It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

page: 12
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

That is the entire point (it doesn't).


So what was the sacrifice?




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: SuperFrog

Incest is a modern taboo. It's actually quite common throughout history, for various reasons.

Remember, Sarah was Abraham's half-sister. Yes, that Abraham, "the father of the faithful." They had the same dad. Eeew! It's not usually wise to view the ancient past with modern spectacles.


Really???


In his classic study of inborn errors of meta
bolism, Archibald Garrod noted that an unusual
high proportion of patients
with alkaptonuria were progen
y of consanguineous marriages.
After this observation carried out at the early ye
ars of the 20th century, a very large number
of studies have consistently shown that recessi
ve traits occur with increased frequency in
the progeny of consanguineous mates, and th
is outcome is one of the most important
clinical consequences of inbreeding. In Euro
pe and Japan, for example, the frequency of
first-cousin marriages among the parents of affect
ed individuals with recessive traits such as
albinism, phenylketonuria, icht
hyosis congenital and microcephaly is remarkably higher
than frequency of first-cousin marriages in
the corresponding general population (Bodmer
& Cavalli-Sforza, 1976; pp. 372-377)


Very interesting study, with some statistics for major religions: cdn.intechopen.com...

We still did not get answer, who did Adam and Eve's children make babies with?? How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Taking this one step further..... I don't understand this part;


He died for your sins


How does the voluntary death of one soul answer for the sins of billions and billions? It just doesn't make any sense. It is so out of whack with the way the rest of creation works. In fact, it is out of whack with the bible itself.

What is the outcome of someone else excusing my bad behavior so that I can live eternally in a place called heaven? It seems there would be a lot of selfish people running around and in no time heaven would look like earth. Now, the other option is that when he died for our sins we became saints when we die. That would save heaven, but it would make our experience on earth sort of senseless. If I can run around being a jerk, but at the last minute, I accept Jesus as my savior and allow his death on the cross to wash away my sins and that makes me saintly, then I haven't bettered myself on earth and what was the experience for? That would mean a total jerk could go to heaven if he played his cards right and someone who has worked to better himself and the world but didn't accept Jesus and his sacrifice could go to hell forever. Go figure...



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: pointessa

If I can run around being a jerk, but at the last minute, I accept Jesus as my savior and allow his death on the cross to wash away my sins and that makes me saintly, then I haven't bettered myself on earth and what was the experience for?


Yup, and you would be in good company too. Jeffery Dahmer accepted Jesus and now gets to hang with the J-Man in heaven despite his non-traditional earthly diet.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
it's not a sacrifice when your only options are accepting or burning in hell. it's a threat.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


Humanity is barbaric. Humanity destroys its children everyday. So, God says, "Let me save them by sacrificing my own perfect Son". How can that bother you when millions of other innocents die by the hand of the irresponsible and selfish who do it to gain their own freedom?


you cant solve a problem using the same sort of thinking that caused it.


t's a sacrifice. He didn't have to do it. He simply knew that He had to. Think. There was no reason for Him to be tempted at all if it was not to be by His own choice. And the reward was not for Him. He did not have to leave Heaven. He did not have to come to us and suffer and die. It is our right to die. He chose to do it for us so that we may live because He did it for us. It is an arrogant child that says to their Father, "Your going to work for me is your job. It's not a sacrifice you do for me, you fictional sky fairy."


i think we would be more impressed if he had chosen to spend eternity in hell as a sacrifice. he doesnt get anything in return except the satisfaction of knowing trillions of lives were saved from the lake of fire because he took their place. a papercut is not a sacrifice. particularly when you have a godly healing factor.


Self-respect is pointless. Can you shake hands with yourself and feel good? Will you greet yourself in the mirror and scorn any passerby? Will you build up your own talents and forego recognizing a good spirit in another? What good is self-respect? Even this society is against you, for everyone knows that humility is greater than self-respect.


"humility is greater than self-respect."

tell that to the thousands who died to make this a free nation. except you cant, because they gave their lives in the name of self-respect. what have you given up in the name of self-respect? nothing, because you already gave it away in the interest of self-preservation. sort of like the difference between living and not dying. or between being humble and being a coward.


