In the comments section of my last post (An Atheist Asks: Why Did Christ Have to Sacrifice Himself To Himself?), any number of atheists and/or agnostics raised the same question: What, exactly, was the sacrifice Jesus made? One put it exactly that way. Another asked, “This is what baffles me most about Christians: The Great Sacrifice.” Another wrote: “I am attracted to the Beatitudes and the concept that God is Love, both themes that seem to me utterly inconsistent with a God who demands sacrifices of anything or anyone living.”
I figured that what they were all basically asking was, “What, exactly, is the atonement?” So that’s the question I promised I’d answer.
As many of my regular readers know, I wrote a book called “Penguins, Pain and the Whole Shebang: Why I Do the Things I Do,” by God, as told to John Shore. In that (very short) book, I have God himself directly answering eight or nine of the most commonly heard objections to, or questions about, Christianity. (A few such questions are: “I just don’t believe in God, period.”; “If you [God] really exist, why don’t you prove it?”; and ”What’s the deal with evil, anyway? Why does a God who is all-powerful and all-compassionate allow evil to exist? He either wills evil to exist — which makes him despicable — or he’s powerless to stop it, which makes him uninspiringly weak, to say the least. Both bite. What’s up?”) One of the questions I have God address in that book is: “What’s the whole ‘Atonement’ thing actually mean?”
Below is part of how, in Penguins, I have God answer that question. I’m going to use that answer here, because … well, I think it’s about as good an answer as I can write. (Note: If you’re a Christian who’s offended by the literary conceit in Penguins of putting words into the mouth of God, please bear in mind that I didn’t write this book for Christians; I wrote it for non-Christians, who of course aren’t likely to share such squeamishness. Please also remember that in The Imitation of Christ, Thomas a’ Kempis also put words into the mouth of God, and for 500 years Christians considered that book nearly a second Bible. Thanks.)
So here’s some of what “God,” in Penguins, has to say when he is asked what the whole “Atonement” thing actually means:
The At One-ment (Hey! I’m Hooked on Phonics!™ Wait—no I’m not) refers to that act in which I allowed myself to get brutally murdered so that all humans could be forever cleansed of the guilt associated with the things they do or think that do not, shall we say, represent their finest moments.
I let myself be tortured to death so that you could live free of pain.
But, hey, no pressure or anything. I don’t want you worrying about it. I was glad to do it. Seriously. No problem. It was a Friday. I really didn’t have all that much to do but hang around anyway. …
Still, there was a job to do, and I was the man to do it. And so I did: The “it” in “It is finished” refers to the establishment of the means by which all people, forever, could have access to real and lasting salvation. I know I just said this, but if anything in the universe bears repeating, it’s that what my dying on the cross secured was the means by which, from that point on, all human beings could have rinsed from their hearts and minds their guilt (however “naturally” they acquired it), which, without my divine intervention, must otherwise fester inside of them, where at best it severely undermines the quality of their lives, and at worst compels them to contribute to that wretched, twisted cause that seeks to drag all of humankind down into the pits of degradation.
Do you see? I won the battle between good and evil by paying, in full, with my body, any and all karmic debt that might ever be incurred by anyone doing evil.
You might owe the phone company, the electric company, the credit card company, and your landlord. But you don’t owe me, or the world, anything. I’ve already totaled you out.
I’ve already atoned for your sins.
Which means that you and I, forever, are copacetic.
As long as you believe in me, that is. As long as you believe that as the Christ I took human form and stepped into human history for the specific purpose of removing from all people—by which I most definitely and forever mean from you personally — the debt incurred by any and all sin.
Believe that, and it’s all about you and me, friend.
Don’t, and you’re on your own.
But you believe it. You have to. Cuz you know who’s on your side, don’t you? You know who’s got you covered, don’t you?You’re feeling the love. You know you are. C’mon. Admit it. Who loves you? Who? Who cares about you? Who gave his all so you could delight in life instead of being bogged down by true existential angst?
Who’s your daddy?
That’s right: Me. The Father. Jesus. The Holy Ghost.
Us.
I.
And what do really good fathers do? That’s right: They fork over the big bucks to cover the cost of every single thing their kids could ever think of doing.
Do you really wonder why such infinite numbers of people have always signed on for Team Jesus? Do you really think they’re all just lazy, shallow simpletons?
Well, they’re not. What they are is debt-free. Which is to say that, spiritually speaking, they’re forgiven.
Forgiven!
By God Almighty!
Forever!
Man, I just don’t know what else you could possibly want from me.
–from Penguins, Pain and the Whole Shebang, copyright 2005 by John Shore
Yes, Jesus died in the way that he did in order to leave an effective and powerful impression in the human psyche, as John so accurately expresses in his post. But something that I do not think is understood, and is important to understand, is that he also had to die.
From a consciousness point of view, Jesus simply had to die. With the knowing that he had, being amongst the people - the density of the consciousness in 30 AD - was a slow and painful experience for him much of the time. He was kind of ‘beating his head against the wall’, so to speak trying to get through to the people. It was a skilful move for him to create his death in the way that he did, to maximise the impact of his message and time spent on earth.
Also, because Jesus entered the earth in a pure, or virginal state, which is to say with no previous experience in the earth matter, his time spent incarnate effected his being, gave him some past, and attached him to the story here on earth. But his overriding wisdom and knowledge of the divine gives him the strength to continue his work. Not until the majority of mankind gets the truth of his message can he rest. In this way, his death was in fact he beginning of his true mission.
I’m not religious at all, and I’ve never understood this bit of Christianity… Thanks for clearing it up, this explaination (both posts) were much easier to understand than some of the other stuff I’ve heard and read.
So Harrison, again as I mentioned yesterday, it’s all just a big PR stunt. The Ron Paul Blimp was unavailable that day so what the hey, let’s have an old fashioned barnburner crucifixion. That will get the Goyum’s attention all right. They won’t forget that piece of whiz-bang.
I will try to restate my question from yesterday in the context of John, er I mean God talking to John’s, explanation today.
This God you refer to seems stuck trying to find a good solution to a game someone else set up. Someone created the system where people need to have their guilt atoned for. Someone is making an accounting of that guilt and deciding how many calves or sheep or lambs or Son of Men will need to be slaughtered to cover that debt.
Is God playing someone else’s game? Or did He/She/It create these rules just the way he created the creeping things that creepeth upon the earth? If so, He/She/It seems to be gaming his own system. Where’ the challenge in that? Indeed where’s the sacrifice?
Maybe there’s an Uber-God somewhere who sets up the rules that our God has to follow. And that Uber-God had to send his son to our God’s heaven to die in order that our God is free to save us? It soon degenerates into sollipsisms.
Again I want to return to my attraction to a God of Love. I would think such a God would reward humanity for its good works, for being charitable, for doing all those things mentioned in the Beattitudes and the Sermon on the Mount.
Murdering his son doesn’t seem like the way to get into this God of Love’s good graces. Expressing hatred or even disapproval towards people who don’t conform to some narrow view of acceptable sexual practices and partners also seems like a bad strategy for achieving eternal salvation.
