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.

 

Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
 


What Madness is trying to say is he has a problem with prophecy because he's already decided there is no such thing as prophecy.

Get it now?


Oh yeah, just trying to point out that there's no difference between someone who ignores, say, scientific facts which support evolution because of their beliefs, and someone who ignores, say, historical facts which support early dating of Biblical texts because of their beliefs.

Anyone who says "Matthew could not have been written before the destruction of the Temple, because prophecy doesn't exist" just doesn't get it. And doing that, while castigating others who dismiss "facts" that you do happen to agree with smacks of hypocrisy, in my opinion.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oniris
 



Matthew
27:50Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. 27:51Behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 27:52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 27:53and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared to many.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Jesus's ministry was not just for the living. It was necessary for Him to die and descend into hell. How else could He carry out the work and the Will of the Lord to retrieve what was lost to death?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I think all of you have missed the mark in answering the question of the OP

You all pontificate with biblical answers, going on on and about how the death of Jesus was ransom for our sins etc...but you haven't really answered why a loving God would need that sacrifice for the purpose of forgiving sin.

Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.

The whole sacrificial thing does nothing to show me that the Father is indeed a loving God.

The more I read the bible, the more confused I get about this loving God.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.


Because then you are acquiescing to evil, and saying that evil deeds are of no consequence.

Your child breaks a window by throwing a ball through it, he says he's sorry, but if he continues throwing balls carelessly, you going to just keeping forgiving him and paying for broken windows in the hopes that he'll eventually stop?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by gabby2011
Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.


Because then you are acquiescing to evil, and saying that evil deeds are of no consequence.

Your child breaks a window by throwing a ball through it, he says he's sorry, but if he continues throwing balls carelessly, you going to just keeping forgiving him and paying for broken windows in the hopes that he'll eventually stop?


Do you realize how insane that sounds..when you compare it to christianity??

Do you realize how many christians go on sinning carelessly ,because they feel they have the "grace" of jesus to fall back on?

Doesn't paul say it is by grace that we are saved and not works. Doesn't the bible say,that man has a sinful nature,and will always sin due to that nature.

What you seem to be saying with the above statement is that the horrendous death of God's son on a cross is the thing that will make the sinning stop,because simple forgiveness won't.

Sorry ,but that analogy is so far off from everything I have read in the new testament .

But I appreciate that you tried to answer the question, and I sincerely mean that.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by gabby2011
Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.


Because then you are acquiescing to evil, and saying that evil deeds are of no consequence.

Your child breaks a window by throwing a ball through it, he says he's sorry, but if he continues throwing balls carelessly, you going to just keeping forgiving him and paying for broken windows in the hopes that he'll eventually stop?


Do you realize how insane that sounds..when you compare it to christianity??

Do you realize how many christians go on sinning carelessly ,because they feel they have the "grace" of jesus to fall back on?


Ah, but the intentionally sinning Christian is no Christian at all, or at least not a repentant one, eh?


What you seem to be saying with the above statement is that the horrendous death of God's son on a cross is the thing that will make the sinning stop,because simple forgiveness won't.


It is the death of Christ which makes forgiveness possible.

You either didn't read as much of the thread as it would seem, or you glossed over my earlier post on Anselm's theory of satisfaction. I'd suggest rereading that.


Sorry ,but that analogy is so far off from everything I have read in the new testament .


And I would also suggest rereading the New Testament if you don't understand the analogy. Jesus didn't come to enable evil, he came to enable forgiveness, and if it was nothing more than God overlooking evil, as you suggest, then there was no need for Jesus, was there? From that observation, one may conclude that there is, indeed, more to it than what you suggest, and I like Anselm's suggestion.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
I think all of you have missed the mark in answering the question of the OP

You all pontificate with biblical answers, going on on and about how the death of Jesus was ransom for our sins etc...but you haven't really answered why a loving God would need that sacrifice for the purpose of forgiving sin.

Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.

The whole sacrificial thing does nothing to show me that the Father is indeed a loving God.

The more I read the bible, the more confused I get about this loving God.



Not me mate! I made no mention of sacrifice, I gave a direct answer to the OP.

