Vane exercises in rhetoric

[TempestTossed]

I was asked to start a new thread to answer some questions in an old thread that was hijacked by a swarthy band of suicide apologists. I said that Jesus' one day of torture and three days of "death" doesn't add up as a sufficient substitute for sin that would otherwise be paid for by an eternity in Hell. In response, bgoalie said,

TT, I would propose starting two new threads, as this one has kind of slid off into several other tangents. First, you raise a good question about Jesus' sacrifice, and whether or not he really laid down his life if he just got his life right back three days later. I think if you read back through the posts, there are some good answers mixed in there. I would add to them (or repeat in some cases):

1. Do you think Jesus knew everything that was going to happen? There are stories within the gospels that seem to point to him not knowing everything. Was part of the greatness of Jesus' sacrifice the possibility that he did it, NOT knowing how it was all going to end?

2. You do have to give some consideration to the fact that Jesus was blameless. Under this theological system of justice we have in the Bible, punishment for sin is death. You say Jesus did not really die, as he rose again three days later, so he did not serve the eternal punishment. But you should keep in mind that Jesus also did not deserve any punishment. Anything he took on was more than he deserved, no matter how light or severe the punishment.

1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"?

2. If someone takes the punishment for someone else, is it supposed to matter how blameless the substitute is? I mean, shoot, if a thing like that is supposed to matter, then maybe Jesus could have gotten away with a thump on the nose. That would have been more than he deserved.

I would suggest you restart this thread if you still feel your question has not been answered. I would also suggest you study and self-criticize your theory on the resurrection. Your theory is that Jesus was crucified and his embarassed followers made up a story about him rising again to keep their movement going. There are many problems with this theory though. I'll list just a few, and if you are interested, start a new thread and maybe everyone can discuss some of them (or others). I hope this helps, and please feel free to poke holes in my logic. I'd love to have a good discussion about it:

1. If the resurrection was made up, why did the story have women to be the first witnesses of the risen Lord? Women were not even legal witnesses in the first century, and surely the disciples could have come up with a better story than Jesus appearing to this subclass of people. Why not have him first appear to the Twelve?

2. Why is there no story of exactly how Jesus rose from the dead? No disappearing then reappearing body in the tomb, no bright light, no voice from heaven, no dramatic stand up in the tomb, move the stone, and walk out and slay the soldiers standing guard. The stories are simple, with the resurrected Jesus just "showing up".

3. Why did many of the disciples and supposed witnesses to the risen Jesus die for their belief in him? If they KNEW this was a lie, why not just abandon the cause and move on? Who would die for a lie?

4. Why did the early church make the resurrection such a central pillar of their new religion? It was certainly embarassing to claim their leader "rose from the dead". People were not stupid in this time, they knew dead people did not just get up and walk again. Note also from Acts 2 that the early preachers appealed directly to the empty tomb of Jesus. They pointed it out to everyone, that David was still in his grave, but Jesus was risen.

It is very difficult to explain the emergence of Christianity without the resurrection. It is THE best thing apologetic Christianity has going for it.

Here is the difficulty for Christianity: if you are going to insist on the truth of a highly unlikely story (and the Jesus story can't get any more impossible), then at least the evidence has got to be darn-tootin' good. For fantastic claims of miracles, the evidence should not be just a set of conundrums that are only answered either through miracles or through natural explanations that haven't yet crossed our minds. We don't yet know how it is the pyramids of Egypt were built with the technology of the time. That isn't smoking-gun evidence for the power of the Egyptian gods.

1. I don't know why women were said to be the first ones to observe the resurrection of Jesus. I also don't see much of a problem with it. As far as I know, they never had the obligation to be legal witnesses. The eleven disciples, as the story goes, were to be the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus throughout the world.

2. I don't know for sure why the specifics of the ressurection are not mentioned, nor do I see much of a problem with that. My guess is that nobody would believe the specifics of an account that nobody could have witnessed. Nobody alive could be inside a closed tomb.

