Was Jesus' Sacrifice Meaningful?

[JoeMama]

Jesus spent some unpleasant hours on the cross, and a couple of days in a tomb, but he is still alive today, 2,000 years later, sitting forevermore in heavenly bliss at the right hand of God. If the price for living forever is being nailed to a cross and being shut up for a short while in a tomb, who wouldn't take that bargain? So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?

[bjs1]

Certainly. Plans to not always involve sacrifice. Plans sometimes involve sacrifice and sometimes do not involve sacrifice. This is why it is a non-sequitur to write, “No sacrifice. It was all part of the plan.”

When God and Jesus (as separate individuals or one) are in collusion over the plan, including the outcome, then there is no genuine sacrifice involved.

This remains a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get form “in collusion over the plan, including the outcome,” to “there is no genuine sacrifice involved.”

If debaters are going to continue to repeat this claim, it would be helpful if someone would at least attempt show the logical steps between “plan” and “no sacrifice.”

If you give away your prize possession with full knowledge that you will get it back, that is not a sacrifice. Observers may see it as a sacrifice if they don't know what's behind it, but you are just participating in a charade.

Giving away a prize possession is not an accurate analogy in this case. See post 6.

I may be repeating myself here, but the point is not that there was a Plan, or even that the sacrifice wouldn't be permanent, but that Jesus knew that he would resurrect. That is what follows. There are all kinds of mechanisms,like whether the blood itself was magical, whether the torture was bad enough to create an escape clause in Sin -death, or whether God could have just abolished Sin -death if he wanted, but that Jesus knew that he would be revived and live like a king eternally means that it really wasn't a sacrifice..

Then please go back and address post 6.

Incidentally, I think giving away a prized possession IS a valid analogy of sacrifice. It is (in my view) what sacrifice is; giving up something of value, a bronze sword, a Llama, a wad of cash for a church or funding a load of monks - it is about a supposed penance to get right with the gods and get them arranging life (and maybe an afterlife) as you want. Note, ritual killing of objects as grave goods to follow the owner into the afterlife is NOT a sacrifice and nothing is really given up. And maybe that's the best analogy of why the crucifixion was not really a sacrifice.

Okay, let’s take the analogy of a prized possession, but remember that it is a position that is in constant use. If it is a Llama, then it is a Llama that is used to transport goods every day. Would it be a sacrifice for a person to loan that Llama to someone else for 33 years, so that he must carry all the goods every day on his own back for? If it is a wad of cash, then would be a sacrifice to give away all your money and live in abject poverty for decades even if you know that you will eventually have the money returned to you and will one day be wealthy again?

It seems, by this analogy, that the crucifixion really is a sacrifice.

[bjs1]

So I find it quite reasonable that he found what Jesus did not to be a sacrifice at all, AND that it was all part of a plan. In fact, I agree with him on both points.

Then it is reasonable to expect that the first part of the claim be demonstrated as true, not just stated without evidence or reason.

[Miles]

So I find it quite reasonable that he found what Jesus did not to be a sacrifice at all, AND that it was all part of a plan. In fact, I agree with him on both points.

Then it is reasonable to expect that the first part of the claim be demonstrated as true, not just stated without evidence or reason.

Are you suggesting that evidence and reasonableness must amount to truth?

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly. Plans to not always involve sacrifice. Plans sometimes involve sacrifice and sometimes do not involve sacrifice. This is why it is a non-sequitur to write, “No sacrifice. It was all part of the plan.”

When God and Jesus (as separate individuals or one) are in collusion over the plan, including the outcome, then there is no genuine sacrifice involved.

This remains a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get form “in collusion over the plan, including the outcome,” to “there is no genuine sacrifice involved.”

If debaters are going to continue to repeat this claim, it would be helpful if someone would at least attempt show the logical steps between “plan” and “no sacrifice.”

If you give away your prize possession with full knowledge that you will get it back, that is not a sacrifice. Observers may see it as a sacrifice if they don't know what's behind it, but you are just participating in a charade.

Giving away a prize possession is not an accurate analogy in this case. See post 6.

I may be repeating myself here, but the point is not that there was a Plan, or even that the sacrifice wouldn't be permanent, but that Jesus knew that he would resurrect. That is what follows. There are all kinds of mechanisms,like whether the blood itself was magical, whether the torture was bad enough to create an escape clause in Sin -death, or whether God could have just abolished Sin -death if he wanted, but that Jesus knew that he would be revived and live like a king eternally means that it really wasn't a sacrifice..

Then please go back and address post 6.

Incidentally, I think giving away a prized possession IS a valid analogy of sacrifice. It is (in my view) what sacrifice is; giving up something of value, a bronze sword, a Llama, a wad of cash for a church or funding a load of monks - it is about a supposed penance to get right with the gods and get them arranging life (and maybe an afterlife) as you want. Note, ritual killing of objects as grave goods to follow the owner into the afterlife is NOT a sacrifice and nothing is really given up. And maybe that's the best analogy of why the crucifixion was not really a sacrifice.

Okay, let’s take the analogy of a prized possession, but remember that it is a position that is in constant use. If it is a Llama, then it is a Llama that is used to transport goods every day. Would it be a sacrifice for a person to loan that Llama to someone else for 33 years, so that he must carry all the goods every day on his own back for? If it is a wad of cash, then would be a sacrifice to give away all your money and live in abject poverty for decades even if you know that you will eventually have the money returned to you and will one day be wealthy again?