I used to think like you, still do sometimes, especially when I learn of children being brutalised or the ongoing poisoning of this beautiful planet but as I have come to understand that these terrible things are perpetrated by people, I am amazed that God thinks we are worth 'saving'!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   


It is the death of Christ which makes forgiveness possible.
reply to post by adjensen
 




Don't you understand what I'm trying to get at,and what the OP is getting at?

Why is forgiveness only possible because of a sacrificial death?

Intentionally sinning or not, does not Paul(Saul) say in his writings..that we are prone to sin?

I also never implied that God should overlook evil, merely that He is willing to forgive a true repentant without the need for a blood atoned sacrifice.






edit on 27-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that no one answered staight forwardly. My apologies.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
Don't you understand what I'm trying to get at,and what the OP is getting at?

Why is forgiveness only possible because of a sacrificial death?


We are, none of us, God, so no one can conclusively say. But we have the scripture, which says that Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through him, that being handed over to the Jewish and Roman authorities to suffer and die was God's will, and the admonition of many who followed him that faith in Christ was what reconciled us to God.

With that in mind, many have speculated as to the "whys" and the "hows" of what we know the facts to be. But, as none of us are God, it remains speculation. I personally go with Anselm. You apparently do not, or at least you haven't bothered to respond to his belief. With that in mind, you are welcome to explore the theology yourself, but understand that it makes no difference to what is, and one need not be steeped in theology to enjoy salvation.


Intentionally sinning or not, does not Paul(Saul) say in his writings..that we are prone to sin?


Theologically, you and Paul are talking about two different things -- you are discussing acts, Paul is discussing human nature.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by gabby2011

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by gabby2011
Why not just forgive,when a human feels bad for what they have done.


Because then you are acquiescing to evil, and saying that evil deeds are of no consequence.

Your child breaks a window by throwing a ball through it, he says he's sorry, but if he continues throwing balls carelessly, you going to just keeping forgiving him and paying for broken windows in the hopes that he'll eventually stop?


Do you realize how insane that sounds..when you compare it to christianity??

Do you realize how many christians go on sinning carelessly ,because they feel they have the "grace" of jesus to fall back on?


Ah, but the intentionally sinning Christian is no Christian at all, or at least not a repentant one, eh?

But in the same sense, a child who keeps carelessly throwing the ball through the window is not a repentant one either, so your analogy doesn't really apply.

If the sinner truly repents, and asks for forgiveness, and resolves to not do the sin again, it isn't "acquiescing to evil" to forgive them.

I read through your response via St. Anselm, and (while I ignored the distasteful and "non-christian" concept of sinning against a king being worse than sinning against a peasant, because it didn't REALLY have to be relevant to the main point), it still makes no sense. If a man sins against another man, he repents, makes amends and asks for forgiveness (both from that other person, and from God). If he sins directly against God (I dunno..blasphemy?), then if he repents, he'd have to ask God for forgiveness. If one were to claim that God is merciful (in fact, God is supposed to be the paragon of mercifulness), then saying that God isn't capable of accepting your repentence doesn't really make any sense.

These major points are probably the main reasons I'm not a christian today:


  • God is merciful, and would be capable of accepting our sincere repentance.
  • The idea that God needs a human sacrifice to be able to accept our repentence is also a bit distasteful. I mean, how does it make one less "crazy" or "barbaric" than the "savages" who sacrificed humans (voluntarily, so no coercion) in pre-columbian America, so as to appease their gods, or bring rain, or good fortune? It's the same absurd concept.
  • My sins are my responsibility. Your sins are yours. Jesus's (lack of sins) are his. How and why would a JUST God (again, remember, the reasoning given for the sacrifice in the first place was because God is a JUST God as well as a merciful God), foist MY sins on someone else? It's akin to executing you because I stole a banana from a fruitshop.