3. People do sometimes die for what they know is a lie. Take Jim Jones and David Koresh. But that may not be relevant since myth may have mangled the truths about the apostles as much as the truth about Jesus.

4. Since Jesus made himself a central pillar to his own religion, and he got publicly killed, the only way for his religion to live on was a resurrection. I don't know how embarassing a resurrection would be if at all (it seems badass to me). But the religion lived on with a resurrection as its main theme regardless.

[nebula]

I said that Jesus' one day of torture and three days of "death" doesn't add up as a sufficient substitute for sin that would otherwise be paid for by an eternity in Hell.

You have to understand the Hebrew sacrificial system. You also need to understand the Feast of Passover - for this celebration is the prophetic Feast of Jesus' death. And the Feast of Firstfruits is the prophetic feast of Jesus' resurrection. I could go into further detail to explain these things, if you truly are interested in learning?

[bgoalie35]

TT,

Thank you for the response. Your group status says "undecided" and I believe that would be a somewhat accurate description of who I am as well. I have been a Christian for about 10 years now, but in the last two years I have asked serious questions of God and of Christianity. Hopefully I will not engage in "vane exercises in rhetoric." I promise not to ask why you are here or quote you scripture if I can't argue with your logic. And I will try to always be honest and address your questions/comments directly.

I will leave the discussions of sacrifice and the Jewish system of atonement to those who know better than me. Its not that I don't think that is important, and I do believe you should listen to their arguments. If you want to fully understand the concept of sacrifice in Christianity, you are going to have to trace it back to its Jewish roots. I'm just too ignorant to help you in that category.

Give me time to look over your post and try to answer each of your questions and comments.

[bgoalie35]

1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"?

2. If someone takes the punishment for someone else, is it supposed to matter how blameless the substitute is? I mean, shoot, if a thing like that is supposed to matter, then maybe Jesus could have gotten away with a thump on the nose. That would have been more than he deserved.

Let me just start my reply here. I think right away I have to point out that you are appealing to "Christian doctorine" about Jesus. There are over 2 billion Christians in this world today, and I would guess that no 2 of them believe exactly the same thing about everything. I don't know what the most popular view of Jesus is, although I would guess that the majority of Christians believe he was omniscient. I do not, and I know many other Christians who do not believe that either. I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that it says "Jesus knew everything." I do know of many places in the Bible where Jesus' followers were very careful to point out that he was not a ghost, not a God man, not a spirit that appeared to be man. They are very careful to point out that he was wholey human. But how human could he have really been if he knew everything?

I don't want to get too far off on this point, but I would also point out Matthew 4 (you can't be all that "tempted" if you already know all the answers, not much of a test for an omniscient being), Matthew 8:10, and Mark 5:30 as some scriptures that may argue this point. Whether you believe he was omniscient or not, that is up to the individual.

As to why it would matter? If Jesus already knew what was going to happen, you're right, it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice on his part. Feel pain for a day, die for three, then rule the universe. Many people would take that option. If he did not know everything, though, he did not know he would be restored to life. He was willing to lay down his life, without expecting anything in return. Do you really think there is no difference in the level of sacrifice if he didn't already know what he was going to get?

2. Again, I think you need to listen to what others are saying about ATONEMENT and the Jewish system of sacrifice. I won't try to answer your question as to what was sufficient to substitute for sins, because I can't. I would just suggest carefully reading what others are saying on the matter.

It seems that you are not impressed with the sacrifice that Jesus gave. You called God a hypocrite at one point, and I think that speaks volumes about your belief on this issue. Would it be fair to say that you believe you do not deserve to be punished for sin? This is a concept I have struggled with before as well.

I think this is the first issue you really have to address if you want to get to the point to where you feel that Jesus' sacrifice is adequate. If you believe that sin is not really sin, than you see no difference between God and us, and you see no reason why God should punish us. He is a hypocrite because He sends us to Hell, but he doesn't stay there Himself.

