Jesus most important sermon..

[Elijah John]

For debate:

1) Where in this most important sermon of Jesus, does he ever mention the supposed importance of believing in his impending sacrifice on the cross to "pay for" our sins in order to be saved?

2) If, as Paul suggests, believing in Jesus death on the cross as "payment for sins" is so important for one's salvation, why didn't Jesus teach this "most important doctrine," in his most important sermon?

[JehovahsWitness]

Now how about you, how do you reconcile Jesus' NON-bloody mercy teachings with "his" blood atonement teachings? ... Remember, Jesus said of those unwilling to forgive: "if you do NOT forgive, neither will my Father forgive you" .

QUESTION: Does the ransom sacrifice of Jesus contradict the principle of believers forgiving others in personal relationships?

The ransom sacrifice and its value is not to be confused with the general principle that believers are expected to forgive those that wrong them.

When the bible speaks of humans "forgiving" other humans it means that the wronged person doesn't hold the matter against the person that wronged them; that they will not harbor resentment, or seek revenge but will rather put the incident behind them and continue to maintain a good relationship with the person. Forgiving a personal wrong does not "atoned" for (make amends for..) the sin of the person in the eyes of God. No human can wiped away anothers guilt before God's perfect standards, much less removed the tendency in their fellow man to make mistakes (ie sin). All any human can do is choose to be generous in how they react when wronged (sinned against).

The only thing that atones for sin in the eyes of God, is blood, which represents life. The ransom sacrifice was offered to atone for the effects of all ADAMIC sin past, present and future. In other words it was the means by which God would legally be able to remove the effects inherited sin and thus accord the children of Adam and Eve everlasting life. It was God's generous way of repairing the damage done by Adam.

CONCLUSION Jesus was teaching that since God has chosen to forgive humans and maintain a relationship with them (at great personal cost) how much more humans should forgive their fellow man (believer or not) for the wrongs committed against them. In short, Jesus was saying, if we forgive others, God will apply the effects of the ransom for us and forgive us






RELATED POSTS


What is divine forgiveness?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p837929

[theStudent]

For debate:

1) Where in this most important sermon of Jesus, does he ever mention the supposed importance of believing in his impending sacrifice on the cross to "pay for" our sins in order to be saved?

2) If, as Paul suggests, believing in Jesus death on the cross as "payment for sins" is so important for one's salvation, why didn't Jesus teach this "most important doctrine," in his most important sermon?

I personally believe that the Sermon on the Mount was impotent, but I don't think there is any Biblical reference to it being the most important.
For example, Jesus gave many sermons, some including when he fed thousands.
He also gave sermons in the synagogues where many put faith in him. (If it affected his apostles who followed him for months, how would it affect those who never knew him?)
The instructions he gave at Matthew 7 and 13 were just as vitally important as the sermon on the mount imo.
Mention of positive effects were recorded on the other sermons, but none are mentioned regarding the sermon on the mount.
If there are any Biblical references to the contrary, I stand corrected.

So based on this, I would not think that at the very start of Jesus' ministry, he would feel incline to just mention his sacrifice,
Also guided by God's spirit, the words that Jesus spoke on the mountain were comforting and refreshing. Rather than puzzling and depressing - which I think a message of death might have carried to people now getting to hear and know him.

Teaching people to first understand that he was the messiah - by his message about his father, and his miracles that glorified his father - would preceed the message of his sacrificial death, which would really only benefit those who pet faith in his words, and works.
(Matthew 20:28) ...Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.

Wise King Solomon said: "For everything, there is an appointed time."

[GlorifiedOne]

[Replying to post 22 by theStudent]

Those sermons supposedly spoken by Jesus don't contain much knowledge of Christ. There's nothing in those sermons about the beast of Daniel, which is the most important knowledge to understand. There isn't much knowledge about the age ending destruction or how we'll be experiencing life in the New Heaven and Earth. I can easily see that it was written by religious men who are controlling masses of followers of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican that made laws contrary to the Law of God that was preached by God's saints.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 23 by GlorifiedOne]

There's nothing in those sermons about the beast of Daniel, which is the most important knowledge to understand. There isn't much knowledge about the age ending destruction or how we'll be experiencing life in the New Heaven and Earth.

What evidence can you provide to show that these are the most important?

I can easily see that it was written by religious men who are controlling masses of followers of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican that made laws contrary to the Law of God that was preached by God's saints.

What allows you to clearly see this? Can you provide any evidence for this claim?

[polonius]

JW posted:

According to the bible, yes. Arguably the real life drama of Abraham and his son Isaac was to illustrate the fact of the later event.

See the evidence presented in an earlier post I wrote on this subject
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 119#827119

MATTHEW 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many. NLT

MARK 14:24
He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

LUKE 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV

1 JOHN 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

1 PETER 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

REVELATION 7:14
And I said to him, My Lord, you know. And he said to me, These are those who came from great suffering and they have purified their garments and whitened them in the blood of The Lamb. - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

*While neither James and Jude directly refer to the blood sacrifice of Jesus, both make reference to Jesus' key position in the lives of Christians

RESPONSE:
Isnt this just symbolism referring mainly to the Eucharist? Or at the crucifixion were Jesus followers actually drinking his blood?

Where in scripture precisely does God require human sacrifice for the atonement of sin.? Or is it all just symbolism?

[polonius]

For JW, Checkpoint and any who believe in blood atonement.

If Jesus did indeed teach blood atonement, two questions.

1) Is this an essential doctrine?

2) If so, why didn't he teach it in his most important sermon, and or emphasize it over and over again?

Seems one or two references by Jesus does not an essential doctrine make.