Independence is good in context. It's also wrong in context. If it is beneficial to others for you to function in a group and you choose to go your own way which gives you no benefit at all, that's delinquency. But if being independent means that you're not relying on others for those things which you have been granted power over, then yes, it's good. This seems obvious.


"ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom, war is peace"

basically what you are getting at here, right?


And finally, God isn't hocus pocus. He doesn't do tricks. He owns and created the mechanism of existence. He can do what He wants. Why is this so absolutely difficult for people?


not anymore, he doesnt.


and im going to assume thats a rhetorical question.


Because of sin. People think if they put their hands over their eyes and say, "I can't see God, He's not there" and stick their fingers in their ears, then they can do whatever they want without having to report to anyone.


so it was a rhetorical question. and if thats really what you think, you havent paid any attention at all. not to mention you are straying off topic. this isnt about "does god exist" its about "how was jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice". friendly reminder.


Here's a merciful secret: I almost guarantee that the only mistake other people are making any different than me on a daily basis is rejecting the only One who can save them. None of you are in prison, I don't think. Most of you seem lucid, I think. Therefore, I think I am no better than any of you. How silly of anyone to be so ironically selfish as to ignore the only One who actually has the power to help them.



There are hundreds of paths up the mountain,
all leading in the same direction,
so it doesn’t matter which path you take.
The only one wasting time is the one
who runs around and around the mountain,
telling everyone that his or her path is wrong.

Hindu proverb



It's like the child that refuses to take the medicine because it smells strange or tastes funny. It's like the person who is afraid to get their tooth removed or replaced at the dentist. It is like the person who is afraid to research and think in order to learn. It is like the cat that rejects the bath. It is like the paranoid investor. It is like a procrastinating author. No, it's much easier than even all of these things. It's like the person who cannot turn off the television. It's like the person who will starve before expending the energy necessary to even order a pizza. It is like the person who won't wake up to the alarm even after 6 hours of sleep. It is like the chess player that refuses to make a move because of all of the possible moves, being neglectful that there are many more possible combinations to overcome most circumstances - and also is afraid to fail, which is necessary.


since you are so keen on analogies, here is another.




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Jesus's story is one long chain reaction of contradictions, but only to those, who are applying simplicity of logic in order to check it's possibility of credibility.
Others, usually, accept one of many interpretations offered by countless denominations avaible on this religious market.
Lack of knowledge, Ignorance, or profit promise are the main reassons for it.

Op has asked a good question.

Could jesus's death be A Sacrifice according to the biblical law of atonement...
Could actually human sacrifice be right offering.

If jesus's body was 'like a costume' was it 'costume sacrifice'...?

: )))

Did jesus existed at all as the biblical story sold to so many troughout the history want people to believe?

Jesus's supposed suffering and massive meaning of sacrifice is gigantic absurd but still there was, is and for a little while will be holy truth to enormous amount of believers from four corners of the world.
Like bible it self stated...'path to 'hell' is shiny and very wide'...so masses can freely and not suspecting anything wrong , take straight walk down the hill.

Somebody wasn't paying an attention at the lessons but in reality, most, didn't even attended lesson in first place, rather, they still until this very day relly on what others has red...like 'fathers' wearing strange black clothing...for example.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
We still did not get answer, who did Adam and Eve's children make babies with?? How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!


Yes, you did. I answered your question already. Here.

Since you claim to know that the minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10k, can you prove it?


originally posted by: pointessa
How does the voluntary death of one soul answer for the sins of billions and billions? It just doesn't make any sense. It is so out of whack with the way the rest of creation works. In fact, it is out of whack with the bible itself.


As I said to the OP, this is not exactly Christianity 101 that most people are used to discuss on this place. You should not expect it to make sense in 140 characters or less. However, I did give a succinct answer here.


originally posted by: pointessa
What is the outcome of someone else excusing my bad behavior so that I can live eternally in a place called heaven? It seems there would be a lot of selfish people running around and in no time heaven would look like earth. Now, the other option is that when he died for our sins we became saints when we die. That would save heaven, but it would make our experience on earth sort of senseless. If I can run around being a jerk, but at the last minute, I accept Jesus as my savior and allow his death on the cross to wash away my sins and that makes me saintly, then I haven't bettered myself on earth and what was the experience for? That would mean a total jerk could go to heaven if he played his cards right and someone who has worked to better himself and the world but didn't accept Jesus and his sacrifice could go to hell forever. Go figure...


