HOW WAS JESUS A SACRIFICE WHEN HE GOT UP AND ROSE AGAIN?
Options
MARIO_DRO
Members Posts: 14,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
I mean, when you "sacrifice" something, you loose it, you give it up. Jesus was the same before he came to earth, while he was on earth, when he died and when he rose, so WHAT exactly did/how was he a sacrifice?
Comments
-
Classic Dro. -
I think the term "sacrifice" comes into play when Jesus died for us....he took all our sins and died for us so that we can have a chance to enter the kingdom of heaven...He came down to help folks (sinners) turn from their ways..and thus giving up his life..(you do know he could have came down from that cross) but instead gave up his "flesh" life for us to have a chance to enter into heavens..Ppl were going to HELL..you do know when he went down to HELL and free those souls and then he rose...
Read when he was on the cross he cried out "my ? my ? " why hast thou forsaking me or something like that..that'll help you understand the sacrifice more depth..I think you'll looking at it from a 'flesh' stand point when it's merely a spirit beyond the dead standpoint in this case if you understand what I'm tryin to say..... -
He didn't get to keep livin it up on planet earth.
-
Good question. Basically ? put on a show for no reason other than to display his power rather than forgive like any rational and infinitely wise being would do
-
I always thought, even as a former Christian, why doesn't ? just simply forgive? Why does there need to be some kind of sacrifice?
It's a silly concept to me, always has been.
Some almighty, powerful ? , creates everything we know and love, yet he's so bitter and weak, and requires a sacrifice to give his arrogant ass some sense of pride.
Makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you look at ? and see he has human attributes, which means it is a man-made concept. -
Jesus went through it so you wouldn't have to....
-
It's theatrics bruh. The story is much more entertaining with a buildup, a ? , and then a plot twist.
Besides, "Jesus" supposedly knew he would be killed and that he would rise from the dead; so it's no "sacrifice" on his part there.
He just went along with the plan. -
why are you tryin to make sense of a book based on fairy tales?
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »It's theatrics bruh. The story is much more entertaining with a buildup, a ? , and then a plot twist.
.
lmao @ "plot twist"
-
I always thought, even as a former Christian, why doesn't ? just simply forgive? Why does there need to be some kind of sacrifice?
It's a silly concept to me, always has been.
Some almighty, powerful ? , creates everything we know and love, yet he's so bitter and weak, and requires a sacrifice to give his arrogant ass some sense of pride.
Makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you look at ? and see he has human attributes, which means it is a man-made concept.
Well...what's ? 's forgiveness when no one sincerely seeks it? Throughout the Bible, ? 's People would do something wrong, His People are like..."We messed up, please forgive us; we promise it won't happen again" and ? is like..."I forgive you"...and still His People continued to do bad things. You would have to see that mankind is not looking to be forgiven for their sin nor can they do anything to pay for their sin to understand the reason for Jesus. -
alissowack wrote: »Well...what's ? 's forgiveness when no one sincerely seeks it? Throughout the Bible, ? 's People would do something wrong, His People are like..."We messed up, please forgive us; we promise it won't happen again" and ? is like..."I forgive you"...and still His People continued to do bad things. You would have to see that mankind is not looking to be forgiven for their sin nor can they do anything to pay for their sin to understand the reason for Jesus.
First of all, to set some type of prerequisite before one can forgive another is based on ego alone. It is not grounded in understanding or even love as 1 Corinthians 13 defines it. You would think ? would at least live by his own word of advice but I guess that isn't the case, here.
Secondly, if ? really has a problem with forgiving his creatures for making mistakes, he should have either created them to be faultless or at least given them better judgement in order to avoid making the same mistakes twice. Any failure of a creature created by an infinitely wise, benevolent and powerful creator is that creator's fault and responsibility. -
alissowack wrote: »Well...what's ? 's forgiveness when no one sincerely seeks it? Throughout the Bible, ? 's People would do something wrong, His People are like..."We messed up, please forgive us; we promise it won't happen again" and ? is like..."I forgive you"...and still His People continued to do bad things. You would have to see that mankind is not looking to be forgiven for their sin nor can they do anything to pay for their sin to understand the reason for Jesus.