Love one another as I have loved you (gay people included)
Brian, my heart hurts for you. Seriously. I’m sorry for the ways it seems like God has been misrepresented to you, because the God I know is everything you say and at the same time nothing like you say.
I think that the true glory of the cross is that by murdering the Son of the God of Love, that Son was able to conquer death and that, and only that, is what brings salvation.
Christians also believe in the Holy Spirit, the third part of the trinity, and Jesus himself said that the helper (Holy Spirit) could not come unless Jesus went away (in reference to His death and resurrection).
And as to the people who “have (a) narrow view of aceptable sexual practices and partners,” I apologize for them and the hatred and disapproval they have shown you. They were wrong. You are right- we are supposed to love everybody, and despite popular opinion, there are ways to love people without loving all the things they do. (A book that is really good about this is John’s book “I’m O.K.- You’re Not).
I love this quote that I read before on a Christmas card - and think it’s apt for this post:
“He came to pay a debt He didn’t owe,
because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.”
“I figured that what they were all basically asking was, “What, exactly, is the atonement?” So that’s the question I promised I’d answer.”
It wasn’t the question that I was basically asking, in my case at least.
If you want to say that Jesus accepted the ending of his earthly life for an eternity of paradise and bliss, then I would call that a “trade up” rather than a sacrifice.
So you might more accurately say,
“Jesus improved his situation for you.”
or
“Jesus loved you so much, that he was willing to endure an eternity of bliss and happiness for your sake.”
I mean, I know WHY it isn’t presented like this — it doesn’t sound like much of a sacrifice, but it’s accurate, right?
Unless you want to say that the pain that he endured was the true sacrifice?
In which case he could have just stubbed his toe repeatedly until the pain he suffered was “enough”, right?
And, oddly, Christians would have to be thankful that Jesus’ death wasn’t lethal injection, because then the “sacrifice” wouldn’t have worked because he didn’t feel enough pain.
Ya’ll,
I just have to jump in and comment here to start at the beginning, or at least my view gained from a consensus of many others. I think you know this one.
God created us with free will meant to be used to love him. That’s because God didn’t want to force us to love him like some automan (sic). So we got willful and disobeyed God. God knew this would happen but still gives us free will for the before-stated reason. So down here God came as God/Man (Jesus) to gives us a means to get back to loving him. The rest of that has been covered a heck of a lot better above or in John’s “Penguin” book that to me made Christianity and the Bible more understandable than most commentaries I’ve read.
Hope that’s not oversimplifying, condescending or too much of a plug for John - its just my understanding.
And understanding God can be difficult for someone who has been chasing Him or running from Him for almost 35 years.
To continue, a metaphor that helped bring home how incomplete my understanding is - and a lot of others’ understanding as well from what I read - is a metaphor the band Daniel Amos used for it’s album “Darn Floor, Big Bite.” The title refers to the Gorilla Koko that used sign language to spell out “Darn Floor, Big Bite, Trouble, Trouble” after an earthquake.
This in turn is why many turn to the Bible - some simply for a view of History while others for deeper significance - but almost all to try to understand God. They’ve got a spiritual question they want an answer for - as do I.
-Sam
[...] Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made? « Suddenly Christian (tags: christianity) [...]
Right on Bro. John !!! You goose-bumped me out man! I am forgiven and reconciled to Abba Father ! He loves me and died for me ! WOW!I’ll never get over that ! I don’t want to ever get over that . He has saved-delivered-healed and restored me and my family . He gave me beauty for ashes ! Even when I set the fire ! I’m gonna’ have to stop and praise Him now folks ! Signing off , Bro. Bob
I think it’s too easy to fixate on the pain that Jesus suffered and not enough on His actual sacrifice. Many have made the point that Jesus could have simply “stubbed his toe enough times” to gain salvation for everyone.
That’s not true at all. Jesus suffered so that He could die in unique ways to fulfill Old Testament scriptures so that people familiar with them would recognize the Messiah. Jesus’ true sacrifice was that, when He died, He was rejected by His Father (God), which is the punishment that we were all meant to bear. That’s what it means when He says that He bore our sins. He took the rejection of God that was meant for us. That was His sacrifice, not the earthly pain He experienced.
“I’m sorry for the ways it seems like God has been misrepresented to you, because the God I know is everything you say and at the same time nothing like you say.”
Well, given the fact that there are about 1,000 denominations of Christianity, let alone myriad other religions, how is anyone to know that you aren’t the one who is misrepresenting some god?
I respectfully submit that it is about more than rejection - there is an element of ‘just penalty’ that we cannot ignore without doing damage to the whole of scripture. The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). He wasn’t just rejected in our place, He died in our place and suffered the just punishment for OUR sin. It goes all the way back to the atoning sacrifices offered by priests to ‘cover’ the sins of the people of Israel. There are over 90 uses of the term ‘atonement’ relating to sin in the OT. That sacrifice was temporary, while Jesus substitutionary death on our behalf was the ultimate sacrifice. It’s about where we will eventually spend eternity. Personally, I find the descriptions of hell in the NT so graphic and so horrible I cannot help but believe it is real and indeed the only alternative to eternity in His presence.
Going back to John Shore’s use of the imagery of the cross, I can remember a time when the imagry of my Savior bleeding while hanging on the tree beame crystal clear, if just for a moment in my spirit. That imagry ‘zoomed in’ to a close look at drops of blood falling to the ground from His broken body. I saw my name on one of those drops of blood! That’s how personel this is, my friends, and why I can be rather forceful sounding at times.
John also said we must believe in that substitutionary atonement. He hit the nail on the head on that one Ping! Ping! The gospel of John is all about His divinity, the need to believe in Him (not a religious system), our inherent inability to believe without a divine ‘nudge’, and the assurance from His very lips that once His, we are His forever. It’s an amazing book.
The gospel (good news) that the Blble proclaims consists of two basic things - Jesus died, according to the scriptures, for OUR sin and was physically raised up, according to the scriptures, as a demonstration of being brought from death to life. Jesus’ physical resurrection is a picture of OUR having been brought from total spiritual death to spiritual life in Christ when He lovingly draws us to Himself (John 6:44) and we choose to believe in the One He sent.
Regarding being loved by God for good works, charity, generosity, etc. It only gets you so far. Ephesians 2 “8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Just how many gold stars would you need to get into heaven? 5, 10, 100, 3000? Surely if you got 2,999 you would get a shoe in right? Well, by only focusing on works, you can miss the mark 2 fold: by the fact it will never be good enough on your own terms trying to make the mark of perfection, which we can’t do and also because it negates what is most important to God, which is a personal relationship with Him. He wants a relationship with you before works, not works before relationship. The works are a product of the relationship because we first love God then obey, not obey God and then love.
In addition to this, commenting on the sacrifice of Jesus, it is also a model of what we are called to do. We are called to die to ourselves (sin natured sum bitches we are :P), to sacrifice our “old self” to recieve the gift of salvation. Jesus, God as man, died to Himself, in order to give the gift of salvation. We can’t die for anybody else’s salvation, nor our own.. Jesus did that. But out of love for Him, to gain access to abundant life spiritually, we die to our old self to surrender and make God the focus of our life, shifting everything into His control so that our lives become what He would make it.
