Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have often thought that the concept of a savior was invented after the death of Jesus in order to explain away how the son of God himself could end up being murdered. When you really stop and think about it, it doesn't seem to make much sense. That would mean that God looked at the human race which had fallen due to the sins of Adam and Eve so God decided that he was going to provide a second chance to those who were worthy. The means of acheiving this goal is to have a son by impregnating a human woman who happened to be a virgin and then allowing him to grow up and preach his message to the human race. Then God grants mankind this second chance by allowing men to murder his own son. This brings up a number of questions. The most obvious one is that if God can truly do anything then why can't he just grant the second chance to humanity without harming Jesus at all? Also, why is the brutal torture and execution of Jesus by man rewarded? The Bible says that God destroyed virtually the entire human race except for Noah and his family but I can't imagine that they could have done anything nearly as bad as killing God's only son, I mean that seems to be as bad as it can get. I honestly can't make any sense out of this story. Any thoughts?
Read the book of Hebrews...chapters 8-10 get interesting.
Throughout the OT, we see the priests sacrificing animals to atone for the sins of the people. They had to kill a blameless, spotless lamb. Jesus is now that lamb for us. That's why he had to be born of a virgin--he is not stained with the sin of mankind. He had to die just as the lamb died to atone for the sins in the OT times.
Read the book of Hebrews...chapters 8-10 get interesting.
Throughout the OT, we see the priests sacrificing animals to atone for the sins of the people. They had to kill a blameless, spotless lamb. Jesus is now that lamb for us. That's why he had to be born of a virgin--he is not stained with the sin of mankind. He had to die just as the lamb died to atone for the sins in the OT times.
Ok, so explain why god needs an innocent creature to die for someone else's sin?
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,179 posts, read 7,020,231 times
Reputation: 1014
Jesus made himself a martyr...he did not have to die on the cross. He could have fled at any time and he did not have to antagonize the situation as he did. He was compelled by whatever his own beliefs were, I suppose.
And as far as sacrificing animals to atone for people's sins, Kdbrich, what a cruel and absurd idea. However, men have sacrificed innocents as far back as history allows...both people and animals...to appease their "gods". It was cruel and absurd 10,000 years ago and the idea still is.
In OT times the priest would lay his hands on the lamb and "transfer" the sins to that lamb. That's where the term "scapegoat" comes from, I've been told.
If the lamb had sins of it's own, it couldn't take on the sins of others. Likewise, if Jesus had sin of his own, his death would merely be payment for his own sin instead of our's.
John 1:29 says: "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." He said this at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. He knew who Jesus was. Who was this Lamb? This is in reference to the first lamb that was slain. That lamb was the once used to cover Adam and Eves sin. That is why it says in Revelation that Jesus is the lamb of God slain from the Foundation of the World. This foundation is found in Genesis at the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. Latter Abel sacrificed a lamb and God had favor with him because he followed God's example. This sacrifice was the "type" of death that was going to happen to Jesus Christ when he came to earth in human form. So, the sacrifice of Jesus predates human history. It was know by God from the beginning what he would eventually do to save all mankind from their sin. So the sacrifices before Christ forshadowed what he would eventually do. We no longer need to sacrifice because Christ work on the cross was complete and sufficient. All we need to do is acknowlege that what he did was sufficient to cover our sin and we will be saved. That is it!
Jesus made himself a martyr...he did not have to die on the cross. He could have fled at any time and he did not have to antagonize the situation as he did. He was compelled by whatever his own beliefs were, I suppose.
And as far as sacrificing animals to atone for people's sins, Kdbrich, what a cruel and absurd idea. However, men have sacrificed innocents as far back as history allows...both people and animals...to appease their "gods". It was cruel and absurd 10,000 years ago and the idea still is.
I apologize to my brothers and sisters who may have different interpretations of the significance of the crucifixion . . . I do not intend to undermine or create doubt in anyone. My belief that it was the necessary event to establish our species connection to God is unshaken . . . but my beliefs about why it was so differ markedly from many. I will present them here as discussion material . . . NOT to harm anyone's faith in Jesus. We each may have different levels of acceptance of magical thinking and reliance on magical processes by God. My reliance is on the non-magical reality of God.