God does not judge your actions. It judges your heart behind those actions.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: SuperFrog
We still did not get answer, who did Adam and Eve's children make babies with?? How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!


Yes, you did. I answered your question already. Here.

Since you claim to know that the minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10k, can you prove it?


Yes. Here is an exact, peer reviewed, Scientific article on this very topic.

Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences

here's what it discusses:

The history of human population size is important for understanding human evolution. Various studies have found evidence for a founder event (bottleneck) in East Asian and European populations, associated with the human dispersal out-of-Africa event around 60 thousand years (kyr) ago. However, these studies have had to assume simplified demographic models with few parameters, and they do not provide a precise date for the start and stop times of the bottleneck. Here, with fewer assumptions on population size changes, we present a more detailed history of human population sizes between approximately ten thousand and a million years ago, using the pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent model applied to the complete diploid genome sequences of a Chinese male (YH)6, a Korean male (SJK)7, three European individuals (J. C. Venter8, NA12891 and NA12878 (ref. 9)) and two Yoruba males (NA18507 (ref. 10) and NA19239). We infer that European and Chinese populations had very similar population-size histories before 10–20 kyr ago. Both populations experienced a severe bottleneck 10–60 kyr ago, whereas African populations experienced a milder bottleneck from which they recovered earlier. All three populations have an elevated effective population size between 60 and 250 kyr ago, possibly due to population substructure11. We also infer that the differentiation of genetically modern humans may have started as early as 100–120 kyr ago12, but considerable genetic exchanges may still have occurred until 20–40 kyr ago.

We also know the statistical values behind life-threatening conditions that are more prevalent in incest-born children, rather than non-incest-born children



And we can also map the divergence of various different cultures around the world, and the time needed to develop specific physiological/biological features that occurred to them in accordance to adapting to their individual environments.

Every single thing about human history points to a human population bottleneck, and nothing even suggests a 2-person kick-start to the entire species.


originally posted by: Leahn
God does not judge your actions. It judges your heart behind those actions.


I would like to believe that were true, except God enjoys and enforces that people fear him (and also punishment).

psalms: 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

If you're worshiping god out of fear (as it is said that you should), then what lies "in your heart behind your actions" isn't really a good reason in the first place to foundation your beliefs off of. Running things by fear creates the illusion of complacent followers. Take for example any war prisoner situation: The guard says "go dig that hole or I will beat you, or kill you", you comply out of fear of punishment, but that doesn't mean you're following the will of the guard due to some kind of similar goal.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes. Here is an exact, peer reviewed, Scientific article on this very topic.


The article does not say anywhere that mankind cannot survive with a population under 10k.


originally posted by: Ghost147
We also know the statistical values behind life-threatening conditions that are more prevalent in incest-born children, rather than non-incest-born children


Considering how low was life expectancy even mere two centuries ago, how is that relevant?


originally posted by: Ghost147
And we can also map the divergence of various different cultures around the world, and the time needed to develop specific physiological/biological features that occurred to them in accordance to adapting to their individual environments.


No, no, we can't.


originally posted by: Ghost147
I would like to believe that were true, except God enjoys and enforces that people fear him (and also punishment).


I shall remind you that you were the one who posed the original question. Considering that the question that baffles you is one that I can easily answer, do you really think that you are able to lecture me about theology?



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

Hahaha...
Adam had two sons, to whom they got married?


Actually they had 3 sons. It would be intellectually honest to know what you are arguing against.


But anyway, they only mentioned the patriline (lineage through the first son) for the beginning of humankind's lineage. They did not mention daughters, but it was implied, obviously. Incest was not an issue for the human race when we had very little genetic weakness (that's why they lived so long; Adam/Eve were nearly perfect). Incest only promulgates weakness that is dormant in a given lineage; Adam and Eve were nearly perfect, and therefor incest would not have been harmful to their grandchildren. In our contemporary era, we have countless dormant genetic weakness which is more commonly expressed in a given lineage if in-breeding occurs. Now it is an issue, back then, it was not.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chargers8181
a reply to: Ghost147

Well, in order to take away all the sins of the world, The Christ had to become a blood sacrifice (also know as The Lamb). In those days goats, rams, and lambs were sacrificed to cleanse and purify the body/soul from sin. Even if he is immortal and acended, he did suffer greatly because he had an human body and felt the pain and torture. He was hanging and left to die for a long period of time. As for many Christians if they are able to keep 100% faith, hope and patience during the tribulation, must also be ready for a horrible death if it comes their way. When The Christ finally passed on, hell came upon the earth because it became dark for 3 hours.