I used to struggle with the surrender part, we see overly religious zealots and want to disaccociate ourselves from the aparent slavery their religion brings. What I would want any athiest to know is this, and though it doesn’t make sense, it’s true for many of us.. that there is an honest freedom in giving one’s life over to Christ. We are free not to worry about controlling our lives ourselves, but trusting that God will handle everything, even the small stuff. The faith in that is tricky, but can be achieved by prayerfully requesting it as well. When God is in control, and we can believe it.. man.. that’s gravy. And thank the Lord for it!
Jules,
It souonds like you are saying that ‘works’ that bring glory to God WILL result from genuine salvation - which is by believing in the One sent.
John, your explanation of the atone was simply superb. Brian’s game theory perspective ignores the the rule of law idea, which Laura hints at in #10. Expanding on that hint, violent criminals can do many good things for friends, family, and others. Their victims don’t think so but that doesn’t negate the fact people who other people harm at times they are/may/could still/still be capable of doing good to others. Because this is so, should we not demand our judges and courts to just love them anyway. You know acquit them for all the good deeds done. After all, they only killed one or two persons or maybe they just raped a few–their hormones got the best of them or maybe they robbed a couple of times because they addiction made them do it or maybe they got pissed off and beat the crap out a few obnoxious people while having a really bad day. Surely, we all can understand that. As the gospel of grace says, we are supposed love not judge what people do to each other or themselves for matter. eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we all get to go to heaven at live it up.
I do not know of many who do not want criminals punished in some way. Most people in the land of the rule of law expect it. God is a just judge of moral crime. Jesus paid the price for that crime. Or, as John put it, “And what do really good fathers do? That’s right: They fork over the big bucks to cover the cost of every single thing their kids could ever think of doing.” God’s only begotten was the price God had to pay for the debt owed of our moral crimes. Those who take this gift of God’’s love are “debt-free. Which is to say that, spiritually speaking, they’re forgiven.”
Now, good works add up to present and future benefits or blessing not a hoped for acceptance of God. Once cleansed from our guilt and the burden of guilt is off our backs, we are free to love God without continually violating that love. When we again violate the law of God, the same atonement applies as long as we acknowledge our moral crime and ask for forgiveness and honestly intend never to do it again. The beautiful thing is when we do all of the right things and still continually repeat what we know is wrong God’s intervenes to free us from the internal problem keeping us from doing we know is right and are trying to do. That is when we acknowledge it is his responsibility to enable us to do what the law require i.e., what’s right.
Pardon my spelling error above. BTW Jules, the freedom issue is HUGE - the greatest being that in Christ we are free from the bondage of sin while everyone who is apart from Christ remain in bondage. Another result of believing in the atonement.
Daniel,
Did Jesus just pay for ‘moral crime’, or did He pay for the very fallen nature of mankind (that’s the DEAD in sin bit). In other words, did the atonement just cover ‘things’ we do or was there more?
I love Penguins. So does my daughter and son-in-law. It is funny and poignant. But if it doesn’t work for you, as C.S. Lewis says, just throw it away, ignore it. Move on to another explanation, another response. There is no formula; there cannot be. We (the church) try at times to create a formulaic method but it always fails. All explanations and responses left me dissatisfied and disinterested for the first 39 years.
C. S. Lewis addresses this same question in his book Mere Christianity. Its not hysterically funny like Penguins but it is another explanation. I respond to this question in different poems like, Our Turn, which is also not hysterically funny. The sacrifice sounds like something completely absurd, which happens to be the title of yet another non-hysterical poem. Others have added some responses in the comments here. And of course Christians believe God responds in the bible… sort of my last but not least shameless plug.
Dan
I think Jesus paid for sin so that God could restore or renew our nature as we learn what that is and how to live in right relationship with God. The whole born-again thing is not so much about a new nature as much as it is a new relationship–one with the Creator–resulting in a new way of life.
I define life as relationship because death is essentially severed relationships. Not only does this new relationship often result in a restored life physically i.e., healing, but it also often results in restored relationships with other people as well as in the formation of new relationships, which good relationships add much to life.
Atonement make its possible for God to do so while satisfying justice and maintaining holiness.
Ric,
“We (the church) try at times to create a formulaic method but it always fails.” Good point, if you mean man’s methods always fail. God’s word is however, truth, and His method (providing atonement for our sin through the death of His Son) is sure and certain when we believe. Through the years the written word has never failed. I attribute that to the indwelling Holy Spirit (result of believing in the Atonement) who sorts out what is God’s and what is merely man’s method.
Daniel,
Don’t our new nature in Christ and our relationship with Christ go hand-in-hand? 2 Corinthians 5 is all about being a new creation, reconciled to God through the death of His Son. I would emphasize being a new creation with a new nature over relationship because the new birth in Christ reconciles us to God. Even apart from Christ we have a ‘relationship’ with God - that of being in rebellion against Him.
First I love the word copacetic. It’s fun to say and a cool idea too.
Now-God did not demand the sacrifice of His son. Christ was given a choice. Very much like we are given choices every day. It is called free will and many of us tend to make the most of it (not necessarily the best) as samwrites2 pointed out.
But I believe free will also goes a long way in explaining the abundance of evil in the world. Evil is introduced into the world by humans. By the choices we make. By the use of our free will. Our choices to ignore the things damage and pain caused in the world. Our choice to cause the damage and pain.
The whole thing for me boils down to two images: God’s grace for me, a sinner, and his kneeling down to embrace me; and the love and grace that I must share with the world around me, whether I agree with you or not.
Daniel: In the criminal courts, I know who creates the laws. It’s the legislature. If I disagree that smoking pot or having sex with a guy or any other behavior should be criminal, I have the ability to campaign to change the law. If we as a society decide through our legislature in a democracy that certain acts should have certain consequences, I’m fine with the idea of punishment for overstepping the boundaries that we have clearly created.
No one has addressed my core question. Who sets the rules that your God has to follow? Who says atonement is necessary? Who defines sin? Is it some innate rule of nature that applies to both God and us? Or did God set up these game rules and is now going through the motions of “fulfilling” them? Again if he’s gaming his own system, it hardly seems like a sacrifice. Indeed, it feels like he’s just playing cruel mind games with us.
Don,
True relationships are not one sided. With a genuine relationship God through Christ no new creation can exist. Moreover, judicial standing because of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice renders us righteous before God, but becoming like Christ who is perfectly like God is a process over time.
If we have a new nature because of a new creation, what kind of creature are we? If we are all descendants of Adam, are we not all spirits manifested physically (psychologically and socially) reflecting the image and likeness of God? If so, what’s new out our redeemed nature?
And no one ever will, Brian. To do so removes the flowery language (or in John’s case, the home-spun folksy language) that serves to obfuscate what is at its center an un-answerable dilemma for not only Christianity, but for religion in general, when you get right down to it.
My advice? Don’t expect much, because the answer to your question does not exist. You may as well ask them how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As silly as that question sounds, it was once a hotly-contested theological argument within the Christian religion. Atonement is the same thing - it just sounds more erudite and learned.
