Crosswords1 min ago
"The" Easter question
60 Answers
How exactly does this Jesus saving everybody by dying on the cross work?
I'm seriously interested because I've never quite gotten my head around how it is that Christians think this works.
Is it that God needed to see a sacrifice from Jesus (part of his own being) to see humanity worth saving? - How does that work with omniscience?
Or is it some sort of PR thing that this event "proved" God existed so that non-Jews would prey to him - because he could only save people who believed in him (could / would?) being good wasn't enough.
How specifically do the mechanics of this work?
I'm seriously interested because I've never quite gotten my head around how it is that Christians think this works.
Is it that God needed to see a sacrifice from Jesus (part of his own being) to see humanity worth saving? - How does that work with omniscience?
Or is it some sort of PR thing that this event "proved" God existed so that non-Jews would prey to him - because he could only save people who believed in him (could / would?) being good wasn't enough.
How specifically do the mechanics of this work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Religious or theological contribution to this Q would be futile. I can already see the schoolyard bullies hiding behind the bike sheds lined up like a Bash Street custard pie squad with their market trader clich� sheets ready to trounce out the usual hackneyed denigrations.
So yes, there you go, it was a PR stunt.
So yes, there you go, it was a PR stunt.
"Religious or theological contribution to this Q would be futile. I can already see the schoolyard bullies hiding behind the bike sheds lined up like a Bash Street custard pie squad with their market trader clich� sheets ready to trounce out the usual hackneyed denigrations.
So yes, there you go, it was a work of fiction."
You imagine that cowardly attempt to close down debate by poisoning the well is reasonable, do you?
So yes, there you go, it was a work of fiction."
You imagine that cowardly attempt to close down debate by poisoning the well is reasonable, do you?
Is it that God needed to see a sacrifice from Jesus (part of his own being) to see humanity worth saving? - How does that work with omniscience?
We are told in the gospels that Jesus believed his suffering and death was the will of God, in that it was the purpose of Jesus to reach the fulfilment of Gods wishes and thus to achieve perfect spiritual humanity to become a Messiah. His death on the cross was not only physical but spiritual also � the point being that death means �separation�, a departing of the spiritual soul from the physical body.
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father. (John 10:17-18)
Jesus accepts this destiny without fear or question. By going to the cross, he will bear divine judgment, the judgement which rightly falls upon Israel, and, upon all humanity. His death was necessary, Jesus believed, not only because God the Father willed it but because in this way he would also fulfil his calling has Israel�s Messiah and the world�s savior. This was written in the OT, and was the course of Jesus� life, to give it up as a ransom for many.
Jesus believed that his death was at the centre of God�s plan for salvation. Through his broken body and spilt blood, the new covenant would be inaugurated.
"Christ took our sins and the sins of the whole world as well as the Father's wrath on his shoulders, and he has drowned them both in himself so that we are thereby reconciled to God and become completely righteous"
Perhaps for a wider depiction of events, one could refer to the Psalm from which Jesus himself quoted whilst on the cross, Psalm 22.
We are told in the gospels that Jesus believed his suffering and death was the will of God, in that it was the purpose of Jesus to reach the fulfilment of Gods wishes and thus to achieve perfect spiritual humanity to become a Messiah. His death on the cross was not only physical but spiritual also � the point being that death means �separation�, a departing of the spiritual soul from the physical body.
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father. (John 10:17-18)
Jesus accepts this destiny without fear or question. By going to the cross, he will bear divine judgment, the judgement which rightly falls upon Israel, and, upon all humanity. His death was necessary, Jesus believed, not only because God the Father willed it but because in this way he would also fulfil his calling has Israel�s Messiah and the world�s savior. This was written in the OT, and was the course of Jesus� life, to give it up as a ransom for many.
Jesus believed that his death was at the centre of God�s plan for salvation. Through his broken body and spilt blood, the new covenant would be inaugurated.
"Christ took our sins and the sins of the whole world as well as the Father's wrath on his shoulders, and he has drowned them both in himself so that we are thereby reconciled to God and become completely righteous"
Perhaps for a wider depiction of events, one could refer to the Psalm from which Jesus himself quoted whilst on the cross, Psalm 22.
-- answer removed --
Christ took our sins and the sins of the whole world as well as the Father's wrath on his shoulders
This is the bit I don't get at all.
A/ Jesus is part of God - I can see one God sacrificing himself against another more powerful God in an Apollo/Jupiter - type of idea but how can one part of God make a sacrifice to appease another.
B/ What I refered to as God's omniscience. If you know Everything that will happen, how can your wrath be assuaged by a sacrifice - God must see the full run of history - how could his fury be assuaged by something he knew would happen.
C/ Jesus' sacrifice to gain forgiveness for us does not make moral sense. - Would you punish one of your children for the crimes of another? Would you accept the apology from one burglar on behalf of a different one who turned over your home?
In fact the more I put this into words the more it occurs to me that the whole Easter story only really makes sense in a polytheistic context
This is the bit I don't get at all.
A/ Jesus is part of God - I can see one God sacrificing himself against another more powerful God in an Apollo/Jupiter - type of idea but how can one part of God make a sacrifice to appease another.
B/ What I refered to as God's omniscience. If you know Everything that will happen, how can your wrath be assuaged by a sacrifice - God must see the full run of history - how could his fury be assuaged by something he knew would happen.
C/ Jesus' sacrifice to gain forgiveness for us does not make moral sense. - Would you punish one of your children for the crimes of another? Would you accept the apology from one burglar on behalf of a different one who turned over your home?
In fact the more I put this into words the more it occurs to me that the whole Easter story only really makes sense in a polytheistic context
Wizard sums it up nicely although it is of interest to note that in conformity to the spirit of scapegoating personal responsibility, He had His Son do the dirty work for Him.