There are, of course, "explanations" that people come up with to answer these questions, usually from some convoluted application of logic to random, out-of-context scripture, or (as it seems regularly in your case), by referring to some more "learned" (but non-scriptural authority), but then one has to realise that in this situation, the Bible is creating a problem for humans, extoling the dangers of that problem, and then outlining a solution for that problem. So if you are a christian (thus believe in the problem, and believe in the traditional biblical response to the problem), it's all well and good, but if you aren't (you don't believe in the problem, or if you do, you don't accept that the traditional christian response is the right one), you have no reason to be.
edit on 28-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I have a small book I wrote about the why, how, and implications of Christian salvation, but I'll try and summarize here:

First of all, there is a huge difference between a human sacrifice and a self-sacrifice. God is a Trinity of three equal beings but one "essence", and though some Christians don't think this through, the three Persons MUST be of one substance and thereby all be completely equal, because "one" cannot be hierarchical. To this philosophical principle we add scriptures that clearly state Jesus volunteered for what he did; nobody forced it on him. And who could anyway, since the Father, Son, and Spirit are one essence without hierarchy? So there was NO "human sacrifice".

Secondly, since one purpose for Jesus' sacrifice was reconciliation between God and mankind, it required someone who could represent both parties to bridge the gap, and that meant a God/Man. And since another purpose was redemption from Satan (I explain further in the book), it required payment on a cosmic scale. Only the blood of the perfect, the divine, could settle the debt of sin that handed mankind to Satan in the first place. The "fall of man" was much more than bad people getting punished, it was turning over authority over the earth and all it contains to Satan, and God never violates a person's free will. Satan achieved this coup by trickery, and it would take a move so unexpected as God becoming man to essentially out-trick Satan. There are even explicit scriptures saying God hid the purpose of Jesus' first coming from everybody until it was accomplished, so the payment could be made.

Thirdly, Jesus had to die to free the Jews from the burden and curse of the Law. Scripture likens this to a "last will and testament", which cannot be fulfilled or annulled without proving the death of the testator. Jesus had to die to accomplish that, and simultaneously to enact the ancient Promise to Abraham, setting up a completely new priesthood whose "high priest" is eternal and made one sacrifice for all, for all time.

So far from a barbaric appeasement of an angry God, this was a complex and ingenious master stroke to defeat Satan and redeem mankind. But as must be the case if there is free will, no one is forced to reconcile, so each of us individually must decide whether to accept the sacrifice Jesus made of his own free will and be reconciled to God.

Hope that helps. :-)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I understand totally that you believe it because the scritpures say it is so...and you take the Holy Bible as sacred truth.

Can you understand though, how a muslim would not, because their sacred book says it is not truth.

How can a child, who has been taught what is truth from a book , and by those who care for that child, ever believe in someone elses version of truth, especially if it contradicts the truth it was given.

If these muslim children should die for whatever reason, will God reject them because they did not have the correct teachers,and therefore did not know Christ as savior?

These children grow up to be adults, and may see christian organizations doing very unloving things ,therefore strengthening their beliefs, that the other truth is wrong. Even if that is not the case, there minds have been formed ,to what they sincerely believe to be true , and to say God would reject them from heaven seems unfair to me.

Please understand I am not saying this because I am a christian hater, because I strongly believe that some of the finest people that walk this planet are Christian .

I just understand that it would be very difficult for people who have been formed, starting from a very young age, to see a truth ,that was not taught to them....and I could not understand a loving God ,who would hold them accountable for this, therefore denying them heavenly peace.,especially after they have lived a life ,witnessing so much sorrow.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
SaberTruth has written an excellent summary, so I'll defer to her text for the majority response, but I'll address a couple of points that you raised.


Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by adjensen
Ah, but the intentionally sinning Christian is no Christian at all, or at least not a repentant one, eh?


But in the same sense, a child who keeps carelessly throwing the ball through the window is not a repentant one either, so your analogy doesn't really apply.


Actually, I think it does, because the premise is the same. The child is sorry, not for throwing his ball carelessly, but for the broken window, the fact that he was caught, and the fact that he may face your wrath for breaking the window. But when he learns that there are no consequences for his actions, he'll go back to throwing his ball carelessly.