Brian,
All of your questins are answered inGod’s inspired word, the Bible. It will tell you who sets the rules - God. He has defined sin, put in motion the atoning sacrifice of His own Son and He is not ‘gaming His own system’. If you are seriously seeking answers, read The Bible and you will find them. Actually a better way of saying it would be that if you trully seek God, He will find you. Jesus said He came to seek and save the lost (Lukle 19:10) If you are merely trying to justify your own unbelief, rave on, but you will never succeed. As I mentioned before, there is no true atheist - we all know of the existence of God (Romans 1 and Psalm 14).
Daniel,
I could try and answer that for you, but the Apostle Paul does a much better job than I could. I suggest you read the Book of Ephesians for yourself and ask God to make it real to you.
Dan,
Why do you assume Brent hasn’t read the bible?
I have. More than once. And have consistently found its ability to answer questions wanting.
Jesus died because he kicked the money changers out of the temple. The Jews at the time didn’t like that. Afterwards, to glorify his death and to try to make it seem like a huge sacrifice for humanity people started saying stuff like “he died for the sins of mankind”.
In short, he did not have to die for the sins of mankind, he had to die because he pissed a lot of people off. That’s just how they did things back then.
I re-read the bible about once a year. I’ve got 7 or 8 different translations on my bookshelf. I also read other religion’s holy books.
But no answers there, really. You have to swallow the initial premise first before you can begin “answering questions” with a circularly referential collection of fables, myths, and just-so stories.
Using your faith’s holy book to explain the intricate theological doctrines of your religion doesn’t lead to answers - just to more questions. It’s completely pointless.
It’s like a Harry Potter fan debating with other Harry Potter fans about whether or not mudbloods can truly become powerful Wizards, or if they can only be weak shadows of trueblood Wizards - and using the Harry Potter series of books to “prove” this point or that point. Blah, blah, blah, ad naseaum.
Someone who has read the books, but isn’t a fanatic about them, can step back a few paces and say, “you know of course that none of this is real, right?”
You know of course that none of this is real, right?
Morse,
You are reading into my comment. Mind reader, are you? Congratulations - I flunked that course. I merely made a suggestion. The only worthy answers I have originate from the Bible anyway. I personally like the book of Ephesians for having so many answers.
Since you did not ask a question I will not offer an answer to your being unable to find answers therein. I do seem to recall from the 6th and 10th chapters of John there sometimes a case of inability to ‘hear’ and a need for ‘enablement’.
I have read the Bible and it offers answers to Sumbunall questions.
I think Bertrand Russel had it about right when he suggested that a truly loving God wouldn’t give us a book with all of the answers in it. He would be more likely to say “I gave you a brain, now figure it out yourselves.”
Did I forget to mention one fact I’m sure of? This argument will go on until beyond the cows coming home and being tipped in the middle of the night. If anybody is genuine in their pursuit of truth with openess, I’m sure truth will be revealed. If anybody is just trying to read the bible only to find contradictions, instead of truthful tapestry, they may have a hard time finding what is actually there for people to gain from it. I can understand the “contradictions” being something that trips us up. For example, there’s polygamy in the old testament and yet we know it’s one man and one woman. Some might look at that and say “HAH!! SEE.. that’s contradictory!” But what you have to understand is that it’s there for information purposes, just like the news tells you some Mormons have more than one wife, and it’s also there to tell you, if you read further to see what happens to people with more than one wife, like Soloman, is that he fell victim to the consequences of the sins he committed by having the many wives. See? It teaches, if you look hard enough, that because of his free will, to disobey and marry many times, that things got very hard for him because of it.
The doctrines of the Bible have seemed crystal clear to millions of believers who have believed in the Atonement. It is not necessary to try and understand with human logic before believing anything, in fact that is a fairly useless pursuit. However when ‘belief’ happens as a result of God drawing the sinner to Himself and that lost sinner hearing the preaching of the word and deciding for Christ, the eyes can see, the ears can hear and in comes understanding when none was possible before.
“The doctrines of the Bible have seemed crystal clear to millions of believers who have believed in the Atonement”
In all seriousness…how does that statement mesh with reality?
You and John can’t even agree what is “crystal clear” in the bible, and both of you are Christians.
I think John and I are in total agreement concerning the necessity and fact of the atonement, although we approach it from slightly different perspectives, perhaps.
That aside, my last comment went to the fact of millions having received the benefits of the Atonement of Christ and are secure in their standing with God through His Son. If there are other points that we seem to not agree upon, I ocan only offer that if we are new creatures in Christ, we still live in sin-trained carcasses, and that far greater men of God have railed to be in agreement concerning every point of doctrine. The Apostle Paul even addressed that issue and urged believers in his day to get past non-essentials and live peacably together in unity of Spirit. DIfferences of opinion or interpretation do not make the truth any less truthful. It only goes to human frailty.
Of heads and pins and angels, and the dancing thereof.
“we still live in sin-trained carcasses”
Wow. I’m terribly sorry that you, or anyone, hates humanity so. And I mean that seriously. It genuinely makes me sad to read things like that.
Nice comment, Jules - ‘truthful tapestry’ is a good description. The longer I keep kicking around and reading it, the more beautiful the tapestry becomes. Maybe that’s because God knows we couldn’t handle ALL the truth at a single sitting and why He reveals Himself at a pace we can handle at any given moment in time. It’s like these awesome WOW!!!! moments are sprinkled across the landscape of our lives and at times, the sort of moment we need when the enemy comes in to steal our joy.
Not my idea, Morse - just what the Bible has to say about fallen humanity. It’s not a matter of hating humanity. It’s a matter of realizing the true state of humanity since the Fall of man. I can also say with confidence that God’s love and grace are just all that much more precious when one realizes the depths from which he/she has been rescued. I don’t fiind an occasion for sadness, but one of rejoicing that I am no longer DEAD in sin, but alove in Christ!
Thanks everyone! Some of the best and brightest discourse on this topic I have read. And a perfect opportunity for me to use for discussion among my non-Christian friends.
And Dan, life and this world is all that much more precious when one realizes that there is no paradise we get to escape to after death.
Actually that was ‘alive’ in Christ, as in the following from Ephesians, chapter 2:
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
Not just alive, but alive in Christ with an inheritence that cannot be matched by anything this world has to offer!
So I’ve sat here and read through all the responses and I still haven’t seen a proper answer to the simple question of what, exactly, was the sacrifice Jesus made?
There was a lot of talk about the atonement and how Jesus supposedly “died” and suffered “God’s rejection” yet last I recall from my time reading the Bible, Christ isn’t sitting in Hell, but is kicking back in Heaven.
It’s difficult to see how a God who allows himself to die to appease his anger at his own creation is in any real way sacrificing anything at all when he doesn’t stay dead or in someway lose that part of himself that he sacrificed. It seems more like a pointless melodrama designed to impress the easily impressed, but which really serves no real purpose. What, exactly, has God given up for our benefit? Near as I can tell, nothing. It’s not a sacrifice if you don’t lose something in the process.
