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: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

S&Fs because 20 years ago, I asked myself the same question when Edye Lucas lost two sons in the Oklahoma City bombing.




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I'm not well-versed in Christian theology, but I think you guys are missing the point. Probably on purpose, because it doesn't seem a hard concept.

I've always interpreted it this way: Jesus' sacrifice wasn't in dying on the cross. He felt and experienced (and still does) the suffering of all humanity. Because he loved everyone and had limitless empathy, he knew their pain- every starving child, every sick man and woman, tortured prisoner, and wounded soldier. Not only that, he felt their fear and sadness, and all their emotions, good and bad.

His sacrifice was taking on our suffering in the name of love. You can't love someone if you don't understand them, and to understand humanity, you must understand suffering. It is one sure thing that defines us.

I'm not saying any of this is true. But this is the concept that the OP is (conveniently) missing.
edit on 21-10-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
I'm not well-versed in Christian theology, but I think you guys are missing the point. Probably on purpose, because it doesn't seem a hard concept.

I've always interpreted it this way: Jesus' sacrifice wasn't in dying on the cross. He felt and experienced (and still does) the suffering of all humanity. Because he loved everyone and had essentially limitless empathy, he lived the pain of everyone, every starving child, every sick man and woman, tortured prisoner, and wounded soldier. Not only that, he felt their fear and sadness, and all their emotions, good and bad.

His sacrifice was in coming here, seeing us, and forever taking on our suffering in the name of love. You can't love someone if you don't understand them, and to understand humanity, you must understand suffering. It is one sure thing that defines us.

I'm not saying any of this is true. But this is essentially the concept that the OP is (conveniently) missing.


In the cosmic scope, that should amount to a perpetually stubbed toe.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc
He is 'Supreme Empathy Lord' instead of "Son of God"'; I like this idea. Why take on all of humanities suffering (have the ability to instantly forgive past and future transgressions) and believe this concept is feasible; if so all crimes committed past/present/future are instantly forgiven (simplified version). We suffer because we indulge ourselves; wallowing in self inflicted false discontent and wish for a savior to rescue us from ourselves.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
Perpetual stubbed toe is an excellent analogy. How about a residual idea loop played out as the classic 'banana peel slip' or 'cream pie meets face'.

edit on 21-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Talorc
I'm not well-versed in Christian theology, but I think you guys are missing the point. Probably on purpose, because it doesn't seem a hard concept.

I've always interpreted it this way: Jesus' sacrifice wasn't in dying on the cross. He felt and experienced (and still does) the suffering of all humanity. Because he loved everyone and had essentially limitless empathy, he lived the pain of everyone, every starving child, every sick man and woman, tortured prisoner, and wounded soldier. Not only that, he felt their fear and sadness, and all their emotions, good and bad.

His sacrifice was in coming here, seeing us, and forever taking on our suffering in the name of love. You can't love someone if you don't understand them, and to understand humanity, you must understand suffering. It is one sure thing that defines us.

I'm not saying any of this is true. But this is essentially the concept that the OP is (conveniently) missing.


In the cosmic scope, that should amount to a perpetually stubbed toe.


I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you referring to the time he spent here, or the scope of the universe?

If it's an issue of he time he spent here, then it's a non-issue. He still loves everyone, and so he still "suffers" in a way. If he really loved everyone, he wouldn't just be "happy" in heaven and completely forget about us.

If it's an issue of universal scope, then I'd say there's still consistency. The story happened (or was contrived) at a time when this world was the cosmos, and there was no notion of a wider universe.

So I think there's still consistency, and the OP's attempt to "poke holes" in the story hasn't really worked.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Talorc
He is 'Supreme Empathy Lord' instead of "Son of God"'; I like this idea. Why take on all of humanities suffering (have the ability to instantly forgive past and future transgressions) and believe this concept is feasible; if so all crimes committed past/present/future are instantly forgiven (simplified version). We suffer because we indulge ourselves; wallowing in self inflicted false discontent and wish for a savior to rescue us from ourselves.



