Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
One thing I can never understand about Christianity (well there's lots of things really but this will do for a start).
If Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Why did he rise from the dead ??
I mean it sorts of cancels out the big sacrifice doesn't it?
I don't know how Christians explain that.
If someone was going to die for me I would be really grateful but I would expect them to remain dead.
Not come back to life again which sort of makes it less of an event, therefore less of a sacrifice.
Its all very confusing.
I don't know why I am asking on this forum perhaps I should go to a Christian one and ask there but I am not sure it would help.
The only other idea I have about this is that really it was an attempt by those that took over the idea (like Paul) to make Jesus equally immortal like Caligula claimed to be.
This would then allow Christianity to compete with Caligula's horse (also a God) they were, I believe contemporary.
August 14, 2010 at 4:49 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2010 at 4:50 am by tackattack.)
From my perspective Jesus' sacrifice was in his knowingly and willfully suffering for our atonement, not in his shuffling of the mortal coil which is just a part of nature anyways. The reason why he did it is because he said he would, which would be considered a prophecy and then fufillment. This would of course add to the meaningfullness of the event rather than detract from it.
-PS feel free to ask anytime, better to ask hear and get pats on the back from your fellows then get booted by some self-righteous pricks [/generalizations]
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(August 14, 2010 at 4:32 am)Peter44 Wrote: One thing I can never understand about Christianity (well there's lots of things really but this will do for a start).
If Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Why did he rise from the dead ??
I mean it sorts of cancels out the big sacrifice doesn't it?
I don't know how Christians explain that.
If someone was going to die for me I would be really grateful but I would expect them to remain dead.
Not come back to life again which sort of makes it less of an event, therefore less of a sacrifice.
Its all very confusing.
I don't know why I am asking on this forum perhaps I should go to a Christian one and ask there but I am not sure it would help.
The only other idea I have about this is that really it was an attempt by those that took over the idea (like Paul) to make Jesus equally immortal like Caligula claimed to be.
This would then allow Christianity to compete with Caligula's horse (also a God) they were, I believe contemporary.
Any ideas?
It is an atempt to reconcile the fact that he did not exactly live up to the job description the first time.
It is confusing I must admit. Tackattack has given a pretty good account of my understanding. I think the difference is he can get his head round it and I can't (like you). Firstly i think the premise is wrong that we have anything to answer to god for. If god made us in his own image then we act as he does. I don't consider myself a guilty, unworthy, sinful, wretched human in need of saving. I didn't ask Jesus to attone for my sins and I don't want it. Secondly if Jesus was god he knew he'd be resurrected and therefore his sacrifice was hardly very great. Thirdly why sacrifice yourself to yourself? Fouthly assuming there was a historical Jesus who was crucified. It was probably for sedition against the roman empire And his followers could only rationalise that their leader wasn't saved by god by starting a mythology (denial and all that) ; wild speculation I know but no less so than a resurrection. Fifthly where did he go. We are told he bodily ascended to heaven, but heaven is necessarily an immaterial realm to accomodate god. I am now boring myself as well as the reader......
On your first premise, I believe you're inferring original sin and you shouldn't inherit another problem? If that the case then I agree, however sinning (for simplification turning aginst God's will) isn't inherited, IMO. It's something we all do regularly (ie. I'm not paying for Adam's sin, but mine).
On the second premise, we don't act as God does. that's the main point of the Bible.
I don't consider myself wretched either, you're still viewing sin as the movie type evil guy with a big mustache twirling it, rather than a simple turning away from the laws written on your heart by God.
The sacrifice is in the suffering not the loss of life, that's a part of every human's path (I said it better in some other thread)
yes, it's all speculative we weren't there and don't know so I just have some goat herder's book to read on it, and I try not to take it too literally.
On the last point an exceprt from wiki on transcendence
Quote:
Christianity
Christians pick up on the historical dynamism of the future-oriented plan of the Old Testament and follow the immanent workings of the transcendent God in the word of Christ. The Holy Spirit lives through them and through him they fear nothing except for Him. For if He be for me, who can be against me? They, too, believe that God's existence is ontologically distinct and fully independent of the material universe, and yet that He interacts directly with it. As with the Jews, this distinction is articulated in the notion which some[who?] believe to be unique to the Semitic religions: creation. Theologians thus have the onus of showing how God can still be regarded as infinite, although there exists, through creation, something that He is not, but which does not thereby limit Him.
In contrast to the above statement, the Bible teaches that all things in existence came forth from God and continue to exist for Him and by the exercise of His power. This does not mean that creation exists as God or in equality with God, because creation does not possess either the fullness of God's nature or the ability to exist outside of God.
Thomas Aquinas, for instance, argued that although after creation there are more beings (plural) than before, there is still no more being (singular), because all that exists other than God shares in the one being of God, although in a particularized way. Jesus Christ is believed to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but incarnate in the humanity received corporally from the Virgin Mary and a divinely-created human soul. Thus, transcendence and immanence interpenetrate in an exceptional manner in the Christian faith, practice and theology. The mysterious and paradoxical nature of Christ provides a bridge between the infinite Deity and finite man. (See the New Testament)
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
August 14, 2010 at 9:39 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2010 at 10:05 am by Peter44.)
(August 14, 2010 at 4:49 am)tackattack Wrote: From my perspective Jesus' sacrifice was in his knowingly and willfully suffering for our atonement, not in his shuffling of the mortal coil which is just a part of nature anyways. The reason why he did it is because he said he would, which would be considered a prophecy and then fufillment. This would of course add to the meaningfullness of the event rather than detract from it.