A blood sacrifice Jesus was to represent? To Whom By Whom and for what purpose? The idea of Christianity was 300 years away (GREECE). The only reason there were 'blood sacrifices' ordered for; and have to take place within the Temples during that time period was because there existed butcher shops beneath the alters of those temples (in the basements of). These goat/sheep "sacrifices" of meat were cut, dressed and fed the Roman occupiers (part of the deal/we protect you, you feed us),
edit on 25-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

Considering how low was life expectancy even mere two centuries ago

It didn't used to be all that low, now did it? Five hundred years to a millennium was the lifespan of early humans according to scripture.

I find it humorous you're skeptic of Ghost's post yet you're willing to believe the outlandish and biologically impossible claim that Adam's son Seth lived to the age of 912.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

I find it humorous you're skeptic of Ghost's post yet you're willing to believe the outlandish and biologically impossible claim that Adam's son Seth lived to the age of 912.


Actually, aging is considered a "disease" by many scientists because the decay/aging process is intuitively unnatural. The human body has all the necessary mechanisms to sustain itself indefinitely, so what happened to us that is causing us to decay? Science has no answer, but there is this:

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Gen 6:3)

Later on in that chapter, it is said that this 120-some year limit is due to wickedness.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

You see, God is called "supreme judge" for a reason. He makes the rules. But all coins have two sides. In order to legitimately be the ruler of the universe, He also has to obey them. He could have said, "the penalty for sin is a free kick for the other team." He didn't. But once He declared that penalty for sin is death, such is set in stone, and He Himself also has to follow such rules, if He is to keep His legitimacy.


He has to follow his own rules in order to keep his legitimacy as 'supreme judge'?

He must have been really drunk and completely forgotten all about that when he broke the 6th Commandment during the global flood and Sodom and Gomorrah catastrophe. Also these.

I say we vote in a new judge.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Later on in that chapter, it is said that this 120-some year limit is due to wickedness.

You and your kin are free to believe every single human is 'wicked'. I do not.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

You and your kin are free to believe every single human is 'wicked'. I do not.


Humans aren't wicked by nature... we choose to do wicked things through our free will... hence the importance of Repentance (meaning to change your mind).



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: troubleshooter
Animal sacrifices were a prophetic symbol of what Jesus would do and not the other way around...
Jesus died to defeat death by resurrection...so resurrection was the goal.
The thing about resurrection is that you must be dead first.
This was illustrated with the two goats on the Day of Atonement...one died one lived.

Animal sacrifices served the needs of others in greater power (nothing to do with any spiritual inclinations by those offering up the beasties). The message was this; your body dies but your eternal soul does not. This is a hard concept for that time; because no one understands the differentiation of a "soul" from "body".



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Humans aren't wicked by nature... we choose to do wicked things through our free will... hence the importance of Repentance (meaning to change your mind).

This limited lifespan is imposed on all of us. I don't see say 1 out of 100 people still living to 900. The implication is that every single human is wicked since we all die around 100 at most. You said it, not me.

Anyways there is no way we are going to see eye to eye since I don't agree with much of what you all consider to be 'sin' to begin with.

I witness amazing, wonderful, caring people all the time, and many of those times they are non-religious and never repent for their supposed sins.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: vethumanbeing


vhb: That is the entire point (it doesn't).



AugustusMsonicus: So what was the sacrifice?

The idea of a "sacrificial lamb" (Jesus) is just one small component of a much larger scenario; "Get them to look this other way instead, *DISTRACT THEM*" in order to NOT see the truth of all things right under ones nose. This very competent 'fun' thread is a good example of how this distraction is implemented employed. Despite this truth: to everyone contributing here, great posts.


edit on 25-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
32
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join