If you do believe that sin is important in some theological, cosmic sense, where the universe and God Himself just cannot operate if sin is allowed into His presence, then you see the need for a "Hell", a place where people who choose not to be with God can be freely separated from Him.

If you believe in sin, you believe that we are inadequate, and in need of something to intervene on our parts. Then Jesus' sacrifice is appreciated by the ones who really believe that they are saved because of it.

Does this make any sense? I'm not sure I'm really getting my point across. Others feel free to feedback please.

[M45510G1C]

TT, you've gotta understand the priesthood and the sacrificial system to really get a good grasp on just what the Messiah did and how it atoned for all of us. Understanding Torah is key to understand the NT. The Temple, the feasts, all of it. It is difficult to understand exactly how a man (not to deny His divine nature here) being nailed to a cross and then resurrecting makes atonement without a good understanding of those things.

[Guest Lightbearer]

1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"?

My understanding of Jesus is this , even though he was God, he purposely humbled himself as a man and set aside his divine nature and made himself as human as any other human. He did not live by his divine nature but lived as every other human. He was subject to all the same weakness as every other human. Jesus was not born with divine knowledge but had to learn and acquire knowledge as every other person had too. All the miracles that Jesus performed was not of his own divine nature but by his faith in God the Father and his reliance upon the Holy Spirit. Jesus even taught his disciples how to have this kind of faith so that they too could also do the works of God such as heal the sick, cast out demons, and many other wondrous works of God. Jesus was not superhuman he was like me and you but with out sin. Paul describes Jesus as the second Adam. Jesus only new the future in terms of what the scriptures spoke of and what the Father revealed to him.

Phi 2:5-8 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; (8) and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Lightbearer

[bgoalie35]

There is much to say about our resurrection discussion too, but I don't want to get off topic. Lets just address the sacrifice of Jesus and whether or not it was a sufficient sacrifice. That's where this all started in the first place. I want to answer, or at least try to answer, your question.

[bgoalie35]

Mark,

Just so we can clarify it,

You are saying that ATONEMENT for sin is accomplished through sacrificing and shedding of blood. Even after ATONEMENT, you do not have FELLOWSHIP again until you have a true repentance of the heart. So, in answer to Tempest, you are saying that Jesus' death on the cross was an ATONEMENT for all of our sins. We are not sent to hell for our sins, but because we do not have "heart repentance" for our sins. Our sins are already ATONED for, but we have to take the last step with REPENTANCE.

Tempest asks why Jesus does not suffer in hell for all time if he is a substitute for us in our sins. Mark's answer is Jesus is a substitute for one step in the process, and we must take the second step on our own.

Tempest,

I would also point out that there are many figurative metaphors for Hell in the Bible, but I don't know if any of those can be taken literally (and truthfully, no one does unless they've been there. Ask Dante, he'll tell you about it ). As many people on this site would argue, Hell may not necessarily be a PUNISHMENT/TORTURE for sins, as it is a place of separation from God for those who willfully choose not to repent and reconcile themselves with God.

Haven't heard from you in a day or two, I'm looking forward to your response. Please make us clarify/correct anything that doesn't make sense.

[ruah brit]

I was asked to start a new thread to answer some questions in an old thread that was hijacked by a swarthy band of suicide apologists. I said that Jesus' one day of torture and three days of "death" doesn't add up as a sufficient substitute for sin that would otherwise be paid for by an eternity in Hell. In response, bgoalie said,

TT, I would propose starting two new threads, as this one has kind of slid off into several other tangents. First, you raise a good question about Jesus' sacrifice, and whether or not he really laid down his life if he just got his life right back three days later. I think if you read back through the posts, there are some good answers mixed in there. I would add to them (or repeat in some cases):

1. Do you think Jesus knew everything that was going to happen? There are stories within the gospels that seem to point to him not knowing everything. Was part of the greatness of Jesus' sacrifice the possibility that he did it, NOT knowing how it was all going to end?