I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.

But we suffer because we indulge ourselves? That's rather a silly thing to say. Maybe you do, but don't speak for others.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Talorc
He is 'Supreme Empathy Lord' instead of "Son of God"'; I like this idea. Why take on all of humanities suffering (have the ability to instantly forgive past and future transgressions) and believe this concept is feasible; if so all crimes committed past/present/future are instantly forgiven (simplified version). We suffer because we indulge ourselves; wallowing in self inflicted false discontent and wish for a savior to rescue us from ourselves.



I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.

But we suffer because we indulge ourselves? That's rather a silly thing to say. Maybe you do, but don't speak for others.

If you have no opinion why state one (I would never presume to speak for others as I assume they possess consciousness and have the ability to express their thought process).
edit on 21-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have no opinion on the "Lord of Empathy" vs. "Son of God" idea and it's feasibility, so I didn't state one. It's just a story to me, and I explained my view of it.

And the idea that we suffer because of indulgence is plainly wrong, owing nothing to my opinion.
edit on 21-10-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: TzarChasm
Perpetual stubbed toe is an excellent analogy. How about a residual idea loop played out as the classic 'banana peel slip' or 'cream pie meets face'.


Hahaha...imagine the clergy costumes - keystone cops style - or cowboy white-hat/black-hat...come to think of it, pretty much how it is...
There's too much screaming set-up scenario in just this (apparently real event) to ever take it as anything but a Buster Keaton classic...which it has become, obviously...

Å99



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
why, as an atheist you think there is only atheism or christianity? Ever hear of other gods?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow


but Ghost 147 has a point ,the message would have been more powerful had he shown forgiveness to some of those in hell. Technically there shouldnt be hell as there was only the unforgiveable act of blaspheming against the holy ghost, and that character didnt make itself known till Pentecost, funny that



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

according to James isnt faith without works dead? St Paul preached the opposite



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have no opinion on the "Lord of Empathy" vs. "Son of God" idea and it's feasibility, so I didn't state one. It's just a story to me, and I explained my view of it.
And the idea that we suffer because of indulgence is plainly wrong, owing nothing to my opinion.

What is the concept within OP's opening statement *in your own words is "conveniently missing"* and not explain your not so veiled suspicions? I totally made up the concept of Lord of Empathy and Son of God existing as the same being (just notes to myself to remember to write this script and sell it to the Weinstein Brothers). Why does the human suffer in your own soon to be unstated opinion?
edit on 21-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Jesus was BORN, much like the rest of us. He did not "come down" here.

Jesus's sacrifice was carrying the burden of knowledge that he was born to die for us. He gave His life willingly so all who believe in Him can join Him in Heaven.

Allow me another approach:

In baseball, a sacrifice is when the batter takes an out so the runner can advance...done for the advancement of the team to victory.





posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
If Jesus was rewarded for his action with access to Heaven, then it wasn't a sacrifice.

The actual definition of Self-Sacrifice is "he giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause."

He didn't give up his own interests or wishes, and he didn't help others with his sacrifice. He did advance a cause - his OWN cause.

Jesus' crucifixion was completely self-serving. It was the most selfish act from a man who is revered for this.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: TzarChasm
Perpetual stubbed toe is an excellent analogy. How about a residual idea loop played out as the classic 'banana peel slip' or 'cream pie meets face'.


Hahaha...imagine the clergy costumes - keystone cops style - or cowboy white-hat/black-hat...come to think of it, pretty much how it is...
There's too much screaming set-up scenario in just this (apparently real event) to ever take it as anything but a Buster Keaton classic...which it has become, obviously...
Å99

I question the realism of that entire history; the occupation of those "biblical" regions Roman Empire Period in time 50BC to 40AD. Maybe a pre-production dry run to fuel ideas for future motion picture epics: Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Ten-Commandments. I cannot help but think this entire world is a stage upon which we the humans are the actors. The Pharasee costumes in "JesusChristSuperstar" (they evoke the idea of beetle bugs) are priceless. It is amazing this all took hold (planted some feet) and exists today as a solid idea form.
edit on 21-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have no opinion on the "Lord of Empathy" vs. "Son of God" idea and it's feasibility, so I didn't state one. It's just a story to me, and I explained my view of it.
And the idea that we suffer because of indulgence is plainly wrong, owing nothing to my opinion.