First of all, to set some type of prerequisite before one can forgive another is based on ego alone. It is not grounded in understanding or even love as 1 Corinthians 13 defines it. You would think ? would at least live by his own word of advice but I guess that isn't the case, here.
Secondly, if ? really has a problem with forgiving his creatures for making mistakes, he should have either created them to be faultless or at least given them better judgement in order to avoid making the same mistakes twice. Any failure of a creature created by an infinitely wise, benevolent and powerful creator is that creator's fault and responsibility.
I don't particularly see how forgiveness has anything to do with the ego unless there is a reason to treat it as an act of vanity; that ? takes pride in knowing that He can forgive whenever He wants and however He wants. If that's the case, why stop at Jesus? Why not come up with more new and craftier ways of forgiving people? It would be egotistical if ? , for eternity, kept people on edge by changing up the manner in which mankind can be forgiven; to be like...well..."It's time for new rules everybody".
The issue of sin goes far deeper than mere error and mistakes. It's like having a terminal disease in which there is no man made cure. We're all "Hellbound" if ? did not deal with it through Jesus. I can think for some reason that my righteousness can buy my way in. It can't and it won't. -
alissowack wrote: »I don't particularly see how forgiveness has anything to do with the ego unless there is a reason to treat it as an act of vanity; that ? takes pride in knowing that He can forgive whenever He wants and however He wants.
To forgive means to let go of resentment. Surely, a purely benevolent ? would, by his nature, be forgiving in all issues, would you not agree? Personally, I cannot picture a perfectly benevolent ? caught up in grudges and feelings of ill will toward his imperfect creations. Let me know if you see things differently and where.alissowack wrote: »If that's the case, why stop at Jesus? Why not come up with more new and craftier ways of forgiving people?
"new" and "crafty" ways are littered throughout the OT. Yeshua's "sacrifice" just happened to be the last amendment; that is, of the Bible we have today which is canonical and sacred. Thus, there are no universally accepted additions to the text and therefore no universally accepted amendments to ? 's list of prerequisites for forgiveness.alissowack wrote: »It would be egotistical if ? , for eternity, kept people on edge by changing up the manner in which mankind can be forgiven; to be like...well..."It's time for new rules everybody".
Of course, the Church handles these "new" and "crafty" ways now, depending on the denomination and/or church leader(s).alissowack wrote: »The issue of sin goes far deeper than mere error and mistakes. It's like having a terminal disease in which there is no man made cure. We're all "Hellbound" if ? did not deal with it through Jesus.
? wouldn't have to "deal with it" through Jesus if he hadn't have created sin to begin with. So in way, you're right; the issue transcends mere error and mistakes if we are to apply these errors and mistakes to human nature. In reality, we cannot blame humans for their flaws. Their flaws are manifestations of the imperfect nature of their creator. -
Jesus was at my house last week and dude toke a huge ? in my bathroom and didnt flush the toilet. Smh
-
Jesus was at my house last week and dude toke a huge ? in my bathroom and didnt flush the toilet. Smh
? ! -
Hard to flush with largantic spikes through your wrist ripping your tendons though.Jesus was at my house last week and dude toke a huge ? in my bathroom and didnt flush the toilet. Smh
-
alissowack wrote: »I don't particularly see how forgiveness has anything to do with the ego unless there is a reason to treat it as an act of vanity; that ? takes pride in knowing that He can forgive whenever He wants and however He wants.
To forgive means to let go of resentment. Surely, a purely benevolent ? would, by his nature, be forgiving in all issues, would you not agree? Personally, I cannot picture a perfectly benevolent ? caught up in grudges and feelings of ill will toward his imperfect creations. Let me know if you see things differently and where.alissowack wrote: »If that's the case, why stop at Jesus? Why not come up with more new and craftier ways of forgiving people?