What esselcue says is absoultely correct. The mindset of early man was such that it automatically connected ritual sacrifice with the concept of God. It is in myriad ancient belief systems. Given this species-wide mentality . . . it would be impossible to psychologically invoke the "significance of God" to any event without it. Nonetheless . . . it is erroneous, IMO.
The life and attitude of Christ is our example of the attitudes and conduct that we all should strive to achieve. Christ's destiny was to correct this misguided and confused immature carnal consciousness which dominated our species early attempts to understand our purpose and relate to God through sacrifice. Jesus provided the basic concepts and motives and then displayed the application of them in its purest form. Unfortunately, it involved the invocation of sacrifice to get any traction in the minds of that time period.
His real purpose was to alter the attitudes of "Man-the-Animal" (Carnal) so that he might learn the attitudes of "Man-the-Human."(Spiritual) Jesus was prepared to accept the consequences that such an enlightened attitude would inevitably produce during the barbarous era in which he lived . . . and apparently it was unavoidable (eg. Gethsemane). However, I must part company with the majority of those who see Jesus' crucifixion as payment to God for our "sins."
It is a testimony to the power of human wrath and vengeance that even in this age of enlightenment, some men still support the concept of a wrathful God. I just cannot relate to a God who would punish anyone (including Himself) to pay for His guilty childrens' failures to obey. Neither can I imagine eternal damnation from some incongruous "Divine Wrath."
If as a parent, you would see your children failing in life by resorting to alcoholism, drug addiction, criminal activities, or suicide, what would you feel? Surely it wouldn't satisfy your wrath for all the times they disobeyed you! You wouldn't feel they were finally getting the punishment they deserved, and thus, sate your vengeance. If there is any such parent, he or she is surely doomed. I think the usual reaction to this failure would be considerably different than that of justified wrath and vengeance. How can you conceive of God feeling any differently?
Jesus could not have died on the cross to pay for some ill-defined category of felonies and misdemeanors against God, termed "The Sins of Mankind." It seems that because Jesus knew it would happen, because God revealed to prophets that it would happen, and since God did nothing to prevent it, God is responsible. An early form of this propitiation idea can be found in Romans 4:25, where Paul says Jesus " was delivered up for our sins."
The idea that Jesus died "for" our sins can be interpreted more reasonably if we use an alternate meaning of the word "for," e.g. Jesus died "as a result of" our sins. After all, who condemned Jesus to die on the cross, God or men? Who scourged him? Who nailed him to the cross? Who piereced his side with a spear?
Jesus reaped the only possible consequence during that barbarous era from the men of power and authority who wished to preserve their dominance. Their reactions to him were completely consistent with the evolutionary stage of humankind at that time. Thus, at most, God is guilty of knowing what our forebears would do to Jesus (or anyone else with the same message), and not preventing it. But God couldn't conceivably have required such an atrocity as a form of punishment or payment for past or future violations. That is absurd, IMO!
Redemption is the fulfillment of a promise. God redeemed His promise to send a messenger (messiah) to instruct humankind about sin. If we eliminate punishment, wrath and vengeance as Divine motives, it becomes obvious that "sin" cannot be some "punishable transgression of Divine law." Then what is sin? Sin is “improper attitudes and behavior” toward God and others.
Jesus’ purpose was to exhibit and teach the proper attitudes and behavior, so that we would be able to learn by his example. Jesus is the Redeemer in the sense that Redemption is the fulfillment of a promise. He is one with God in that his consciousness is identical to that of God while still being a human consciousness and available to all humans for guidance to rebirth and eternal life as Spirits with him. My 2 cents.
Read the Book of Romans or Hebrews. I noticed you quoted a couple of verses from Romans...but read the whole book.
From a Biblical perspective, you are soooo wrong.
In the religion of "Biblianity" you may be right . . . but in my belief in Jesus Christ . . . I believe I am right. Jesus' example is simply too clear and his two "commandments" too obviously targeted to our attitudes toward God and each other . . . and not the avoidance of transgressing Divine laws to avoid punishment. And I have read the whole book and many such whole books, kdbrich . . . no need to get so condescending in your certainty about the absolute infallibility of your views. I did say I did not wish to interfere in anyone's relationship with Jesus . . . just providing my witness and the reasons for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