It seems, by this analogy, that the crucifixion really is a sacrifice.

Post #6? Sure.

Jesus spent some unpleasant hours on the cross, and a couple of days in a tomb, but he is still alive today, 2,000 years later, sitting forevermore in heavenly bliss at the right hand of God. If the price for living forever is being nailed to a cross and being shut up for a short while in a tomb, who wouldn't take that bargain? So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?

If Christianity is true the Jesus already had eternal heavenly bliss at the right hand of God before the incarnation. He gained nothing by coming to earth, experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years, and then being tortured to death in the most horrific fashion ever devised. If that is not a great sacrifice then we clearly have different understandings of what those words mean.

It makes no difference that I can see whether Jesus was promised to regain that which he already had or was promised it for the first time. It was not a sacrifice since he knew he would be getting it or getting it back, it makes no difference which. Nor does it make your case to wail about how horrible crucifixion was. It is going to water down the 'Sacrifice' totally to know that after an unpleasantness (than which a few cultures have devised worse and more prolonged, and they had no effect of Sin- death whatsoever) he is going to get it ALL or get it all back. Just think, if Job had been told, "don't worry, You'll get back everything that Satan takes from you" (telling him the Plan, you see) he would have never despaired.

What was the point about the Lama? Right. It's a fair argument. No, I don't think it would be a sacrifice IF the plan was confided, 'If you do this, poverty will be abolished worldwide', and you'll get all your wealth back'. And remember three days or less and less than a day of the sorts of torment hundreds of victims went through for days, sometimes and achieved nothing. Were they sacrifices? Nobody ever says so. I won't be unfair you had to make it longer than abject poverty for three days, which is nothing, but say one year? Llama or no, I'd stick it to end world hunger, if I was promised all my pelf and Llamas back again, wouldn't you?

[JoeMama]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]

Re: Was Jesus' Sacrifice Meaningful?
Post #6
Post by bjs1 » Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:38 am

JoeMama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 9:53 am
Jesus spent some unpleasant hours on the cross, and a couple of days in a tomb, but he is still alive today, 2,000 years later, sitting forevermore in heavenly bliss at the right hand of God. If the price for living forever is being nailed to a cross and being shut up for a short while in a tomb, who wouldn't take that bargain? So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?

bjs1 wrote:

If Christianity is true the Jesus already had eternal heavenly bliss at the right hand of God before the incarnation. He gained nothing by coming to earth, experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years, and then being tortured to death in the most horrific fashion ever devised. If that is not a great sacrifice then we clearly have different understandings of what those words mean.

JoeMama:

You may wish to call it a "great" sacrifice, but it was only during the last three days of Jesus' life was he tormented. The other 30 years, we don't really know. The price he paid for what he got was inconsequential. Wouldn't you go through what Jesus did if you knew you were just going through the motions, fulfilling a role in a play whose script was long ago written down, and the payment for that effort at the end of that play would be a return to God in heaven, then to be revered forever more by millions for thousands of years?

You would do that, wouldn't you?

So, what's the big deal?

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems a reasonable argument that Jesus sacrifice was NOT a 'Sacrifice' in any meaningful sense, but God used it as a sacrifice, in order to make the loophole in his law of sin - death.

Which, being so, it follows that the more reasonable conclusion is that it is a claim or story that actually doesn't work, no more than the Ark and Flood, Eden, trial (either of them) and the lesson of David and the Shewbread, work. In o.w, the better case is that it is invented claims and stories that don't actually work and are not credible.

Now I know the believers will deny that, but it is just more weight in the scales for the Bible - skeptic case that it does not make sense, is not credible as eyewitness and there is no good reason to believe it. That is what is before any reader with an open mind and the Faithful rejecting and denying everything is irrelevant.

[1213]

....So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?
...

Could it be because no one else would do the same?

[TRANSPONDER]

....So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?
...

Could it be because no one else would do the same?

I doubt it. If a god approached the world with the salvation of man, for a halfday crucifixion, and a bespoke eternal life afterwards, I reckon he'd get plenty of takers. The crucifixion mainly because Jesus did not stay dead, does not rate as a meaningful sacrifice. It is a bit of theological card - sharping by God, or (more likely) a rather shoddy religious theory by Paul. My money's on the latter.

[boatsnguitars]

experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years

Something many of us do for more than 30 years but we are told it's a great honor to have Life. Here you suggest Life is just a grind and then you die. Why would a Good God create that system when he had a perfect one for himself?

and then being tortured to death in the most horrific fashion ever devised.

You clearly have not read about Medieval torture methods.

If that is not a great sacrifice then we clearly have different understandings of what those words mean.

Yes, you think 30 years of life, ending in a bad day is a great sacrifice to an eternal Being that planned it all out. You sound like the people who think Trump made a great sacrifice by running for President.

https://castrumtocastle.com/blogs/medie ... mmediately.

Seems Jesus got off easy - maybe that was part of the plan, too? He purposely the Middle Ages....

[boatsnguitars]

....So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?
...

Could it be because no one else would do the same?

Thích Quảng Đức was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who died by suicide by self-immolation at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963. Quảng Đức was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by the U.S. backed South Vietnamese government of Ngô Đình Diệm, a staunch Roman Catholic.