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]

[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]

[polonius]

[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.