounds to somebody considering the events within the bounds of nature?
It works better if understood as an elevated tale.
Seems reasonable after the disowning of himself.
I think you will find many see greater significance in the actual pain and suffering itself. Flagellation is still practiced today, I do not understand why but it seems to be come from the parable of the crucifixion.
A modern example would be the proposal of the bacterial flagella being an example of intelligent design. The suggestion was in fact self harming as flagellation is the process of forming a flagella. A cunning way to fall under a scourging without the indignity of actual corporal mortification.
I presume your interpretation differs to those who pursue mortification of the flesh. Do you grant any significance to this ambiguity among believers of the same faith?
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Now that's what I call a zen riddle.
That's what I call honey-crusted nutbar. People who buy this stuff are playing hopscotch with logic.
-----
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
- Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
That God, the Creator, took the form of the created, adn subjected himself to the will of his own creature. At the hands of that creature, he suffered degradation, ridicule and death.
As a parallel, and admittedly a poor one, I have a dog. I would never consent to living on his level. Rest assured, if he ever decided to subject me to his will, or kill me, I'd have a dead dog.
I do because I did.
And in the process loses a great deal of its significance.
I did not mean, by citing the moral and psychological suffering of Christ to detract at all from the physical torment he underwent.
As far as flagellation, I must agree. I believe I suffer enough from my human condition and find no need to go out of my way to suffer further.
I'm not certain I understand the parallel here. Could you expand on this at all, please?
As I stated above, I belive there are those who carry the whole "mortification of the flesh" thing to an extreme. While I see nothing wrong with an occassional fast, or enduring unavoidable sufferings inherent in being human patiently, I see no need to inflict undue suffering on myself. I'm kind of a sissy about that kinda stuff.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
God accepted the sacrifice of Christ as sufficient. You have no idea what Christ suffered on that cross. God could have had an angel or ordinary man die for us, but He showed His love for us by dying Himself. There is no greater love. You either accept the way He did it, or or don't accept it at all. Stop looking for excuses to reject the truth. We come to God on His terms not our own.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Not impressive, as god was the one demanding the sacrifice, as well as the one paying it off.
Actually we do. Pretty much what any common criminal suffered by Roman executioners. Again, not impressive.
Or god could have just not demanded a sacrifice.
Sure there is. Just get rid of hell so nobody has to suffer.
Really? I thought I could go 50/50.
Stop using a posteriori logic to justify your 4th century beliefs.
god had complete control of how she could make us, then got angry because we fell short, then sent herself to accept our punishment for turning out exactly the way god made us to turn out, but is still going to punish some of us anyway.
god's terms blow a fat one.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Just a test