Compare that with Paul's repeated references to this doctrine.

Why did Jesus leave it up to Paul to interpret Jesus?

If, why,seems.

So much doubt, better to accept God's thoughts and ways, surely.

The verses I quoted cannot be dismissed or minimised.

Here is the Ellicott Commentary on the ransom statement of Jesus.

To give his life a ransom for many.

The word rightly rendered ransom, is primarily a price made for deliverance, and in this sense it is found in the Greek version of the Old Testament for the ransom which is accepted instead of a mans life in Exodus 21:30, for the price of redemption accepted as an equivalent for an unexpired term of service in Leviticus 25:50, for riches as the ransom of a mans life in Proverbs 13:8.

No shade of doubt accordingly rests on the meaning of the word. Those who heard could attach no other meaning to it than that He who spake them was about to offer up His life that others might be delivered. Seldom, perhaps, has a truth of such profound import been spoken, as it were, so incidentally. It is as if the words had been drawn from Him by the contrast between the disputes of the disciples and the work which had occupied His own thoughts as He walked on in silent solitude in advance of them.

It is the first distinct utterance, we may note, of the plan and method of His work. He had spoken before of saving the lost (Matthew 18:11): now He declares that the work of salvation was to be also one of redemption. It could only be accomplished by the payment of a price, and that price was His own life.

The language of the Epistles as to the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, our being bought with a price (Romans 3:24; 1Corinthians 6:20), redeemed by His precious blood (1Peter 1:19), the language of all Christendom in speaking of the Christ as our Redeemer, are the natural developments of that one pregnant word. The extent of the redemptive work, for many, is here indefinite rather than universal, but the ransom for all of 1Timothy 2:6 shows in what sense it was received by those whom the Spirit of God was guiding into all truth.

Even the preposition in, for many has a more distinct import than is given in the English version. It was, strictly speaking, a ransom instead of, in the place of, ( not ) many. Without stating a theory of the atonement, it implied that our Lords death was, in some way, representative and vicarious; and the same thought is expressed by St. Pauls choice of the compound substantive , when, using a different preposition, he speaks of it as a ransom for (, i.e., on behalf of) all men (1Timothy 2:6).

RESPONSE: But the question remains where in scripture precisely does God say that He requires human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin? Or is someone just trying to explain why Christ was crucified (actually as an insurrectionist against Rome)?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

It is not a question of "if" Jesus did teach this. The Jesus as presented in scripture DID teach of the atoning value of his blood sacrifice, this is a fact. One has therefore a choice to make, either dismiss this as and "interpolation", a corruption in scripture and proceed to built ones personal theology based on this decision or accept this as true even if it may be to ones personal disliking.

One can only find the body of truth as presented in scripture by accepting and keeping each individual fact once it is established to be so and seeking to fit the pieces together that we KNOW are part of the picture. When you have built a corner in a puzzle you don't say "if" that is a corner where does *this* piece go? you say, okay, we have a corner, where does this other piece go in relation to what I know to be true? In other words, ONLY by accepting that Christ did teach this and being willing to keep that fact as true no matter what, can one ever hope to get the whole picture, not only of the teachings of Christ but of the whole bible.

Some teachings are central, this happens to be one of them; it is if you like, a corner (Ephesians 2:19).

RESPONSE: Let me ask this question one more time. Follow the words. Where in scripture is it said that God requires human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin?

[Elijah John]

RESPONSE: But the question remains where in scripture precisely does God say that He requires human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin? Or is someone just trying to explain why Christ was crucified (actually as an insurrectionist against Rome)?

The Messiah was not supposed to die as a criminal, ie on a Roman Cross or any other form of execution.

When this happened with Jesus, an explanation was needed. Tying Jesus' execution to the animal blood sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible (animal sacrifice was supposedly a foreshadowing in the minds of revisionists like Paul and the author of Hebrews) was Paul's attempt to find meaning and theological significance to an otherwise demoralizing event for Jesus' early disciples.

Then Paul sets up a false dichotomy. In effect saying that if Jesus didn't die to pay for our sins, then his death was in vain.

This false dichotomy omits the most likely scenario, that Jesus died for his principles, what he saw as God's principles, he died for what he believed in.

A true martyr's death is never "in vain" despite what Paul seems to say to the contrary.

Paul's human sacrifice, blood-atonement theology does no honor to the Father. It paints Him as needing appeasement, unable or unwilling to forgive for His own sake, for the sake of His own merciful nature tempered with Divine wisdom, which upholds justice as well.

The resurrection can well be viewed as God's vindication for Jesus' martyrdom. Jesus willingness to die as the price of living what he taught, a noble, heroic and extreme example of being persecuted for righteousness sake.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 25 by polonius.advice]

"MATTHEW 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many. NLT"

This does not sound right.
Is it the actual quote word for word?

[marco]

...... we have so little! We have four Gospels, of which a great deal is repeated among them and sum total of those pages amount to a mere 142 pages. So little.

I'm sure he would not have wasted his breath if what he was teaching was of no importance. You are right that he never said that. If I implied that, I'm sorry.

And how terribly sad it is that a man of such importance didn't write anything down, and, as you say, his three years of preaching are confined to a few pages, much shorter than a Dickens novel. His 30 years of family life are virtually unknown.

Julius Caesar, though heavily engaged in war and politics, managed to record what he did in Gaul and during the Civil War. We can read his words today. Christ seems preoccupied by the present tense, by the people around him at the time and gives nothing of himself to posterity, but, as Tennyson says of Arthur, rumours of a doubt. It is sad that his very existence is often questioned - but he has only himself to blame, it would seem.