What Sacrifice ?

[MORETORQUE]

For the sake of argument, lets pretend the following:

Jesus Christ actually existed and he was indeed the only son of the god, Yahweh.
The Bible, with all of its contradictions, is somehow true and the story of the crucifixion happened just as the Bible professes.
The god Yahweh, created Jesus by miraculously inseminating a young girl named Mary somewhere around 2000 years ago (give or take), with the specific intent to see him die on a cross for the sins of the world.
The god Yahweh required himself to accept a sacrifice from himself, of himself, in order to forgive the sinful nature of man that he created himself.


So obviously I'm puzzled.


Who is the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice? What sacrifice? Cause it's certainly not Jesus.

A man who has the ability to walk on water, turn water into wine, pull loaves of bread and fish out of thin air, heal roman-soldier's missing ears, raise the dead back to life and cure leprosy among many other acts, "sacrificed" HOW exactly??? I mean the man wasn't even in the tomb for a full 72 hours.
Not only does the death of a man who can come back to life not count as any kind of a sacrifice but even his supposed suffering can easily be disregarded. It sure stands to reason that a man with those kind of powers could easily block the pain receptors of his own body, and with no active nerves, his crucifixion would've been more like an uncomfortable afternoon rather than the purported day of excruciating pain.


I see no sacrifice whatsoever. Again, assuming only for the sake of argument that it actually happened - it seems more likely that Yahweh just needed to use the event as a cosmic shotgun to extort the hearts and minds of 100 billion people ... and counting.

Jesus is the sacrafice, he gives his blood.

Father beats the shit out of him and kills him because he does not want to hear the truth. They killed him becasue he spoke the truth plain and simple.

Look here even today the whole planet is dying and the 6th mass extinction is accelerating, by the end of this century more than half of the worlds living organisms will be gone.

Man has built enough weaponery to kill everybody here on earth 8 times or more but yett he still keeps building more of it. We need to be working on stopping the mass extinction not building more weapons.

If things continue as they are now we are fixing to get the boot here shortly.

[ThomM]

[quote='Cinjin' pid='428983' dateline='1365446382']
For the sake of argument, lets pretend the following:

Jesus Christ actually existed and he was indeed the only son of the god, Yahweh.
The Bible, with all of its contradictions, is somehow true and the story of the crucifixion happened just as the Bible professes.
The god Yahweh, created Jesus by miraculously inseminating a young girl named Mary somewhere around 2000 years ago (give or take), with the specific intent to see him die on a cross for the sins of the world.
The god Yahweh required himself to accept a sacrifice from himself, of himself, in order to forgive the sinful nature of man that he created himself.


So obviously I'm puzzled.


Who is the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice? What sacrifice? Cause it's certainly not Jesus.

A man who has the ability to walk on water, turn water into wine, pull loaves of bread and fish out of thin air, heal roman-soldier's missing ears, raise the dead back to life and cure leprosy among many other acts, "sacrificed" HOW exactly??? I mean the man wasn't even in the tomb for a full 72 hours.
Not only does the death of a man who can come back to life not count as any kind of a sacrifice but even his supposed suffering can easily be disregarded. It sure stands to reason that a man with those kind of powers could easily block the pain receptors of his own body, and with no active nerves, his crucifixion would've been more like an uncomfortable afternoon rather than the purported day of excruciating pain.


I see no sacrifice whatsoever. Again, assuming only for the sake of argument that it actually happened - it seems more likely that Yahweh just needed to use the event as a cosmic shotgun to extort the hearts and minds of 100 billion people ... and counting.

Indeed - not only is there NO sacrifice - but there is NO reason for the claim of a need for one as well. THe contradiction is that the religion itself teaches personal responsibility - (YOu are not responsible for sins of your father) - but then attempts to create a SIN that affects even people who were not alive.

Obviously this is just another part of the fairy tale - and it depends on you believing that a snake caused the supposedly first woman to do something for which she had NO idea of the consequences - because she did not understand what EVIL was to begin with.

THe problem is that this story is nonsense - and simply represents another example of ancient religions' need to create a situation that established the requirement of their existence. Over the millenia - thousands of religions have fallen by the wayside - when the religions turned out to be simply myth and legend - and people moved on to NEWER myths and legends OR they incorporated other myths and legends into their existing religions.

[Cinjin]

I would also call bullshit if "...now a sacrifice is merely lowering yourself to hang out with your own creations", "...he was never really human...", and if "Jesus lost NOTHING. He gave NOTHING". But, these are all false. The sacrifice included "lowering", but that isn't enough. Actually, dying isn't enough either. It's the extra suffering applied by the Father for our sakes that seals the deal. He was actually human, with all of our inclinations, desires, and whatnot. If he wasn't he didn't make up for our sins. He needs to literally be one of us to redeem us. Finally, he did have suffering, and this redeems us.