"new" and "crafty" ways are littered throughout the OT. Yeshua's "sacrifice" just happened to be the last amendment; that is, of the Bible we have today which is canonical and sacred. Thus, there are no universally accepted additions to the text and therefore no universally accepted amendments to ? 's list of prerequisites for forgiveness.alissowack wrote: »It would be egotistical if ? , for eternity, kept people on edge by changing up the manner in which mankind can be forgiven; to be like...well..."It's time for new rules everybody".
Of course, the Church handles these "new" and "crafty" ways now, depending on the denomination and/or church leader(s).alissowack wrote: »The issue of sin goes far deeper than mere error and mistakes. It's like having a terminal disease in which there is no man made cure. We're all "Hellbound" if ? did not deal with it through Jesus.
? wouldn't have to "deal with it" through Jesus if he hadn't have created sin to begin with. So in way, you're right; the issue transcends mere error and mistakes if we are to apply these errors and mistakes to human nature. In reality, we cannot blame humans for their flaws. Their flaws are manifestations of the imperfect nature of their creator.
You got to go a little further back. There is the Bible account in Genesis where if He hadn't shown forgiveness there, there would be no humanity. There is this sense that forgiveness is treated as this knee-? reaction that ? is expected to have; that he has no control over it when put in a compromising situation; like an addiction He can't fight. If that is the case, then would it really be forgiveness? ? would just be a pushover. People would continue to do bad things just to use forgiveness as a temptation. There is a verse in the Bible in which ? says that He chooses to be compassionate and merciful on those whom He pleases...so who are we to say what ? should or shouldn't do?
My "Why stop at Jesus" post was meant for everything after Jesus...not before. If Jesus was not the ultimate form of forgiveness, then the game just continues.
The so-called church can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't mean they are doing ? 's Will by it. The reasons for the new and craftier ways of the church is because it doesn't believe that Jesus is enough. They want Jesus and something else. They want to sell people something else. -
Rage O'holic wrote: »
would u believe, that was the excuse tha ? ? tried to give me as he walked out my front door. I was like "? !! You supposed to be the son of ? . Work it out!"
-
alissowack wrote: »There is this sense that forgiveness is treated as this knee-? reaction that ? is expected to have; that he has no control over it when put in a compromising situation; like an addiction He can't fight. If that is the case, then would it really be forgiveness? ? would just be a pushover .
Being forgiving does not equate to being a push-over. Forgiveness is about letting go of resentment. There is the saying: forgive but do not forget. A person who is forgiving has more self control than someone who is not.
The Buddha teaches us,
"'He reviled me! He struck me!
He defeated me! He robbed me!'
They who gird themselves up with this,
For them enmity is not quelled.
Not by enmity are enmities quelled
Whatever the occasion here.
By the absence of enmity are they quelled.
This is an ancient truth."alissowack wrote: »There is a verse in the Bible in which ? says that He chooses to be compassionate and merciful on those whom He pleases...
Why didn't ? create only what pleases him? Isn't that what rational people do? Why did he knowingly create persons he chose to be a ? towards, based off the inherent personalities he created them to have?alissowack wrote: »so who are we to say what ? should or shouldn't do?
Well following from the theist's assertion of the nature of ? , we can conclude what ? would be like or do in certain situations. It would not be logical for him to do what is opposite of his nature. For instance, if the theist asserts that ? is omniscient, it would not be logical to then say he does not know something.
Who are you to say ? has the nature of existing?
You imply earlier that ? is not a push-over. Who are you to say he shouldn't be? It sounds as if you want ? to be some type of super hero for you.alissowack wrote: »The so-called church can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't mean they are doing ? 's Will by it. The reasons for the new and craftier ways of the church is because it doesn't believe that Jesus is enough. They want Jesus and something else. They want to sell people something else.