Well, Les it seems that you have grasped some of the facts of the whole sacrifice/atonement thing but somehow missed the truth of it. I kind of reminds me of some folks who observed the miracles that Jesus performed but couldn’t see the truth in them either (that Jesus came from God). If you really want to know what it is all about, why don’t you ask God about it. He might tell you. No amount of words from any person in here can give you a sense of the truth of it, no matter how well it is explained. Interesting thing though - even if the words of mere mortals butcher the truth of it, His spirit can enlighten yours and the truth will become plain.
Brian
I see what you’re getting at. I agree; God is gaming his own rule of law and fulfilling them. As far as I can tell, God-Creator never sought the opinion of anyone on what nature should be like, what laws would governed it, what processes would produce these, or how to deal with problems when they occurred.
Depending on one’s perspective, it could seem like playing mind games with us.
I agree that what changes lives is not hate or condemnation but love.
God’s love is based on law, justice, and holiness as well. Grace is not tolerance. Love is not non-judgment. God is enabled to fully love moral criminals without condemning us because our crimes have been paid by His Son suffering and death.
However, moral criminals cannot realize God’s loving grace until they acknowledge their need for his atonement and empowerment enabling them overcome their moral and behavioral bondages as well as to consistently live according to the moral law of God.
As Paul said, we are freed from the law of sin to fulfill the requirement of God’s law (Rom. 8:1-4). If we love God and love others, we fulfill the law of God. (Mat. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10) Jesus still lives help us do just that.
Gentlemen, apart from Christ we stand condemned already. Not my opinion, but words of Jesus (John 3:18). Love can and does include judgement, but ‘right judgment’ (Matthew 7). I totally missed the meaning of God ‘gaming’ anything. I don’t see Him playing any sort of game with mankind, or with Himself, for that matter. It is definitely correct to say that God didn’t need anyones opinion/permission to do anything. Perhaps the greatest mystery is how God cold oove those who are by nature objects of his own wrath (Romans 5:9).
Great verses from Romans 8! Here’s something to think about. The ability to truly Love God and others (given to us by Him) pretty much transcends the law as handed down in the Big 10. The first ones deal with loving God (verticle) and the rest deal with loving each other (horizontal). When we are in Christ we can focus on two instead of ten!
Gents,
It’s been a good day of discussion and thanks for putting up with a crusty old retired soldier!
He had to be sacrificed to inaugurate a New Covenant - without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. He became our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, who was a king and a priest of the Most High God.
He is our High Priest who completely “gets us”. I can go to Him with my weaknesses and He understands what I’m feeling. He knows what it is to be confined to the flesh. He experienced the flesh, with all its weaknesses, yet overcame the world. It really is beautiful. I mean, think about it, if I were the creator of a new breed of insect and I loved that breed above all others, and wanted that breed to be able to enjoy me too…but the bugs were not able to obey my laws as ruler over them…Would I be willing to become a bug in order to have fellowship? Wouldn’t it be a huge sacrifice on my part to leave my comfortable suburban lifestyle to live among the bugs? (I know it’s a pathetic analogy, but work with me here)
To leave the splendor of heaven,
the cosmos moving at your whim,
speak and new worlds come into existence,
angels continually singing your praises because of your awesome beauty,
so magnificent is your glory that the beings of heaven hide their faces in worship…
the words are too inadequate to express what it must have been for Him to give up so much to be one of us. And yet He sacrificed it all to experience life among us - to feel the limitations of being human. And then to endure the worst torture man could know…
I call that sacrifice.
Dan Cartwright, Jules (I think) and others who have given a similar answer, i.e. “If you read the Bible with an open heart” or “If you search for God you will find him” or something like that:
Don’t you understand that a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddha, or any follower of a religion with a holy book, can make the exact same claim, and with the exact same force as you? All you are saying is that if we are willing to turn our brains off, ignore common sense, and give one heapin’ helpin’ of the benefit of the doubt to your holy book (but only yours, of course) then we’ll find exactly what you’ve found.
And as someone else pointed out, you all can’t even completely agree on what you’ve found. But it’s there, by golly.
I think daniel (45) gave the best answer to this question. props to him for actually having the guts to consider and answer it.
Forgive the length–this is part of a sermon I preach during Passion Week. Some people explain Jesus’ death by saying that Jesus had to die for our sins, typically understood to mean that God needed Jesus’ bloody horrific death as an atonement, as some kind of payment to balance the cosmic books, or the medieval notion that the crucifixion was needed to satisfy God’s ego and honor. This understanding of Jesus’ death seems to imply that it was God’s doing—that God, so angered by human sin needed a sacrifice to be appeased, lest He smite all of humanity. While there are scripture references that have been used to support this view, there have always been a minority of the faithful who reject this scheme of cosmic justice. technically called substitutionary atonement—Jesus takes the penalty of our sins upon himself, in place of us. I believe Jesus died as a consequence of sin, but I do not believe that Jesus died as payment for sin. I have a serious problem with that understanding of the death of Jesus–The problem with that is this makes God responsible for the death of Jesus; it is God who kills Jesus. Human beings were merely acting as puppets in God’s hands, from Judas to Pilate and the Jewish council—all controlled by God. God is the one who is making things happen so that Jesus would end up on the cross.
NO! God does not demand or orchestrate the death of Jesus—we do. It is human beings just like us good folks that make decisions about Jesus. It is human beings, all of us– who demand Jesus’ death because we live in a culture of death that never hesitates to use violence and bloodshed to get what we want. All of human history attests to this reality—violence works—the powers of the world-which means us—the powers of the world always get what we want through violence—nations are built, resources are secured, peoples are enslaved, economies grow—all through violence. And so, it makes perfect sense that we would once again turn to violence as the easy, cost effective solution to the problem of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is a problem for us. The problem with Jesus was that he wanted to reclaim the world for God; he wanted to move humanity from a system where violence and death is business as usual, to a world of mutual relationships, a community of justice, love and peace. Jesus was making demands on us that we simply could not tolerate—Jesus was demanding that we turn away from seeing ourselves as the center of the universe and instead turn to the creator of the universe as the source and ground of our lives—it is a question of loyalty, of lordship—do we follow our own selfish wills, do we continue to participate in and believe the great lie of the deceiver, or do we follow the Lord of life? That challenge to our individuality, to our self-justifying way of dealing with others could not be tolerated. And so the powers of the day killed Jesus on our behalf.
And God lets them. Why? God seems weak, powerless, and vulnerable. By our human standards, God seems to be absent. By human standards. The truth is, the power of God is present—but in a way that seems foolish to us. The cross of Christ reveals a God who has so loved the world that he has given himself to us in the person of his Son. Where there is love, there is vulnerability. There are risks involved in love. It takes a certain kind of power, a certain kind of strength to love this much—only God is capable of this kind of power and love. So where is this power of God made known? So where is God when a righteous Son is gasping for air on a Roman cross? Why is God silent? Why does he not send ten thousand angels and show the world what power really is? God remains silent until the fury of human defiance and sin runs its course. After the well-oiled machine of the culture of death has done its worst, when the life of the Son of God is snuffed out, it is then that God speaks. God speaks loud and clear. God speaks not in vengeance, in counter-attack or destruction. God does not kill Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the high priests and the passers-by. Instead, God splits a curtain in the Temple—an unmistakable sign that God has now and forever removed any barrier between himself and humanity—Through Christ, God becomes open and available to the world. God splits rocks, shakes the world, opens tombs and lets the saints out of their graves. It is at that point that the Roman soldiers realize how pitiful and puny they are and all their bravado and empty courage melts and they gasp, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” God acts in strange ways. The final act in this passion play is the resurrection—Jesus’ vindication and God’s declaration that death no longer has the last word—that love is stronger than death.
