Jesus' Sacrificial Death

[TempestTossed]

From the beginning of time, the only way to cleanse sin is with blood.  Only a sacrifice can rid you of your sins.  In the old tetament, animal sacrifices were used to cleanse but over time, man's sins were just too great to be appeased by the blood of animals.  So God needed a perfect sacrifice, something whose blood was perfect and pure.  The only answer possible was Jesus.  A sinless, lamb without blemish could cleanse the world of their sins.  So God sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins on the cross.  Blood HAD to be spilled for cleansing and Jesus gave up His life for this sacrifice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So maybe this sacrifice isn't really a genuine sacrifice, but, instead, a symbol. I might be able to buy that, except in traditional sacrifices, you don't get back what you sacrifice. If you get back what you sacrifice, then it isn't much of a sacrifice, is it? Supposing Jesus just died and stayed dead for eternity like any headless goat, it still wouldn't make much sense to me in my modern environment, but it would make a little more sense in the context of God making a substitutional sacrifice for the sins everyone else in a religious culture where sacrifices served as payments for sin. Contrast God's temporary sacrifice with the a normal mortal's permanent sacrifice in case he isn't really tuned into the Christianity business. It is either a permanent death, permanent misery, or an "everlasting torment," as Jesus put it.

[TempestTossed]

Just remember, seeing isn't believing. Believing is seeing.

I do believe that there is some truth to that. People who belong to an enveloping belief system are more likely to "see" evidence of it through self-induced delusions. That is why I am wary of commiting to a belief system before I know it makes reasonable sense. I don't want to be stuck in some hoaky way of thinking.

[Giaour]

Jesus' torment was real, his death was real, his blood that spilled from his crucified body was real, his sacrifice was real .

It was not symbolic.

He died.

It was finished, sacrifice complete, sins paid for.

Jesus rose again after 3 days, so what? It doesn't change the fact that he paid the ultimate price for us.

[TempestTossed]

Jesus' torment was real, his death was real, his blood that spilled from his crucified body was real, his sacrifice was real . 

It was not symbolic.

He died.

It was finished, sacrifice complete, sins paid for.

Jesus rose again after 3 days, so what?  It doesn't change the fact that he paid the ultimate price for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that Jesus rose again after 3 days and threw a part in heaven to last the rest of eternity seems to sabotage the idea that it was ever a sacrifice in the first place. Don't you think that the ultimate price could have been much greater than that? You know, like going to hell for eternity? That is the price everyone else would otherwise have to pay for their sins, after all.

[Gerioke]

Jesus raising from the dead proves that there is life after death. If Jesus just died and dissappeared, there would have been a few disciples going around, scratching their heads going" Hmmmm... I dunno " Jesus left no doubt that Heaven is something to be strived for.

[TempestTossed]

Jesus raising from the dead proves that there is life after death. If Jesus just died and dissappeared, there would have been a few disciples going around, scratching their heads going" Hmmmm... I dunno " Jesus left no doubt that Heaven is something to be strived for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, that's great. And then we have a comparably small sacrifice.

[eric]

Tempest tossed,

Are you here to learn or to sneer at the answers in response to your questions?

I suggest you go back and read the TOS and the SOF of this message board.

Faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ. Rom 10:17.

e

[TempestTossed]

Sometimes, when people argue with me reasonably, I learn something, I admit I was wrong, and I change my mind. That only happens when those I am arguing with understand what I am saying. I don't want to come off condescending or rude or sneering. I just want to argue reasonably. I am trying to make my point clear that an explanation for why Jesus rose from the dead doesn't solve the problem of how such an act nullifies the sacrifice.

[eric]

Sometimes, when people argue with me reasonably, I learn something, I admit I was wrong, and I change my mind.  That only happens when those I am arguing with understand what I am saying.  I don't want to come off condescending or rude or sneering.  I just want to argue reasonably.  I am trying to make my point clear that an explanation for why Jesus rose from the dead doesn't solve the problem of how such an act nullifies the sacrifice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you get the idea from, that Christ's resurrection nullifies the sacrifice. Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at.

e

[fenwar]

So maybe this sacrifice isn't really a genuine sacrifice, but, instead, a symbol. I might be able to buy that, except in traditional sacrifices, you don't get back what you sacrifice. If you get back what you sacrifice, then it isn't much of a sacrifice, is it?

I think it's worth taking a broader look at the nature of Biblical "sacrifices".

If you put them in terms of "transactions" quite often the picture is blurred because we have the wrong starting point.

In the Old Testament, the Israelite sacrificed one of his lambs and got forgiven for his sins, right? Wrong.

In this picture the Israelite is down one lamb and up one batch of forgiven sins; God is up one lamb and down one "forgiveness unit" from his infinite store.

But the thing is, the sacrifice is meant to represent the Israelite's acknowledgement that all his lambs - and thus all his possessions, and even his very life and being - belong to God. (That's why the sacrifice had to be from the best of the flock - it is representative of his whole flock.) Wind back the tape to the very beginning: God created everything, gave every man his life, and gave this Israelite his lambs. In reality the Israelite has "lost" nothing - because he had nothing to begin with. And because of this, he "receives" much, much more - not just the forgiveness aspect but the provision of the rest of that flock.

I hope that makes sense so far - sacrifices aren't necessarily transactional, they are more about acknowledgement.

So we come to Jesus' sacrifice. On the cross, he lays down his life - his humanity.

(It's worth noting that this isn't the first sacrifice he's made - in order to become human he has already laid down the trappings of his "divine nature", but that's a different theological tangent altogether... )

Anyway. Again the "transactional view" is clouded. What is it that Jesus is laying down? Something he did not have in the first place. In fact something that none of us "have" as our own. Our very humanity - our life, our being - was created by God and belongs to God. This is why Paul talks about Christians being a "living sacrifice" to God - we lay down our lives because they belong to God in the first place.

Jesus' resurrection is a very clear indication that this is what sacrifice is meant to be about. If we completely lay down our life then we get it back - and more besides. As Jesus himself puts it, "For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it."

Hope that helps to some extent? Let me know if it doesn't make sense, I have tried to keep things brief but can go into more detail if you want.

Fenwar