If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:29 pm

If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to "pay for our sins", why didn't Jesus present himself to the temple priests and say "I have come to offer myself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world"?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:36 pm

From the OP:

If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to "pay for our sins", why didn't Jesus present himself to the temple priests and say "I have come to offer myself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world"?

'Cause that woulda made it official, and God wouldn't be able to get onto us anymore for sinning?

Alas, Jesus failed to protect us from sin, and failed to get us absolved of our sin. He paid nothing more'n to have died for a couple days. That's it.

Just another failed "prophecy".

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:08 pm

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I believe that the temples had become unclean, and that Jesus was the Vicar of God on Earth, so that he needed no temple to save you from your sins.

Besides, what would they have done? Decried hum a madman.
Similar to what would happen if a savior showed up today.

0.0% of the population would believe him, even assuming Jesus was not the real savior.

marco · Post by **marco** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:59 pm

Elijah John wrote: If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to "pay for our sins", why didn't Jesus present himself to the temple priests and say "I have come to offer myself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world"?

In fact he explained his mission to Pilate:

Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

What is truth? retorted Pilate.

A further statement from Christ would have brought clarity, but we got none. In fact it is remarkable we have these actual words recorded in a private exchange between Pilate and the accused.

Christianity is sometimes referred to as Paulianity, for Paul introduced notions that are nowhere evident in Christ's reported statements. The whole negative concept of Christ coming to pay for sins is not, apparently, the positive message that Christ admitted to: to bring truth to people.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:19 pm

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Besides, what would they have done? Decried hum a madman..

That is part of my point. Judaism had no such provision for human sacrifice, so his offer would have been refused...or worse.

Willum wrote: 0.0% of the population would believe him, even assuming Jesus was not the real savior.

And rightly so.

Also, could it be that Jesus himself never intended to "die in order to pay for our sins"?

That the whole notion was just a Pauline afterthought? His attempt to find meaning in the horrible execution of the Messiah?

And could it be that part of Jesus message was that the Father (God) never needed blood satisfaction in the first place? That he only needed "mercy and not sacrifice" all along?

Questions addressed to all.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:24 pm

marco wrote:
Elijah John wrote: If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to "pay for our sins", why didn't Jesus present himself to the temple priests and say "I have come to offer myself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world"?

In fact he explained his mission to Pilate:

Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

What is truth? retorted Pilate.

A further statement from Christ would have brought clarity, but we got none. In fact it is remarkable we have these actual words recorded in a private exchange between Pilate and the accused.

Christianity is sometimes referred to as Paulianity, for Paul introduced notions that are nowhere evident in Christ's reported statements. The whole negative concept of Christ coming to pay for sins is not, apparently, the positive message that Christ admitted to: to bring truth to people.

Exactly. Paul seems to have turned the religion of Jesus (his own brand of Judaism) into the religion about Jesus.

And your answer supports the theory that Jesus died as a martyr, not as an atonement. He died for his beliefs.

And to the degree that his martyrdom inspired others to live Godly lives, his death was not in vain. This in spite of Paul's protestations to the contrary, suggesting that "if we could be saved by works of the Law, then Christ died in vain". Or somesuch.

That is like saying that because Martin Luther King did not atone for our sins, that his own martyrdom was "in vain".

Not so, there are honored places in our redemption as humans for our martyrs.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:59 pm

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Because the temple, the Priesthood, the animal sacrifices, etc were the TYPE, Jesus was the antitype.

JW

RELATED POSTS

Who is represented by the High Priest in the Jewish temple system?
viewtopic.php?p=1089953#p1089953

What is represented by the ark of the covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1076634#p1076634

Who is represented by the sprout in Zechariah 3?
viewtopic.php?p=387782#p387782

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:41 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Because the temple, the Priesthood, the animal sacrifices, etc were the TYPE, Jesus was the antitype.

JW

Why do you suppose Moses never explained that to the people? Nor did the prophets, nor did Jesus himself? We had to wait for someone who never met Jesus in the flesh (Paul) to explain it all. Or the writer of Hebrews, whomever he was.

Isn't that in itself evidence that Paul's blood-atonement, human-sacrifice theology is his own afterthought, revisionism?

Or was Paul wiser than Jesus?

The only explanation the prophets ever provided concerning animal sacrifice is repudiation. (Micah 6.6-8. Hosea 6.6, 1 Samuel 15.22, etc, etc)

Nothing at all about "type", or anti-type")

And the thought of human sacrifice is abhorrent to Judaism. Or maybe you are suggesting that Jesus was not a human? Or he was not a Jew?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:18 am

Elijah John wrote: Why do you suppose Moses never explained that to the people? Nor did the prophets...?

Because no single Prophet had a revelation of the entire scope of God's plan. Abraham was never told about Moses, Moses didn't know about the temple, David never knew that about the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was told of a new covenant (but didn't know who the Messiah would be). Given that the above demonstrates conclusively that Divine revelation is ALWAYS progressive. why would you presume that Moses would necessarily have all the details about the coming Messiah or the full significants of the temple arrangement in the God's long term plans. (NOT a rhetorical questions, you may answer if you wish).

JW

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:32 am

.

JehovahsWitness wrote: Divine revelation is ALWAYS progressive.

How does that differ from "make it up as we go along"?

Is there assurance that ANY "divine revelations" are truthful and accurate -- and not just various people telling stories?

Debating Christianity and Religion

If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"

Re: If Jesus died to "pay for our sins"