This prevailing theme of transference of guilt (some earned/some illusory) seems a strange attraction to some while the act of assuming an unearned (although in this case questionable) guilt is touted as the ultimate moral virtue. How anyone can view the Biblical account of Easter as anything other then morally repugnant is beyond me.
But then once you remove reason from the equation, I suppose it all makes perfect sense.
This prevailing theme of transference of guilt (some earned/some illusory) seems a strange attraction to some while the act of assuming an unearned (although in this case questionable) guilt is touted as the ultimate moral virtue. How anyone can view the Biblical account of Easter as anything other then morally repugnant is beyond me.
But then once you remove reason from the equation, I suppose it all makes perfect sense.
-- answer removed --
One thing that has always puzzled me with the crucifixion, is that as Jesus was God's son, he definitely believed in him, so knew that once he was dead, then he would be ok anyway!
Unlike us other human beings that don't know for sure!!
Surely this makes his suffering just a transitionary phase and endured only for the time whilst it was happening? He was always going to 'come out the other side!'
Unlike us other human beings that don't know for sure!!
Surely this makes his suffering just a transitionary phase and endured only for the time whilst it was happening? He was always going to 'come out the other side!'
Gods' perfect justice demands punishment for sin.
Christ was without sin, and therefore the perfect sacrifice to take the punishment for our sin, so Gods' perfect justice is satisfied.
Christ transfers His perfect righteousness to us, if we want it, and if we want to accept the free gift of forgiveness.
Now bring on the lions and tigers and bears!
Shouldn't R & S be renamed, R R & S?
Rubbishing Religion and Spirituality? Thyat seems to be its raison d'etre most of the time.
It is suggested to me that I mess with theminds of my grandkids for telling them about Jesus, with approval from Mum and Dad of course, and that hurt.
They are, as a matter of interest, well balanced kids, cheeky and loveable and everything anybody could want from grandkids, epecially the privelege of giving them back!
Christ was without sin, and therefore the perfect sacrifice to take the punishment for our sin, so Gods' perfect justice is satisfied.
Christ transfers His perfect righteousness to us, if we want it, and if we want to accept the free gift of forgiveness.
Now bring on the lions and tigers and bears!
Shouldn't R & S be renamed, R R & S?
Rubbishing Religion and Spirituality? Thyat seems to be its raison d'etre most of the time.
It is suggested to me that I mess with theminds of my grandkids for telling them about Jesus, with approval from Mum and Dad of course, and that hurt.
They are, as a matter of interest, well balanced kids, cheeky and loveable and everything anybody could want from grandkids, epecially the privelege of giving them back!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
What's 'perfect' about God's justice? I wouldn't call it perfect. I'd call it selfish and arrogant. He doesn't reward love, honesty, humanity and decency, and his justice doesn't demand punishment for sin - he can forgive sin. He just can't forgive non-belief in him.
Theland, If that hurt, then perhaps it's an indication that you should think a little more responsibly about the horrors you're filling these children's minds with. They might be cheeky, loveable and well-balanced now, but what thoughts and fears are you burdening them with for the future? You're doing them no favours whatsoever.
Octavius, Jesus accepts this destiny without fear or question.
No he doesn't.
Matthew
26:38 ...........My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death
26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me........
26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Of course, since he's God, he was talking to himself.
Theland, If that hurt, then perhaps it's an indication that you should think a little more responsibly about the horrors you're filling these children's minds with. They might be cheeky, loveable and well-balanced now, but what thoughts and fears are you burdening them with for the future? You're doing them no favours whatsoever.
Octavius, Jesus accepts this destiny without fear or question.
No he doesn't.
Matthew
26:38 ...........My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death
26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me........
26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Of course, since he's God, he was talking to himself.
I was rather trying to avoid simply going down the "religion is rubbish" route here and rather trying to understand what it is that Christians believe and more importantly how it works.
We get lots of language like "Christ transfers his righteousness to us" but nothing about how that happens.
Is there some glowing ball of righteousness that descended on people?
Sometimes you even get stuff about "original sin" but that seems rarer now that hardly anybody actually believes in the Garden of Eden and talking snakes and all that.
Of course all of this only fails to make sense if you are thinking of Jesus as part of God.
If you think of Jesus as a man or some lsort of angel it all slots into place.
Which leads me to the question of why exactly Christians think Jesus was part of God.
After all there have been plenty of people raised from the dead in the bible - not just Lazarus!
http://www.believers.com/believe/bel165.htm
We get lots of language like "Christ transfers his righteousness to us" but nothing about how that happens.
Is there some glowing ball of righteousness that descended on people?
Sometimes you even get stuff about "original sin" but that seems rarer now that hardly anybody actually believes in the Garden of Eden and talking snakes and all that.
Of course all of this only fails to make sense if you are thinking of Jesus as part of God.
If you think of Jesus as a man or some lsort of angel it all slots into place.
Which leads me to the question of why exactly Christians think Jesus was part of God.
After all there have been plenty of people raised from the dead in the bible - not just Lazarus!
http://www.believers.com/believe/bel165.htm
While we're analysing this curious and highly unlikely tale, and trying to make sense of it, we might just notice that God gave his son a cushy time in the end. Crucifixion was a slow lingering death lasting for days and sometimes as long as a week.
If Jesus was taken down after only a few hours it means he got off lightly compared with many thousands of others who didn't have his divine connections. It also poses the mystery of what on earth he died of, if he did.
If Jesus was taken down after only a few hours it means he got off lightly compared with many thousands of others who didn't have his divine connections. It also poses the mystery of what on earth he died of, if he did.