Rob makes a good point about other religions. My understanding is that the founders experience the reality of God and it forever changed their lives, and they helped changed their culture for the better as a result. Having talked with a few Hindus and Muslims, the significant difference is the means of acceptance with God. It all depends on what I must do to earn it in those religions versus what God did and still does for us to enable us to be and do what He wills.
An Egyptian Muslim business man was in a hospital with life threatening form of shingles all over his head and face. I have seen pictures of him in the hospital. He prayed for God’s help but no help came. However, he says Jesus came into his hospital room, talked to him, and healed him. He changed his mind about Jesus and Christianity. He now pastors a church in Oklahoma.
John,
First let me say, “thank you” for trying to answer to the the question posed to you. It is a question that I find most Christians shirk.
However, I still find the answer lacking. I still can’t see how “God” letting part of his self being tortured for a couple of days in exchange for returning to a heavenly existence relives us from our “sins”.
It seems to me that Job is by far a better example.Here was a man who lost everything and and yet held to his beliefs. He lost his wife, his children and his health in a cosmic pissing contest between God and Satan.
Job had no choice, no free will, he was a simple victim in a cosmic struggle between two powers that where beyond his compensation.
How is Jesus’s suffering greater than his?
K.
Daniel: an anecdote about some Muslim claiming to have been saved by Jesus doesn’t address the point at all. Followers of all religions have claims of how their god has changed their lives in some way. Why should anecdotes about your religion be any more compelling than the others?
And you didn’t address the question I asked, anyway. If an open heart and willingness to believe are all that’s needed to accept what your book claims, why isn’t it enough to accept the claims of other books. If you didn’t already have a Christian bias, you could read any religious writing with the same frame of mind and become just as certain that it holds the truth as you are about the Bible.
People claim that they did read the other books with the same open heart, but since they didn’t accept them as the truth, it’s obvious that they really didn’t read it that way. They read the Qu’ran, for instance, merely looking for inconsistencies. They wanted to be convinced that the veda did not lead them to god(s), so they remained unconvinced.
If you can plead that for the Bible, why can’t the same thing be said of the other books?
There was a fellow named Paul - a religious leader in His time with the equivalent of probably three Masters degrees who kept the gospel simple and, in fact, wasn’t given to much argument on the matter of the atonement, although he could probably hammer us into the ground, intellectually speaking of course. To at least one of the churches he founded, he felt it necessary to emphasize the core of the gospel (good news) on more than one occasion, maybe because folks back then were as much prone to argument as we are today. Paul would tell us this:
“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 (NIV)
And he was talking to ‘church’ folk! It is instructive to note that both Jesus’ death and physical resurrection are well attested to historical events. Paul even mentions his burial as evidence he did indeed die (they were not in the habit of burying live folks) and his having been seen by many as evidence of his resurrection. His death having been God’s action on our behalf to atone for OUR sin (penal substitution) is a doctrine well substantiated by the whole of scripture (OT and NT).
We can have our little pseudo-intellectual jousting matches all day long, but in the end it is not a matter of debate and all of our human musings mean nothing to God. Jesus died for what the whole of inspired scripture says he died - for OUR sin, in OUR place. That’s it, folks.
Please don’t take it personally if any of this rubs you the wrong way. I remember well the time in my life when I embraced all sorts of ‘religious’ lies and even called myself an agnostic (I was never brave enough to think I was an atheist). But there came a time in my life much like the time in John Shore’s life when I realized (with a little help from a divine nudge - John 6:44) that it’s all true - the atonement thing.
John Shore - Thanks for being a great host!
Will anyone other than Dan Cartwright attempt to answer my question? It’s apparent that he still doesn’t understand what I’m asking for, or isn’t willing to address it. If you don’t understand my point, just ask and I’ll attempt to clarify it.
Rob,
“If you can plead that for the Bible, why can’t the same thing be said of the other books?”
Perhaps I don’t understand your question, Rob. I was trying to stick with the subject of atonement. In that vein, none of the other ‘religions’, ‘books’ or ‘belief systems’ have a Savior, who died in the polace of sinful men, but are ALL based on ‘working’ one’s way to heaven/paradise/nirvana/wherever. The difference is this ‘atonement’ we have been discussing. Man can and will never be ‘good enough’ to make it. The God of the Bible demands total perfection, absolute sinlessness. Jesus lived a sinless life and was able to present himself in a state of perfection as the ultimate sacrifice for sin of mankind. As believers, although we still have sin in our lives, Christ represents us to the Father through His death and resurrection.
I can and will plead the Bible because it is THE truth. Jesus said “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. Outside of Christ there is no spiritual life for mortal man. A religion without the Christ of the Bible is a lie. It sounds hard, but Jesus even told the ‘religious’ leaders of His day they didn’t even serve the God they claimed as their father.
And by the way, my own journey took me into a lot of the false religions - child of the 60’s and all. I am so glad He is a patient God!
Over at the main blog, Andy summed it up pretty well without all the scripture verses to which I have a tendency to refer.
I was going to ask why god had to put on a show in order to provide atonement. Then I realized that I was being taken in by the same old convolutions that successful religions have used over the centuries. The very situation in which we find ourselves here and elsewhere, as we debate religion, is itself more proof of the non-existence of gods.
Gods do not need to be subtle. If a god wanted something it could it make it plainly clear not only of its existence but of it’s desire. The fact that we are here trying to understand the “will of god” is evidence that we are simply debating the “will of men” who are trying to convince us of things in the name of invisible gods.
Given the dearth of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that gods are either non-existent or unavailable.
“If an open heart and willingness to believe are all that’s needed to accept what your book claims, why isn’t it enough to accept the claims of other books(?)”
Rob-
born4battle answered part of this question when he said “none of the other ‘religions’, ‘books’ or ‘belief systems’ have a Savior, who died in the place of sinful men, but are ALL based on ‘working’ one’s way to heaven/paradise/nirvana/wherever.”
If it were as simple as living the “good” life then we wouldn’t have all these interesting conversations and we would have no need for free will. For explanation and attempting to prove it all I got is faith. I have to accept it on faith. And that is something I can neither quantify or prove to anyone.
Not sure if this is the question you were asking or if the answer is one that is acceptable.
If there is another question maybe you could post it specifically. If the answer needs more then I will expand.