2. You do have to give some consideration to the fact that Jesus was blameless. Under this theological system of justice we have in the Bible, punishment for sin is death. You say Jesus did not really die, as he rose again three days later, so he did not serve the eternal punishment. But you should keep in mind that Jesus also did not deserve any punishment. Anything he took on was more than he deserved, no matter how light or severe the punishment.

1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"?

2. If someone takes the punishment for someone else, is it supposed to matter how blameless the substitute is? I mean, shoot, if a thing like that is supposed to matter, then maybe Jesus could have gotten away with a thump on the nose. That would have been more than he deserved.

I would suggest you restart this thread if you still feel your question has not been answered. I would also suggest you study and self-criticize your theory on the resurrection. Your theory is that Jesus was crucified and his embarassed followers made up a story about him rising again to keep their movement going. There are many problems with this theory though. I'll list just a few, and if you are interested, start a new thread and maybe everyone can discuss some of them (or others). I hope this helps, and please feel free to poke holes in my logic. I'd love to have a good discussion about it:

1. If the resurrection was made up, why did the story have women to be the first witnesses of the risen Lord? Women were not even legal witnesses in the first century, and surely the disciples could have come up with a better story than Jesus appearing to this subclass of people. Why not have him first appear to the Twelve?

2. Why is there no story of exactly how Jesus rose from the dead? No disappearing then reappearing body in the tomb, no bright light, no voice from heaven, no dramatic stand up in the tomb, move the stone, and walk out and slay the soldiers standing guard. The stories are simple, with the resurrected Jesus just "showing up".

3. Why did many of the disciples and supposed witnesses to the risen Jesus die for their belief in him? If they KNEW this was a lie, why not just abandon the cause and move on? Who would die for a lie?

4. Why did the early church make the resurrection such a central pillar of their new religion? It was certainly embarassing to claim their leader "rose from the dead". People were not stupid in this time, they knew dead people did not just get up and walk again. Note also from Acts 2 that the early preachers appealed directly to the empty tomb of Jesus. They pointed it out to everyone, that David was still in his grave, but Jesus was risen.

It is very difficult to explain the emergence of Christianity without the resurrection. It is THE best thing apologetic Christianity has going for it.

Here is the difficulty for Christianity: if you are going to insist on the truth of a highly unlikely story (and the Jesus story can't get any more impossible), then at least the evidence has got to be darn-tootin' good. For fantastic claims of miracles, the evidence should not be just a set of conundrums that are only answered either through miracles or through natural explanations that haven't yet crossed our minds. We don't yet know how it is the pyramids of Egypt were built with the technology of the time. That isn't smoking-gun evidence for the power of the Egyptian gods.

1. I don't know why women were said to be the first ones to observe the resurrection of Jesus. I also don't see much of a problem with it. As far as I know, they never had the obligation to be legal witnesses. The eleven disciples, as the story goes, were to be the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus throughout the world.

2. I don't know for sure why the specifics of the ressurection are not mentioned, nor do I see much of a problem with that. My guess is that nobody would believe the specifics of an account that nobody could have witnessed. Nobody alive could be inside a closed tomb.

3. People do sometimes die for what they know is a lie. Take Jim Jones and David Koresh. But that may not be relevant since myth may have mangled the truths about the apostles as much as the truth about Jesus.

4. Since Jesus made himself a central pillar to his own religion, and he got publicly killed, the only way for his religion to live on was a resurrection. I don't know how embarassing a resurrection would be if at all (it seems badass to me). But the religion lived on with a resurrection as its main theme regardless.

Christ was not a central pillar to His own religion. HE IS GOD and the resurrection from the dead back to life was not new. It was necessary for Christ to come and show those who believe that He (God) had the power to raise them from the dead like previously promised. That they no longer need fear death. It was fear of death that the devil used to keep people under the bondage of sin. Christ came to show us that He is the Almighty and has the power to do what ever He pleases and will not leave those, (who will believe and who overcome sin and the flesh by His example), in the grave.

Hebrews 2

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Ro 6

9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him

Joh 11

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

Denise