Was Jesus' sacrifice really a sacrifice at all?

[Skipper]

Ignoring the fact it was technically god sacrificing himself to himself for the sin he himself created I'd like to know peoples opinions. If Jesus was guaranteed to live in Heaven for eternity and be the focus of billions of peoples worship and praise how is his dying on the cross a sacrifice at all? How is it relevant to the faith and how is it seen a selfless act? and as a side note how is him dying the cure for all previous and future sin?

I'd go through whatever pain you could think of if I was to then go on to live forever in the sky world with sky daddy and the praise and love of half the earth.

Thoughts?

[Gilligan]

Yes, Skipper.

Because He suffered horribly.

<snip>

ADD: Here is the link on the Physical Death of Jesus (Includes medical aspects of both scourging and crucifixion):

http://www.cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a024.html

[Minimalist]

The dying/resurrected god is a common motif in ANE religion, as per

http://atheism.about.com/od/ancientmytho...ng-God.htm

The god Adonis is normally associated with Greek religion, but in fact Adonis is originally Lebanese: his worship is first found among the Phoenicians and Canaanites then only later imported into the Greek pantheon. Even after becoming Greek, though, Adonis always retained his basic Semitic characteristics - in particular, his role as a god who annually dies and is resurrected alongside the vegetation which comes back to life each spring.

Whatever attributes later xtian writers ascribed to their particular godboy the genre would have been recognizable to anyone alive at the time. He was nothing new.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, Skipper.

Because He suffered horribly.

Good for him! At least he did pay a small price, albeit smaller than what thousands of his contempoaries whom the Romans crucified, but who didn't rise up afterwards and say "it was all just a show, and I am still alive!", had paid, for causing major portion of humanity to suffer terribly in the next 2000 years, including many thousands who suffered far more and for far longer then he did, while his followers thrusted graven images of him supposedly in the act of paying the small price before their tortured faces.

[ldarwin]

It was a temporary sacrifice. God/Jesus didn't actually sacrifice (lose) anything really. Basically he allowed himself to feel a whole bunch of pain and sorrow for 3 days. And HE was the one who made the rules, and created such "crappy" creations that need sacrificing in the first place! If he lost anything, it would be all the animal sacrifices he no longer required after that. Overall, I think it was a pretty lame "sacrifice".

I mean,what have I learned from a god who is willing to be tortured by his own creation? That now he can hold it over our heads forever. "Hey humans.. I know I can be kind of a dick, but you really need to bow down and worship me. Remember that time you totally tortured me and killed me. Remember that? And I didn't kill you, even though I could have? I'm just sayin'...that was really messed up. I cried. You made Jesus cry. [fake sobbing] Sooo...you owe me. No how about that worship?"

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, Skipper.

Because He suffered horribly.

<snip>

Here is the link on the Physical Death of Jesus (Includes medical aspects of both scourging and crucifixion):

http://www.cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a024.html

That would have made him suffer as much as tens of thousands whom the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Carthegenians, the Itruscans had executed in the same manner! Shit! What sacrafice! The rest of humanity must now be indebted to him and him only forever!

In partial payment of this debt, his followers was right to make people who were not impressed with his sacrafice suffer for far longer, and far more cruelly, while thrusting crucifixes in their faces.

[Minimalist]

albeit smaller than what thousands of his contempoaries whom the Romans crucified

Later xtian propaganda. It appears, despite later forgeries, that the Romans took no notice of them until the mid-3'd century when they finally became numerous enough to notice. It was also a bad time for the Roman empire, with a string of serious defeats in the East, and xtians gloating about the coming of a 'new kingdom' would have been seen as disloyalty.

[Anomalocaris]

albeit smaller than what thousands of his contempoaries whom the Romans crucified

Later xtian propaganda. It appears, despite later forgeries, that the Romans took no notice of them until the mid-3'd century when they finally became numerous enough to notice. It was also a bad time for the Roman empire, with a string of serious defeats in the East, and xtians gloating about the coming of a 'new kingdom' would have been seen as disloyalty.

No, I ma not talking about Xtians. The Romans cruicified people that annoy them routinely. They crucified 6000 of Spartacus's followers in one go. They also crucified thousands during the 68 AD Jewish revolt. It's Xtain propaganda that there was anything special about it. Before the Romans the Phoenicians and Itruscans also crucified people. The deranged preacher did not suffer more than is usual for people held in low regard by the Romans. Romans also crucified other religious malcontents and annoying preachers. The same Tiberius in whose reign Jesus supposedly died also ordered the priestess of Isis in Rome crucified for spreading a cult not met with Imperial approval.

[Minimalist]

The Romans cruicified people that annoy them routinely

Spartacus paraded around Italy for a couple of years destroying everything in sight. That was a tad more than an "annoyance."

However the point is well-made. Crucifixion was reserved for rebels and slaves. The Jews in 66-70 definitely fell into the "rebel" category.

[Watson]

Nope, it wasn't. There was no sacrifice and there was no purpose to it, and none of it made any sense in the first place.

You guys are so right.