What trips us up perhaps is the wording of the question.. What did Jesus sacrifice? Maybe if we consider it more as What did God sacrifice? Anybody got kids? I do.. if you don’t, consider the person most important to you and multiply your care for them by 10 perhaps, since they’re not your kid. Would you be willing to let them be crucified for the sins of the world? Hell no.. because you know the world is wicked.. but if you could it would be a display of perfect love for your creation. Ok.. God loves us infinately more than we can love our kids, or the next most important person if you’ve never experienced parenthood. He loved his own son Jesus infinately more than you could possibley love your own child. He sacrificed his son, part of Himself, out of love for the world. Take a scenario like sacrificing your arm to save somebody’s life.. then scale that scenario down to one grain of sand compared to all the ones on the earth, and you can maybe begin to realize the impact of what God sacrificed for everybody in human existance. It is of course a choice.. He wants us to love him, but not the way a sock puppet on your hand says “I love you”.
As far as the sacrfice Jesus made, I guess it would be coming to earth as a human.. he never lost perfection, because he is God, but he came to know first hand what it was like for the rest of us to struggle with sin. To go from never having to deal with sin at all, to having to struggle with it is a sacrifice in itself. He then dealt with being wrongly accused left and right from all the highly religious people of the day.. people who were supposed to be on his side. He then, on the cross, for a time.. took on every single sin for every single person that has ever or ever will exist, from the lustful thought to the serial rapings, from the slight bit of impatience, to the rageful murder of an innocent person.. every bit, from everybody.. in an instant, he went from being perfection, to embodying every bit of evil. He also did it in the shell of a human, the one human God favored most over any body else, who was as perfect as God himself, had God turn his back on him and was forsaken.. for us. I suppose that is Jesus’ sacrifice.
I’m going to bow out of this.. as it is always exhausting to be in this type of debate. God bless to all..
There are so many scary people here who actually take this fairytale hooha seriously. These people actually believe in the sky wizard who with a wave of his magic wand made a world full of sinful people. These people profess to believing in living the good life, sin free and with good will to all, but I have always seen something very sinister underneath. They do not live free lives and do not have free will. They live according to rules set down by a colllection of fairy tales started by cavemen and people suffering from sunstroke induced hallucinations. They oppress others in the name of their sky wizard and believe they are doing good. How can otherwise intelligent, sane people believe in magic and fairytales?
Instrumann, Why are you here, except to get your little God-hating rant on? We were trying to discuss the Atonement.
[...] in my last two posts, An Atheist Asks: Why Did Christ Have to Sacrifice Himself to Himself? and Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?) So I thought I’d say [...]
Born4Battle and WineyMomma: My question is mostly addressed to those who tell us Atheists to read the Bible “honestly” and we’ll understand all. When we explain that we’ve read the Bible (as most of us have) and remain unconvinced, we’re told (as Dan Cartwright and Jules did earlier in this thread) that we didn’t read it right somehow. Our hearts weren’t open, or we were too prideful, or we were just nitpicking it, looking for errors.
That you are convinced that the Bible is the word of god is fine and all, but you have no way (outside of what the Bible tells you) of knowing that your Bible is any more special than the other religious books. Christianity is not unique in having a savior, but even if it were, so what? Why assume the presence of a savior or the issue of atonement is required in order to be the “true religion”? Because your Bible says it is? That’s the same special pleading that I’m trying to get you to address in the first place.
I apologize that this is really outside the topic of atonement, and if you want to focus on that issue I understand. My question was specifically addressed to DC and Jules, based on answers they themselves gave earlier.
Instrumann, you are being uncharitable.
The answer to you question, “How can otherwise intelligent, sane people believe in magic and fairy tales?” is that some folks don’t yet know all of the story. And some of them are not inclined to know or acknowledge all of the information that contradicts their belief. (”…it is always exhausting to be in this type of debate.” - Jules).
Some people use a unique standard of evidence for their religious belief, that is separate from their evidential standards for other beliefs. For instance, some people convince themselves that their holy text is not subject to the same standards of evidence as other texts. This is definitional irrationality, and thus cannot be reasoned with.
I am reminded of a recent psychological experiment that proved that people tend to prefer dubious explanations over uncertainty. What could be simpler to explain life, the universe, and everything, than god?
I must confess that as an atheist (irony?), I much prefer the simple formulation that THERE ARE NO GODS. In reality, I should more accurately be self-described as an agnostic. It would be foolish of me to not consider the possibility of the existence of gods. I must, in all rationality, concede that if presented with satisfactory evidence, that I will believe in what is proven to me.
So far, the evidence for the existence of gods is on par with the evidence for the existence of all sorts of other things that we can be reasonably certain do not exist. There are many religious texts that describe all manner of fantastical things in great detail. To hold up one holy text above the others requires a leap of faith that cannot be rationally legitimated.
Let us say fairly that god-belief requires a certain amount of unfounded faith. If we take the rational exploration of any religion to it’s final conclusion, we are left doubting the truth of any religion and of any god. And this website seems dedicated to following rationality only so far.
I just have to say this!!! I believe in you and your right to the First Amendment, however, I do know this:
JESUS DIED SO THAT I ( and your) CAN LIVE FOR ALL ETERNITY. God says it and that does it !!!!
Skip
Very funny. Now post under your real name, Dr. Dawkins.
It’s interesting to see that Dan Cartwright decided to go with the non-answer of “ask God” in reply to my comment and proceeds to fill the rest of his comment with the standard seek-with-an-open-heart nonsense that so often comes up in these discussions. He makes the mistake of assuming that I haven’t ever been a Christian in my past or probably assumes I wasn’t a “true Christian” seeing as I no longer count myself as one. He also doesn’t seem to realize that quoting Bible passages at people that are already familiar with the Bible and have rejected it as any kind of truth doesn’t make a convincing argument.
Michelle at least attempts to answer my question with the following:
“He had to be sacrificed to inaugurate a New Covenant - without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.”
My question in return becomes one of: Why does the remission of sin require the shedding of blood? This seems a particularly arbitrary requirement on the part of God, who presumably is the source of that rule. He’s God. All powerful and all knowing. If he wants to just forgive people it’s certainly within his power to do so without requiring anything at all, but you claim he has to have bloodshed before he considers the sin to be “washed away.” Why should that be so?
She goes on to write: “the words are too inadequate to express what it must have been for Him to give up so much to be one of us. And yet He sacrificed it all to experience life among us - to feel the limitations of being human. And then to endure the worst torture man could know…”
But if you take the Bible at its word he didn’t really give any of that up. God is a trinity and still existed in Heaven at the same time that he existed as Jesus on Earth. He still had all the comforts of home, the singing, the bashful angels, etc.. And I’d argue the point that Jesus went through the worst torture you could know. Certainly it would be brutal, but there are worst tortures than physical pain. Regardless of how bad it was I find it hard to believe it would be all that difficult for a God, even one who’s living as a man, to endure it. And, in the end, he didn’t actually lose anything in the process. That’s not a sacrifice.
If I give up a kidney to save someone’s life, I lose the kidney forever. If I jump on a hand grenade to save someone’s life, I could end up maimed or dead. Considering that I don’t believe in an afterlife the loss of my current life would be forever. Those are what I’d consider a sacrifice. What did God give up that he didn’t get back in the end? Nothing.