-PS feel free to ask anytime, better to ask hear and get pats on the back from your fellows then get booted by some self-righteous pricks [/generalizations]
Well I accept at least he had the choice and chose to do it even though its had no effect whatsoever over the last 2000 years quite the opposite in fact which of course must support the theory that his suffering (if he did suffer and its not clear he did).
As you accept his choice, you must also accept that his suffering wasnt anyway near as bad as that suffered by millions of humans during the progress of evolution.
In that way humanity has paid its own price (if suffering is the measure of it). We never needed Jesus we had all suffered enough.
However I fail to see how his dying on a cross did any good at all even if man's humanity is the product of suffering due to evolution.
Thanks for the offer. In fact I like getting booted by self-rightous pricks !!I have already made my mind up to try some questions on a Christian forum. i did try once but the banned me.
Nice to know we have a few tame ones on this board.
(August 14, 2010 at 7:33 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: It is confusing I must admit. Tackattack has given a pretty good account of my understanding. I think the difference is he can get his head round it and I can't (like you). Firstly i think the premise is wrong that we have anything to answer to god for. If god made us in his own image then we act as he does. I don't consider myself a guilty, unworthy, sinful, wretched human in need of saving. I didn't ask Jesus to attone for my sins and I don't want it. Secondly if Jesus was god he knew he'd be resurrected and therefore his sacrifice was hardly very great. Thirdly why sacrifice yourself to yourself? Fouthly assuming there was a historical Jesus who was crucified. It was probably for sedition against the roman empire And his followers could only rationalise that their leader wasn't saved by god by starting a mythology (denial and all that) ; wild speculation I know but no less so than a resurrection. Fifthly where did he go. We are told he bodily ascended to heaven, but heaven is necessarily an immaterial realm to accomodate god. I am now boring myself as well as the reader......
You have made some of the points I was trying to make clearer particularly the issue of supposed sacrifice. I fully understand the issue of sin too its another issue.
If God made us and gave us the physiology and the neurophysiology and the hormonal system etc. He only has himself to blame if we end up using them. After all he has them too (as we were made like him) so he also needs to be aggressive needs to make social progress needs sex etc etc.
I certainly dint agree with Takattack's suggestion that Jesus suffered by being sacrificed or that self sacrifice when you know your not going top die is any way as bad as suffering suffered by those who are torchered to death or those that have died in their millions due to slow lingering starvation or volcanoes or climate change ice ages disease etc.
My first wife died of cancer. Her death took nearly two years and she knew it was coming. She knew she wouldn't rise again. She knew she would loose all those she loved never see her family or children again and never know what happens to them she knew she was leaving her grandchildren without her support These things hurt her more than the pain she told me and believe me that was bad enough.
She was mutilated, radiated and poisoned. Every month brought a new way of making her ill but prolonging her life.
She lost her dignity as the cancer made her lose her ability to use the toilet she was constantly sick. It grew inside her until she had to be almost permanently sedated.
She wanted to see us all that much some days she refused to take medication for the pain because
she knew those days were all she would have left. She suffered we suffered.
If I was given the choice of dying like her or being crucified I would choose crucifixion especially if it didn't mean death after all. I am sure most of us would.
Jesus (if he existed) had it easy. No doubt about that.
A comment on your wid specualtion as I am sure you know its not so wild.
I preffer the evidence that supports the fact that the actual followers of Jesus lost the plot after his death and the whole ball game was taken over by Paul who really decided the religion had to be focused on the Romans not the Jews who then took all the blame. Nothing could be less boring that such an involved plot to take over the world.hock:
Quote:From my perspective Jesus' sacrifice was in his knowingly and willfully suffering for our atonement,
Which really puts the pressure on you to prove that any such thing actually happened and was not simply a later literary construction. Good luck with that because barring some amazing find history (not bible-based horseshit) has found nothing to sustain your claim.
(August 14, 2010 at 4:32 am)Peter44 Wrote: If Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Why did he rise from the dead ??
His resurrection was proof that God had accepted his sacrifice and we can now be forgiven by putting our faith in him. If he had remained in the grave we wouldn't have known whether his sacrifice was accepted or not.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV
(August 14, 2010 at 11:28 am)theophilus Wrote: His resurrection was proof that God had accepted his sacrifice and we can now be forgiven by putting our faith in him. If he had remained in the grave we wouldn't have known whether his sacrifice was accepted or not.
Proof that god accepted his sacrifice to himself? How can that possibly make any sense to you?
On the second premise, we don't act as God does. that's the main point of the Bible.
I don't consider myself wretched either, you're still viewing sin as the movie type evil guy with a big mustache twirling it, rather than a simple turning away from the laws written on your heart by God.
@tackattack. What does it mean that we are in the image of god. We are not physically the same, he is immaterial? Only our natures can be the same/similar. I think unless you can show me why this is a false conclusion I am correct in inferring it. I think any moves to mysticism will weaken your argument here, eg we cannot know god, mysterious way etc.
What on earth does it mean to say laws are written on my heart. This is a favourite William lane craigism. Really bright guy and a huge spinmeister for evangelicalism. It's vacuous IMO. If you accept Christianity, you accept God is an author, you accept the 613 laws. I am proud to turn my back on a lot of these as you no doubt have. There is lots of stuff in his books about the broze age practices of animal sacrifice, how to treat slaves nicely, child discipline, stoning as a form of punishment. But it took secular values and the enlightment to move us to a world in which these things seemed barbaric. If god had meant this all along why didn't he just tell us instead of admonishing us for taking a fancy to our mates donkey or calling him names? Unless of course he does not exist :-)
hock:
