Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

marco
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
brunumb wrote:




Would the alleged sacrifice of Jesus still be valid if he got run over by a chariot, or trampled to death by rampaging goats, or simply died of cancer? there is nothing in the scenario that equates to Jesus being a sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity. Sounds like a literary afterthought to me.


Yes, the problem is that in being executed, Jesus is not the engineer of his sacrifice unless we accept that he deliberately provoked people by mocking what they believed. Had he taken his disciples to a cliff and instead of throwing harmless swine over, threw himself into the ocean, that would certainly be a sacrifice and doubtless pictures of the cliff top would replace the art round the crucifixion.

Drawing a relationship between somebody assaulting a child, say, and being forgiven because of Christ's suicide is just one of the many religious ideas that seem to meet with miraculous acceptance. Others involve Christ secretly landing on Earth in 1915 or thereabouts, Christ turning up bodily every time a priest says: "This is my body" or the notion that leopards and lions will chew grass in a world where Jesus is Prime Minister and folk still work as waiters and taxi drivers. O sancta simplicitas!

tam
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
Peace to you,

Quote:
[quote="marco"]
tam wrote:



Christ is the (high) priest, and He sacrificed Himself.


In fact he was sentenced to death, as were the two thieves who are reported to have been punished beside him. They stole, he blasphemed and the result was execution. None of them sacrificed themselves: they suffered the consequences of their actions.


So your question (and title) were rhetorical then?

(Your question -> 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)


Though even the thief said Christ was innocent of wrongdoing. And Pilate said that he could find no charge against the man that was worthy of death. And there was no blasphemy.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

SallyF
Subject:


This was NOT a religious ceremony.

The idea that is was is propaganda.

Propaganda that appealed to the Jewish/Canaanite faction that still believed in human sacrifice to the god/s.

Human sacrifice to the god/s and drinking the blood and eating the meat of the human sacrifice was obviously not a new idea to them.

We should question why Christians playing the Great Game of Pretend continue to pretend to drink the blood and eat the meat of the dead, human sacrifice, Leader …?

JehovahsWitness
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
marco wrote:


Yes, the problem is that in being executed, Jesus is not the engineer of his sacrifice unless we accept that he deliberately provoked people by mocking what they believed.



Are you suggesting that he above was the case?

Avoice
Subject:
He didnt

First of all, sacrificing humans to appease the gods is totally pagan. People recoil in disgust if watching a show about some tribal people throwing babies in a volcano. Jesus is no different. And as far as that goes the 'eat my body abd drink my blood' is also pagan. Dont bother with the 'its a metaphor'. Its dusgusting. Its as disgusting as if Jesus said 'this is my pe__s drink my urine so that you may have eternal life' pretty sick huh. But at keast drinking urine isnt so disgusting. God specifically said don't drink blood. So jesus uses it as a metaphor anyway? What if its not a metaphor? Hear his words. He seems very clear here.

" Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If this 'metaphor' is about what Christians must do to be saved then why use a metaphor to describe what needs be done? So truth be told, it could mean eat his vomit. Who knows.

All that talk of eternal life may sound great. It alsi says in tge Christian testanent that even snake bites wont kill you. Sounds good really? Think again. Eternal life means never dying. Imagibe having to be a human forever. Born...20 years with your parents..school all ove again.....raisibg kids... burying parents...getting sick and dying...THEN BORN AGAIN....

Ive said it before and ill say it sgain -- jesus is more like satan than God. In fact hes just like him. God told ( not verbatim) satan he could do his work on job. But he said SAVE HIS LIFE.
NO ONE GET TO THE FATHER BUT ______ How? We all must go through satan. Right through him. Jesus told us how to test a person. BY THE FRUIT THEY PRODUCE. And what fid jesys produce? He git billions of people to call him lord and didn't do anything for them. He took gids glory and got people to disobey God. That us exactky what he did. Oh yeah...promuses promises.... promises to save you. Yeah for himself. He took God's glory. He fooled billions. Because all they hear is 'eternal life'. Yes, jesus even says he has power over all flesh. ALL FLESH? ALLLLL FLESSHH.

I WANT TO DIE SOMEDAY. JESUS , LIKE SATAN LIVES FOREVER. HE IS LONELY AND WANTS OTHERS WITH HIM.

Avoice
Subject:
Sacrifices ate only acceptable in the olace God chooses. And the sacrifices had to be done a certain way. Jesus was not an acceptable sacrifice

Why dont jews still have the sacrificial system? Becsuse it must be done where God said. Gid even said we dont get to choose. And jesus died dusgustingly on a tree at a place called the skull. OMG!! Hiw dare anyone think that is a respectful sacrifice to the creator. Are you kidding me? Shame on thise who think jesus' sacrifice was acceptable.

Scripture tells us we will becwithout you the sacrifucial system many days. But it will be reinststed in the end times and tge Messiah will offer sacrifices. Fir HIMSELF and for the people. So its nit jesus. He dued once for ALL SINS FOREVER IT SAYS. THAT'S A LIE BECAUSE SACRIFUCES WILL TAKE PLACE ONCE AGAIN. IN THE THIRD TEMPLE ON THE ALTER..IN JERUSALEM.

THE SKULL? UGH!! OMG

Avoice
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
[Replying to post 1 by marco]

He didn't die FOR their sins.

He died because of their sins

If the story is true he died because of their sins. They could have saved his life but the veibg obedient to God messes up their good times.

Well, God is merciful indeed. He has allowed them to live out their life on earth in peace. No worries. Thinking they can skirt the law, kill God (jesus) and be rewarded.
They go to the grave happy. Gid is merciful. They got exactky the life they wanted. Too bad they didn't wait. But they didnt trust God to be there for them in death. Oh well.

1213
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
marco wrote:

…It would be interesting to know what "take away the sins of many" means, if anything.


Jesus declared sins forgiven. So, I think “taking the sins of many” means that Jesus came on earth and declared the message God had given to him.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

But he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also. For this reason I have been sent."
Luke 4:43

Because of that Jesus was killed. And that is why it can be said he was killed because of our sins. And that is why he can be called sacrifice. Or it could be said that he sacrificed, used his life for us, for our benefit, so that we could get the message and become righteous and have the life.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

marco
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
1213 wrote:

marco wrote:

…It would be interesting to know what "take away the sins of many" means, if anything.


Jesus declared sins forgiven. So, I think “taking the sins of many” means that Jesus came on earth and declared the message God had given to him.



Your explanation does not remotely relate to the words "take away the sins of many".

1213 wrote:


But he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also. For this reason I have been sent."
Luke 4:43

Because of that Jesus was killed.


No, he was killed because he provoked pious people, suggesting he was older than Abraham and was the Son of God. The people of the religion he used considered this blasphemy. The Romans considered him a criminal. He was retrospectively regarded as a messenger, messiah and even a god.
1213 wrote:


And that is why it can be said he was killed because of our sins.


There is no link between my neighbour lying and stealing and a 1st century preacher. He died because he chose to be provocative.

1213 wrote:


Or it could be said that he sacrificed, used his life for us, for our benefit, so that we could get the message and become righteous and have the life.


Well if that's what the man thought, he was mistaken. Billions have died since and received no benefit from his crucifixion. Babies who have died after a few days have not sinned; did Christ benefit them? Or are the only beneficiaries murderers and rapists?


1213 wrote:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.[/i]
Mat. 25:46


Why are we talking about the righteous when the sacrifice was for sinners? And why, given Christ's big gesture, are people still going to eternal punishment. Did Christ have to make things so complicated?

Menotu
Subject: Re: Who sacrificed Jesus?
[Replying to post 1 by marco]


What interested me in your last sentence was the 'take away the sins of many'. This seems to mean 'take away the sins of some, but not all'.
Wonder is that's a biblical typo/error of some sort? Semantics? Poor translation? Any way, it seems, if verbatim, the bible is wrong or selective.
Either way, it makes the bible seem unworthy at the very least, considering it's suppose to be the word of God and such.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Page 2 of 4


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this subforum
You cannot reply to topics in this subforum
You cannot edit your posts in this subforum
You cannot delete your posts in this subforum
You cannot vote in polls in this subforum

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Full Version