Ok we're clear now. There's a sacrifice simply because you say there is. Despite the clear fact that the qualifications necessary to consider it a sacrifice are non-existent. Neither the dictionary nor your god would consider this a sacrifice anywhere else in the Bible, but yet somehow because YOU say it is, it certainly must be. Whatever. Jesus sacrificed nothing. Not his life, not his deity, not a son or daughter, no property taken from him ..... only some mild discomfort at best as not even a single bone was broken, yet somehow this is a "sacrifice" even though it fails to meet any of the criteria.

I've never even read of jesus crying out in pain during the whole alleged ordeal - which means that you can't prove to me that he even suffered at all that day.

My point was that jesus likely did not endure any significant physical pain on the day of his alleged sacrifice. *

This one is more evident in scriptures than most.

Luke 19:41
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it... * Invalid, NOT physical pain.

John 11:34-36
And he said, “Where have you laid him (Lazarus, friend of Jesus, recently died)?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept. So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” * Invalid, NOT physical pain.

And then the big one, Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” * Invalid, NOT physical pain.

The last one is on the cross, quoting Psalm 22:1. This is his greatest cry of anguish. * Invalid, NOT physical pain and the author of Psalms was not dying on the cross at the time.

A couple of those are taken way out of context. Is that how you like to win arguments? Use your own Bible out of context? Pathetic.

[smax]

I find no compelling reason to believe that the character of Jesus Christ ever actually existed, although I'm open to the possibility that some religious fanatic (or several) of the time loosely fits the bill. This would have been someone who probably didn't make most of the bold claims the Bible suggests Jesus made, and probably wasn't trying to completely revolutionize Judaism. The name Jesus was very common during the time Christ is alleged to have lived, and is actually just another form of the name Joshua.

Beyond that very loose connection (if any for that matter), the Jesus of the Bible is nothing more than a collection of plagiarisms of other gods that long pre-dated his alleged existence.

---

Just to add to that, a person who actually fit the description the Bible gives of the character of Christ, and the things he allegedly did, would be as well documented in history as anyone who ever lived.

As it is, good luck finding any reliable history books with Jesus and his accomplishents in it.

[Cinjin]

I find no compelling reason to believe that the character of Jesus Christ ever actually existed, although I'm open to the possibility that some religious fanatic (or several) of the time loosely fits the bill. This would have been someone who probably didn't make most of the bold claims the Bible suggests Jesus made, and probably wasn't trying to completely revolutionize Judaism. The name Jesus was very common during the time Christ is alleged to have lived, and is actually just another form of the name Joshua.

Beyond that very loose connection (if any for that matter), the Jesus of the Bible is nothing more than a collection of plagiarisms of other gods that long pre-dated his alleged existence.

---

Just to add to that, a person who actually fit the description the Bible gives of the character of Christ, and the things he allegedly did, would be as well documented in history as anyone who ever lived.

As it is, good luck finding any reliable history books with Jesus and his accomplishments in it.

agreed

[MORETORQUE]

I find no compelling reason to believe that the character of Jesus Christ ever actually existed, although I'm open to the possibility that some religious fanatic (or several) of the time loosely fits the bill. This would have been someone who probably didn't make most of the bold claims the Bible suggests Jesus made, and probably wasn't trying to completely revolutionize Judaism. The name Jesus was very common during the time Christ is alleged to have lived, and is actually just another form of the name Joshua.

Beyond that very loose connection (if any for that matter), the Jesus of the Bible is nothing more than a collection of plagiarisms of other gods that long pre-dated his alleged existence.

---

Just to add to that, a person who actually fit the description the Bible gives of the character of Christ, and the things he allegedly did, would be as well documented in history as anyone who ever lived.

As it is, good luck finding any reliable history books with Jesus and his accomplishments in it.

agreed

There is no proof Jesus was a real person and there are no credibal witnesess to account. The bible is designed to baffel you with bullshit but under all that bullshit it tells a real simple story.

Jesus was more than likely a real person but they made him bigger than life to wooo the mass public reading the book they wrote.

It tells you through the blood of christ, that is the point of the story, he forfeits his life in a unusual way.

There is a major theme in his teachings that are kinda irrelivant today with a modern culture and that is we do have forms of birth control today.

[Tonus]

The JW view, as I recall it, was that what Jesus sacrificed was a perfect human body. Since "the wages of sin is death" Jesus shouldn't have died, since he didn't sin. Apparently it didn't matter how he died; as long as he was free of the corruption of sin, he had a get-out-of-dying-free card from god. Which is why he accused god of forsaking him when he was about to die.

Anyway, the end result of this was that Jesus can intercede whenever anyone who sins sincerely repents. God is all like, "no deal, you sinned and didn't burn a calf or pigeon in my name." Then Jesus comes in and says "well I have this rain ticket for a perfect human life, and I'm cashing it in for John Doe, who sincerely repents." And god is all "okay, I'll let you redeem that life for the sins that John committed." And Jesus (because he's all sneaky-like) asks god if he can see that ticket for just a second, and god sighs and says "you always ask that" but gives back the ticket anyway. And Jesus runs off, knowing that he can re-use the ticket for the next sinner!

If god wasn't such a rube, that sacrifice would've been used up by now. But Jesus is way too crafty for him.

[Tex]

Ok we're clear now. There's a sacrifice simply because you say there is. Despite the clear fact that the qualifications necessary to consider it a sacrifice are non-existent. Neither the dictionary nor your god would consider this a sacrifice anywhere else in the Bible, but yet somehow because YOU say it is, it certainly must be. Whatever. Jesus sacrificed nothing. Not his life, not his deity, not a son or daughter, no property taken from him ..... only some mild discomfort at best as not even a single bone was broken, yet somehow this is a "sacrifice" even though it fails to meet any of the criteria.

Alright, look. We have to assume something, else I have to prove that the bible is telling truth. So, if you would stop playing this game of "You're assuming!" it would be nice. Yes, for the sake of the specificity of the argument, we (yes, we, post #1) are assuming the biblical texts about the sacrifice of Jesus. Then, from these texts, we should talk about whether it was a sacrifice or not.

What you are not assuming that you should is a Christian metaphysics. If you're going to say "that isn't a sacrifice", you can't force your metaphysics upon the situation. You must assume a Christian metaphysics and evaluate from there. If you would like to attack the Christian metaphysics, make a different thread because you're only setting up a straw man.

My point was that jesus likely did not endure any significant physical pain on the day of his alleged sacrifice. *

Luke 19:41* Invalid, NOT physical pain.

John 11:34-36* Invalid, NOT physical pain.

And then the big one, Matthew 27:46* Invalid, NOT physical pain.

I guess I just I have to repeat myself...

"If this was all just physical, I'm sure people have had things worse, but this is not just about pain sensors or psychological damage."

The suffering isn't always physical. In fact, if it was just the physical, it would not be nearly enough of a redemption to bring grace to people, let alone multiple generations of people. I've already said that the sacrifice was not a physical suffering. Stop building straw men.

[quote='Cinjin']...and the author of Psalms was not dying on the cross at the time.

Duh.

A couple of those are taken way out of context. Is that how you like to win arguments? Use your own Bible out of context? Pathetic.

Straw man again. You asked for Jesus in pain. He never says, "I am in great pain", but he does cry. I gave you three times where he was in pain. Then, I gave you the big one while he's on the cross and briefly explained the cry. Now, you say I'm quoting things out of context and that is how I'm trying to win the argument, then criticize me because Jesus didn't write the psalms.

The quotes are not out of context simply because Jesus wasn't in physical pain. You wanted Jesus in pain, I gave it. The first two were only build up to the Matthew 27 quote, though, and are more minor pains comparatively.

The Matthew quote is Jesus quoting Psalm 22, not just randomly speaking, but because of pain expressed in the psalm and what he is going through. Jesus did not write it, no. It would be a terrible argument to say that since Jesus didn't write the psalm, it doesn't count. Please tell me you're not arguing that and I'm just reading you wrong. Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

[Cinjin]

I'm going to let you keep chasing your tail, as I'm tired of going in circles with you.
I think we've both repeated ourselves enough. You say there is a sacrifice and I say there is none. The overwhelming majority of the evidence supports me, not you. Even if I digress on the pain point (which I wouldn't), it's an insignificant pathetic amount of pain and it isn't even physical pain. Well, not nearly enough to warrant a sacrifice in the eyes of Yahweh and certainly not by any actual definition of the word.

[Ryantology]

You must assume a Christian metaphysics and evaluate from there.

Assuming a Christian metaphysics is accepting that it is a sacrifice because the Bible says it is, even though the circumstances of both the event and the being 'sacrificed' make the deed sacrificial in no sense of the term. You know, like how we're supposed to view mass murder as 'good' when God orders it done and "enslave yourself to me me or suffer totally and forever" as 'love' because God says it is.

To assume Christian metaphysics requires one to shut off key parts of the brain.