Why? Does ? not at least have control over his own house?
-
? is a spirit. So before Jesus became incarnate into human flesh, He had always existed as a spirit. Thus, when Christ became flesh, He did it in order to offer His body as a sacrifice for the remission of humanities sins.
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;" Hebrews 10:5
The body of Christ was given for a payment for the sins of all humanity. Jesus Christ didn't take on the nature of angels, because they are not redeemable, but He took on the nature of mankind. Meaning, He had to become like one of us, in order to redeem us.
The whole book of Hebrews deals with this topic. Here is a snippet from Hebrews 2:14-18
"14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them,k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to ? , and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."
So to recap:
1. Jesus existed prior to His incarnation as a spirit. Human flesh was not part of the nature of ? prior to His incarnation.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with ? , and the Word was ? ...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1, 14
2. By Jesus taking on the nature of humanity, He could redeem sinners by being a perfect sacrifice like unto His brethren. The Old testament sacrifices pointed to the coming of Christ. Once Christ came He became the fulfillment of all the sacrifices that the Old Testament pointed to. Read Hebrews 10
3. Jesus Christ laid down His life willingly, nobody took it from Him. He is ? after all.
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10: 17-18
4. He did it because He loved us.
"For ? so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
5. His sacrifice was necessary because it's the blood that makes atonement for sin.
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22
Please study the book of Hebrews because all your questions in your post can be found in that book. Ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and lead you into understanding. Amen. -
alissowack wrote: »There is this sense that forgiveness is treated as this knee-? reaction that ? is expected to have; that he has no control over it when put in a compromising situation; like an addiction He can't fight. If that is the case, then would it really be forgiveness? ? would just be a pushover .
Being forgiving does not equate to being a push-over. Forgiveness is about letting go of resentment. There is the saying: forgive but do not forget. A person who is forgiving has more self control than someone who is not.
The Buddha teaches us,
"'He reviled me! He struck me!
He defeated me! He robbed me!'
They who gird themselves up with this,
For them enmity is not quelled.
Not by enmity are enmities quelled
Whatever the occasion here.
By the absence of enmity are they quelled.
This is an ancient truth."alissowack wrote: »There is a verse in the Bible in which ? says that He chooses to be compassionate and merciful on those whom He pleases...
Why didn't ? create only what pleases him? Isn't that what rational people do? Why did he knowingly create persons he chose to be a ? towards, based off the inherent personalities he created them to have?alissowack wrote: »so who are we to say what ? should or shouldn't do?
Well following from the theist's assertion of the nature of ? , we can conclude what ? would be like or do in certain situations. It would not be logical for him to do what is opposite of his nature. For instance, if the theist asserts that ? is omniscient, it would not be logical to then say he does not know something.
Who are you to say ? has the nature of existing?
You imply earlier that ? is not a push-over. Who are you to say he shouldn't be? It sounds as if you want ? to be some type of super hero for you.alissowack wrote: »The so-called church can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't mean they are doing ? 's Will by it. The reasons for the new and craftier ways of the church is because it doesn't believe that Jesus is enough. They want Jesus and something else. They want to sell people something else.
Why? Does ? not at least have control over his own house?
Well...I didn't say that forgiveness equates to be a pushover. I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven.
Again...who are we to say what ? should or shouldn't do? According to the Bible, we are supposedly His Creation. What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.
If ? doesn't exist, then He doesn't exist. But, my responses to ? 's Existence was not made aimlessly. You already know that I am referencing ? 's Existence from the Bible so when I say things, it is under the assumption you know where I'm getting this from. You may not agree with what I have to say, but you know I'm not just saying it.
According to the Bible, ? is always in control even when His People are not. I don't know the motive behind asking why, but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning ? ...or to personalize it...my ? . I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your ? "...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend ? . If ? exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence. -
alissowack wrote: »I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven..