For sinning, we have no personal consequences until judgement, so if we don't see Christ's suffering and death as something that we ourselves caused, like the child with his ball, it's not easy to do as Christ asks.


while I ignored the distasteful and "non-christian" concept of sinning against a king being worse than sinning against a peasant


While you may find it distasteful, it's a fact, both then and now. Degrees of crime are most certainly related to whom they are committed against -- if you don't believe me, go slap the President and see what happens.


These major points are probably the main reasons I'm not a christian today:


Actually, it seems like you're not a Christian because you don't understand some of its core tenets.


  • You seem to think that the only sin against God is blasphemy, when in reality, pretty much everything that we do is a sin against God. Why? Because he's given us some fairly simple rules to follow, and when we don't, we show that we love ourselves more than God. That is the sin.
  • Your reference to "human sacrifice" makes no sense -- Christ was God and sacrificed himself willingly.
  • Yes, your sins are your own responsibility. How do you propose to make up for them? A "just" God cannot just wave it off, any more than a "just" Judge can just wave off a wild crime spree because you say that you're sorry. Where is the justice of saying that your bad choices and actions don't matter?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
I just understand that it would be very difficult for people who have been formed, starting from a very young age, to see a truth ,that was not taught to them....and I could not understand a loving God ,who would hold them accountable for this, therefore denying them heavenly peace.,especially after they have lived a life ,witnessing so much sorrow.


Well, this is the sort of thing that many people, including Christians struggle with. It's one of the reasons that I'm partial to the Catholic notion of purgatory, even though I'm not Catholic.

Time will tell what the truth is, but there is an important point that one needs to bear in mind -- we are not God, so our opinions of what he should or shouldn't do are utterly irrelevant. Saying "a loving God should save everyone" is foisting our values on God, which is obviously irrational.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks, adjensen. :-)

I'd like to add a little more about salvation vs. judgment. Our eternal destination is decided the moment we leave this life and is predicated solely upon what we did with Jesus. Of course this applies to the present age, not all ages past or future. A careful study of the scriptures reveals a progression, a sequence or path, wherein the standards for righteousness progressed slowly. This does not mean God changes, but that his dealings with mankind change. And in this particular age, we are told that though in times past God overlooked ignorance of his ways, in "these last days he has spoken to us in his Son" and requires everyone to "repent"-- which, as you know, doesn't always mean "from sin" but simply to change one's mind, and in this context it means to change one's view of Jesus. So to be saved, a person in this age must profess faith in Jesus alone. Those who do go to heaven, and those who don't go to hell.

We know all this is true because we are told of two separate judgments for the saved and the lost, so that distinction had to be made before the judgments even begin. So what is left to judge? That's where individual sins come in. Both judgments are for things done in this life, but for the saved it determines how many rewards we get or lose, and for the lost it determines how many punishments we get or are spared from. So our actions, our character, matter greatly, but they don't determine salvation. However, as scripture states, "We died to sin, so how can we live in it any longer?" If the purpose of salvation is to be reconciled to God, then we better act in keeping with that relationship. That is, the person who comes to Jesus to be reconciled but lives like God doesn't matter or continually irritates him, is living a lie.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 

Hey SaberTruth!

I shall go through your book when I have more time (or when I have more paper...I hate long reads off the computer), but meanwhile, perhaps you could help me with a particular point you raised:
You said that there is no Hierarchy in the trinity, but then why did Jesus say "My father is greater than I"? Why did he explain that only the Father knows of the last day? Or why he said he did what he did "through the Father"? Why is he shown to have a different "will" than the father?


reply to post by adjensen
 

Hey adjensen!

To take your example further again (and this may be getting more and more convoluted, but I hope we're still on the same page): the child could very well be repentant for the broken window, and make an effort to not break it again. However, in your case, it would be like the parent obtaining the services of some "24 hour, Lifetime Window Repair Company", so that even if the child broke the window repeatedly, the repair people would just come and fix it again anyhow. So how would the child in this situation be more repentant (or even more moral)? It certainly wouldn't foster an attitude of carefulness to not break windows.


Originally posted by adjensen
While you may find it distasteful, it's a fact, both then and now. Degrees of crime are most certainly related to whom they are committed against -- if you don't believe me, go slap the President and see what happens.