What is the concept within OP's opening statement *in your own words is "conveniently missing"* and not explain your not so veiled suspicions? I totally made up the concept of Lord of Empathy and Son of God existing as the same being (just notes to myself to remember to write this script and sell it to the Weinstein Brothers). Why does the human suffer in your own soon to be unstated opinion?


The OP reduces the concept to fit his purpose. It's quite obvious that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't in dying on the cross. That is a lazy strawman from someone who has a bone to pick.

As to why we suffer? That's quite the weighted question, my friend.

Strictly speaking, suffering is a biological response to harmful stimuli. Emotional suffering is more intricate, arising from unsated desire, mistreatment, stress, or any number of things. Taking the existentialist view, perhaps we suffer because the world is chaotic and random and has no regard for us, and we are left to find our own meaning in things.

So, there's my opinion. I hope that satisfies you.
edit on 21-10-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Crucifixion has been a part of ancient civilization for thousands of years (it even occurs to this day, at much lower numbers, sometimes willingly). Tens of thousands, if not 100's of thousands of people have been crucified, and it makes me wonder, just how is the story of Jesus a sacrifice in the first place?

The way Jesus eventually was killed isn't the main issue though. The biggest flaw in the story is that Jesus was sent to earth, from an eternal realm, which means his 30ish years on earth really weren't anything at all, and since he is god (or part of him or what have you, depending on your beliefs) he would have already known that he was going to be killed, and sent right back up to heaven.

Is this not an issue in the eyes of all Christians? 30 years out of infinite is very minuscule, and he would have suffered for a very, very short period of time, all along knowing that he'd be right back up in heaven. Where is the sacrifice in that?

To me, it would make a lot more sense Jesus went down to Earth, did his thing and spreed his message, and then eternally went to Hell afterwards. Would that not be an infinitely more powerful and moving sacrifice. Knowing that he would spend the rest of eternity in Hell, rather than knowing he'd be right back to super-perfect heaven?

Just something that was on my mind. Could someone please explain to me how his "sacrifice" was really a sacrifice?


The father sent his son
The father hated man and wanted to completely destroy man because man is evil in all his ways he regreted creating man
But out of grace an undeserving act of kindness he sent his son Jesus so that some of his children would be saved. He did promise Abraham that he would look after his descendants
You can't go to the father unless it is through his son Jesus.
Jesus knew what his father wanted of him
And he did speak of the baptism of fire
The profession of faith
Where if you follow Jesus the day will come when you will be put to the sword for your faith.
Will you deny the father and his son
Jesus on the cross did say
Expect the same
Many saints were beheaded because of their faith in Jesus
An amazing story of the theban legion 6666 soilders were beheaded because they refused to kill Christians and some of their bodies picked up their heads and began to pray before the fell over. Even the first bishop of France was beheaded
He picked up his head and walked 2 miles preaching a sermon till he reached his church and prayed before his body fell over.
The father sacrificed his only begotten son
So that some of us would be redeemed and spared from his wraith.
The father planned all of this long ago
Even the conflicts happening on the earth today.
It is time
The father flooded the earth before now he will
Use fire to destroy it and the only way out is through Jesus.
I hope this helps you
If you have found Jesus
It is because the father sent you
And he will raise you up in the last days
And if you have found Jesus
Then you are to hear less from me
And more from him.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

You can't love someone if you don't understand them, and to understand humanity, you must understand suffering.

His omniscience and omnipresence is surely called into question if he needed to incarnate as a human in order to understand the suffering of sentient animals. An all-powerful and all-knowing god didn't understand these things prior growing in Mary's womb?
edit on 21-10-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join