Forgiveness is, again, letting go of resentment. This is a choice, by and large. In any case, it would be the right or at least benevolent choice as there is no beneficial feature of resentment in and of itself. This is the choice a supposed benevolent ? would make.alissowack wrote: »What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.
The bolded is because man-made inventions have not gained consciousness to do so.
Let's say man has the ability to create a conscious being, perhaps a robot for the sake of argument, that could ask the underlined questions. What makes the robot's asking, preposterous?alissowack wrote: »According to the Bible, ? is always in control.
Then the Bible is wrong. A universe infected with evil proves this point.alissowack wrote: »but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning ? ...or to personalize it...my ? . I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your ? "...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend ? . If ? exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence.
I'm not. -
I always thought, even as a former Christian, why doesn't ? just simply forgive? Why does there need to be some kind of sacrifice?
It's a silly concept to me, always has been.
Some almighty, powerful ? , creates everything we know and love, yet he's so bitter and weak, and requires a sacrifice to give his arrogant ass some sense of pride.
Makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you look at ? and see he has human attributes, which means it is a man-made concept.
…exactly. ? is endowed often with human emotions, human reasoning, human logic but hes supposed to be beyond all that.
-
alissowack wrote: »I'm saying how forgiveness is made out to be a "reaction" instead of a "choice". If someone wrongs you and asks for forgiveness, you don't find yourself tingling inside with a urge to forgive...and the urges are so strong that you just can't help but do it. If that's the case, you would be a pushover. You weigh in on the situation and determine whether or not someone deserves your forgiveness...or even wants to be forgiven..
Forgiveness is, again, letting go of resentment. This is a choice, by and large. In any case, it would be the right or at least benevolent choice as there is no beneficial feature of resentment in and of itself. This is the choice a supposed benevolent ? would make.alissowack wrote: »What position is anything created to say to it's creator, "What have you done?" or "Why didn't you just do this instead?" There have been a lot of man made things created that were terrible inventions and I am yet to see them unite in rebellion.
The bolded is because man-made inventions have not gained consciousness to do so.
Let's say man has the ability to create a conscious being, perhaps a robot for the sake of argument, that could ask the underlined questions. What makes the robot's asking, preposterous?alissowack wrote: »According to the Bible, ? is always in control.
Then the Bible is wrong. A universe infected with evil proves this point.alissowack wrote: »but it seems as if you are hoping that I would feel a certain way about someone questioning ? ...or to personalize it...my ? . I see posts like this..."Why does/doesn't your ? "...and see responses of offense because they feel as if they need to defend ? . If ? exist, the deity exist apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. And if you don't agree, then let me put in another way. If the Buddha exists, then it should apart from whoever believes or not; whether someone defends or not. Whether I convert or not shouldn't add or take away from it's existence.
I'm not.
Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if ? chooses not to forgive. I may wrong you in some way and I ask you for forgiveness. You are in no way obligated to accept my plea. It could quite possibly be a good thing to do, but you don't have to offer forgiveness. Your resentment could also be justified for all I know. I would have to deal with any actions taken against me. What makes you think that ? can't be the same way?
When I made the "creator/creation" post, it meant it as dry humor. Of course, man made stuff can't communicate an opinion, but it is to say that there is an authority in which man has over it's inventions. Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...though there is this thing called idolatry. We don't need to justify our intentions for the things we make. We use it however we want, whenever we want, and where ever we want.
The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is ? in this case. You disprove ? , you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil. -
alissowack wrote: »Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if ? chooses not to forgive..
There is a problem with that. It contradicts ? 's supposed nature.alissowack wrote: »Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...
One day man may have to.. But that is beside the point.alissowack wrote: »The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong..
But it disproves the existence of its ? , which the entire book revolves around.alissowack wrote: »For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is ? in this case. You disprove ? , you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil.
Not necessarily. Once the ? theory is disposed of, the moral law giver becomes man, as he always has been.
