Who sacrificed Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Under Probation
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:41 am
Location: USA / ISRAEL

Post #31

Post by Avoice »

[Replying to post 13 by SallyF]

Ugh...and to think people say this is God. Disgusting. What a low opinion of God. Id sooner perish than say this is God

Posts: 91
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:36 am
Location: Ireland

Post #32

Post by sorrento »

[Replying to post 30 by Avoice]

Seeing as the old testament describes a god that condones slavery, orders acts of genocide, infanticide, and rape, just how low does your god have to sink before you perishing is out of the question?

User avatar
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?

Post #33

Post by marco »

Elijah John wrote:
marco wrote: We learn in Hebrews that people die, and that only once. We also learn that somebody offered Christ as a sacrifice, like a bull or a pigeon, but I can't find who this officiating priest was. Can anyone help.
There was no one. Roman executioners were not Jewish Priests, and the cross is not an altar.

If believers in "the blood" want to play the Priestly game, hadn't they ought to play by Priestly rules? If Jesus was a blood-sacrifice for atonement, he would have had to have been sacrificed by a Priest on the altar. But here's another big problem, Judaism forbade human sacrifice.,

A martyrdom may indeed be a sacrifice for a good cause, and Jesus seems to have died for what he believed in, but that is far different than a theological, atoning blood sacrifice.
I would like to argue against what you say, just to open another avenue of thought, but I can't. The best one can do is accept "sacrifice" in a metaphorical sense. "They sacrificed their tomorrow for our today". Christ sacrificed a life of peace and quiet to get his message of love across. I'm not sure he did, but at least it is hard to fight metaphors.

User avatar
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #34

Post by marco »

FWI wrote:

The Christ wasn't sacrificed, he was murdered.
I think the Roman soldiers carried out an official execution. It may have been a wrong verdict but Jesus seemed to comply with it, offering no defence.

marco wrote:Did he "take away" the punishment due to sinners? Or did he cause God to forget that sins had actually been committed?

However, when a human dies, their sins are paid for! [/quote]

Yes this is the theory that is really hard on the brain. I can pay for strawberries or I can pay for some service, but how do I pay for sins?

Realworldjack wrote:

Since, the Christ was without sin, he did not earn the death penalty. Thus, he could have demanded that he not die, physically…But, he didn't, because God's will is also his will. So, the Christ who had the power to request that legions of angels could be called upon to rescue him (Matthew 26:53). But, he did not do so. Hence, the death of the Christ was necessary, not because he sinned and not because he was a sacrifice for sins, but because he needed to be resurrected from the dead! And, according to the plan of God, the lack of action by the Christ (to save himself) also gave humans the "opportunity" to be resurrected (physically) as well. So, it is the resurrection of the Christ that is the key to eternal life, not his death.
And this makes sense, does it? A man who knows he's not guilty and refuses to use means that might save him, gets himself killed so that he can claim the killing is to blossom into eternal life for others. In what way does some horrible execution equate with eternal happiness? But of course we are relying on Matthew for our info, which is clearly a mistake. Matthew - corpses walking to the city - is rather imaginative in his writing.

One consequence of Christ's non-defence and of Matthew's creative fiction is that Jews were pilloried as "God killers." Not everyone supped at the celestial banquet.

Post Reply