Or perhaps throw a shoe at him?

But see, that's the point. It may be so in the law of man, but not so in the law of God.


As for not understanding sinning against God, I think you misunderstood me. I was thinking of an example of a sin that was purely against God, and not against man, thus I came up with blasphemy. There may be more, I just didn't overthink on it.
If Jesus sacrificed himself as God, it would make little sense, because it was no sacrifice. He was God, he knew he'd survive. I thought the whole point (to Christian theology) was that Jesus was MAN ("as well", some would say), and as a MAN he suffered, and was killed (although even this scenario seems a bit shaky to me, seeing as he still knew he'd come back after 3 days).

As for the final point, God is not "waiving it off" just like that. In this hypothetical situation, I realised my error, I sincerely repented, tried to set things right (if possible), asked for forgiveness, and resolve not to do it again. If God is merciful, then he would accept my repentance, and if God is just, he would not harm another person/being/entity for MY error.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by SaberTruth
 

Hey SaberTruth!

I shall go through your book when I have more time (or when I have more paper...I hate long reads off the computer), but meanwhile, perhaps you could help me with a particular point you raised:
You said that there is no Hierarchy in the trinity, but then why did Jesus say "My father is greater than I"? Why did he explain that only the Father knows of the last day? Or why he said he did what he did "through the Father"? Why is he shown to have a different "will" than the father?


That's the God/Man duality of Jesus, the so-called "hypostatic union". Jesus came also to model the ideal life to his disciples and show as well as teach the way for us all to relate to God. Rather than a tyrant to appease, Jesus showed God to be like a good father. As a human he is our "elder brother", the "natural" son with the rest of us being adopted siblings. He joined with us in our humanity, and in that aspect alone he became inferior to the Father, just as we are. Phil. 2:5-11 is probably the most concise explanation. As I titled a recent blog post, Jesus is One Of A Kind.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by adjensen
While you may find it distasteful, it's a fact, both then and now. Degrees of crime are most certainly related to whom they are committed against -- if you don't believe me, go slap the President and see what happens.

Or perhaps throw a shoe at him?

But see, that's the point. It may be so in the law of man, but not so in the law of God.


My reply was in regards to your statement that it's distasteful, not in whether it applies to God, though of course it would apply to him. Why wouldn't it?


As for not understanding sinning against God, I think you misunderstood me. I was thinking of an example of a sin that was purely against God, and not against man, thus I came up with blasphemy.


And you're still not understanding the Christian perspective -- ALL sins are against God. If you steal from someone, yes, you're committing a crime against them, and it's all well and good to say you're sorry to them, and to ask for forgiveness, but you've also committed a crime against God. Even seemingly minor points are crimes against God -- if you see someone who you don't like the looks of, the simple thought of condescension is a sin.

(Heck, if you're a dyed in the wool Calvinist, EVERYTHING that you do, even the good stuff, is repugnant in the eyes of God. Not sure that I'd go that far, though they do have a point, at least as far as motivation goes.)


If Jesus sacrificed himself as God, it would make little sense, because it was no sacrifice. He was God, he knew he'd survive.


Consider what he went through, understanding that, as a being that was fully God AND fully man, he experienced every bit of pain and agony that there was. Imagine the person whom you love the most -- your mother, your spouse, or a child, and now imagine that person spitting in your face, taking a whip with metals fragments in it and tearing chunks of skin out of your back, making a mocking crown of thorns and piercing your scalp with it... well, you get the idea.

Christ suffered, and it's a bit offensive for you to imply that he didn't suffer enough for your expectations.


if God is just, he would not harm another person/being/entity for MY error.


But this, I think, is at the root of your misunderstandings. God did not harm anyone. God put himself out to be harmed, he sacrificed himself.

Who do you think was pounding nails into Christ's wrists and scourging him?

As a Christian, I know that it was me -- me and my sinful nature. If everyone else in the whole of humanity was perfect, sinless and in no need of salvation, God loves me so much that he would go to the cross, just for me.




top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join