Jules tries making a simile to parenthood: “Anybody got kids? I do.. if you don’t, consider the person most important to you and multiply your care for them by 10 perhaps, since they’re not your kid. Would you be willing to let them be crucified for the sins of the world? Hell no.. because you know the world is wicked.. but if you could it would be a display of perfect love for your creation. Ok.. God loves us infinately more than we can love our kids, or the next most important person if you’ve never experienced parenthood. He loved his own son Jesus infinately more than you could possibley love your own child.”
The problem I have with the above is that God and Jesus are technically one and the same thing. That whole paradoxical trinity nonsense. My daughter is a wholly separate entity from myself. Jesus, despite being called the Son of God, is not a wholly separate entity. He is separate from, but a part of God along with the Holy Ghost.
Jules also assumes that there are no circumstances where a parent might sacrifice the life of an offspring for the sake of all humanity, but as long as we’re speaking of hypotheticals I can think of a number of scenarios where I could, in good conscious, give up my offspring for the sake of the greater good. Whether or not I would depends more on the situation and if there’s any alternatives than whether or not the “world is wicked.” Such scenarios of the entire world’s fate depending on the death of my child are unlikely to ever come to pass, however, so it’s a silly question to begin with.
Jules goes on to write: “He loved his own son Jesus infinately more than you could possibley love your own child. He sacrificed his son, part of Himself, out of love for the world. Take a scenario like sacrificing your arm to save somebody’s life.. then scale that scenario down to one grain of sand compared to all the ones on the earth, and you can maybe begin to realize the impact of what God sacrificed for everybody in human existance.”
And just proves my point again. God didn’t give up anything. Jesus, if I read my Bible correctly, is alive and well having been resurrected and ascending to Heaven where he sits at God’s right hand. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
In your example if I sacrifice my arm that arm is gone forever never to be a part of my body or useful again. Sure, I could hold onto it, but all it would do is lay around and decay. It would never help me lift a refreshing beverage to my lips ever again. According to you believers Jesus isn’t gone, he’s up in Heaven with God. God hasn’t lost a thing. He’s not sacrificed anything. He’s put on a big show and that’s about it. Jesus is still there, still a part of God, and still useful.
Jules also writes “As far as the sacrfice Jesus made, I guess it would be coming to earth as a human.. he never lost perfection, because he is God, but he came to know first hand what it was like for the rest of us to struggle with sin. To go from never having to deal with sin at all, to having to struggle with it is a sacrifice in itself.”
The above makes no sense at all. How can God know first hand what it was like for the rest of us to struggle with sin when he couldn’t lose perfection by the very nature of being God? If God was never at a point where there was a possibility he could sin then there’s no struggle to be had. I can crawl around on all fours and mimic my dog, but that doesn’t mean I understand the struggle of trying to decide whether or not to sniff someone’s butt that my dog goes through.
And even if it were possible that he could experience first hand the struggles of sin how is that a sacrifice? What did he lose in that sacrifice? Inner peace?
Jules writes.. “He then, on the cross, for a time.. took on every single sin for every single person that has ever or ever will exist, … every bit, from everybody.. in an instant, he went from being perfection, to embodying every bit of evil. He also did it in the shell of a human, the one human God favored most over any body else, who was as perfect as God himself, had God turn his back on him and was forsaken.. for us. I suppose that is Jesus’ sacrifice.”
That would be impressive if he were rotting in Hell, but he’s not. God didn’t forsake him for long. Three days, a whirlwind tour of Hell, where he wasn’t even subject to the same tortures the rest of us are supposedly in for, and it’s back home to daddy and the singing angels. He’s still God, he’s still perfect, taking all that sin on didn’t even leave a bad taste in his mouth. Where’s the loss? What did he give up? Nothing. The point still stands.
There is no arguing with gross unbelief. Jesus went through that, using every ‘logical’ argument possible, yet unbelief persisted. Even informing ‘religious’ leaders in his day that their only spiritual father was the devil didn’t cause them to reconsider their position. I cannot, nor will I judge any man’s spiritual state. However, if the scripture I offer judges, so be it. I can do nothing else but offer truth and pray that God will open eyes to see, ears to hear, and turn hearts toward Himself.
In other words, you have no good arguments. OK, I can accept that.
Though I have to ask: Just what is “gross unbelief?”
My arguments don’t count. I just refrain from using them because God can speak for himself and has.
Gross unbelief: That of the many of the religious leaders of Jesus’ time and that in which many today find themselve. That which will attack anyone who dares share the truth of scripture rather than consider the claims of Christ. And in some cases, that which will only lead to an eternity separated from the very God of creation, who sent His Son to die for the sin of mankind. But don’t take it personal. Consider this:
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.’ (1Cor. 1:18)
Les posts –
[quote] ——————————————-
So I’ve sat here and read through all the responses and I still haven’t seen a proper answer to the simple question of what, exactly, was the sacrifice Jesus made?
There was a lot of talk about the atonement and how Jesus supposedly “died” and suffered “God’s rejection” yet last I recall from my time reading the Bible, Christ isn’t sitting in Hell, but is kicking back in Heaven.
It’s difficult to see how a God who allows himself to die to appease his anger at his own creation is in any real way sacrificing anything at all when he doesn’t stay dead or in someway lose that part of himself that he sacrificed. It seems more like a pointless melodrama
[/quote]————————————–
1. Christ did not die “to appease God”. RATHER “God so LOVED that He gave”!! John 3:16.
(In fact Christ prays 3 times to the Father “IF it be possible let this cup pass from Me”.
2. God is BOTH “King of the Universe” (and so - Law giver) AND “Savior of the World”. God’s “solution” for saving mankind does not violate His Justice or His mercy. It is a “perfect solution”.
3. God created man in a sinless, flawless, deathless peaceful environment in perfect harmony with his Creator and with fREE WILL.
4. Man chose to sin - to rebell against his maker and Lord, and so doomed mankind to the LAW’s penalty - the 2nd death (see Rev 20 for details). God then chose to SAVE mankind by paying the debt WE owe - but NOT in a “gorcery store model” rather God chose an “ATONEMENT MODEL” as HE defines in Lev 16.
5. That means that God assignes an exact finiite debt of suffering and torement for EACH and EVERY sin that we commit and the EXACT amount owed by all sins of all humans in all of time was then heaped upon Christ starting in Gethsemane where He sweats great drops of blood in agony and where He said “My soul is sorrowful even unto death”.
It is a supernatural payment that is made. The suffering owed by all humans for sins they committed in all of time. Infinite God alone COULD have the capacity to SUFFER to such an extent.
What you “see” in the passion is merely the outward “form” not the true depth of the payment.
in Christ,
Bob
One more point — when the penalty demanded by law is paid - rather than simply telling the criminal “get out of jail free” then the Law is being UPHELD and “established” not bypassed and ignored.
in Romans 3:31 Paul says “Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law”
Bob
Consider this:
Your holy text is written by anonymous Bronze Age primitives, and it’s books were prejudicially selected and erroneously translated over the millennia since.
One should be more skeptical before basing one’s belief system on a text of such a dubious, convoluted, and self-contradictory nature. There are Eastern religions that have more coherent texts. At least Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Scientologists have texts written by people who knew that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around.
It baffles me that people can take any of that stuff seriously. Come on people. The truth is out there if you care to look.
I don’t believe it.
Sincerely.