Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The basic gospel claims that Jesus died so whoever believes in Him has life. You claim a stranger died and Jesus was taken heaven, never dying.

Do you ever wonder neither the paschal lamb nor Jesus had any bones broken. Or wonder why Jesus said "I thirst." before "It is finished." In OT it says "I was given vinegar to drink." He knowingly accepted it and fulfilled even that part of scripture ON PURPOSE.

reply to post by 547000

The basic gospel claims that Jesus died so whoever believes in Him has life. You claim a stranger died and Jesus was taken heaven, never dying.

Im not even debating whether or not Jesus was nailed to a cross.

Im going by the bibles very account...
At no point did Jesus ever say that the crucifixion was for the sins of all people, and that all who believed so will be "saved", as christianity teaches. Instead, Jesus was arrested, put on trial and crucified, in Roman procedure.

So theres no reason for anyone to think Jesus' execution by the Romans is a ritualistic sin-sacrifice.

reply to post by 547000

Do you ever wonder neither the paschal lamb nor Jesus had any bones broken.

Do you ever wonder if Jesus had bones in his hands and feet? Or did the nails manage to go through them without breaking any bones?


Also, the Old Testament animal sacrifices were supervised by priests, involved an altar... and used specific utensils and instruments. To say Jesus torturous execution by Roman pagan goons was a sin sacrifice to the God of the bible is just absurd.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Either you think the apostles are frauds or not. They claim this and Jesus taught them this. They did many wonders those without the Holy Spirit cannot do. Jesus even said to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giving evidence for the triune God.

Isa 50:6
6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. (KJV)

Isa 53:12
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (KJV)

Luke 22:15]
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: (KJV)

John 10:17-18
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (KJV)

Mark 14:36
36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV)

John 18:11
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (KJV)

Phil 2:8
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)

Heb 7:27
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (KJV)

Luke 24

45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

19 *And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake, and gave to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you: Do this for a commemoration of me.

20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament i my blood, which shall be shed for you.

But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

As we can see quite clearly knew He was to be sacrificed. It was the Father's will. For the sake of forgiveness of sins. You have to have an agenda to not want to understand to deny the apostle's claims.

Double post

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Dear sk0rpi0n,

We seem to running in the same circles, good to see you again.

I can understand how you did it, but you're in a bit of a tight spot aren't you? It makes a lot of sense to focus on Jesus' words, I applaud that, but who wrote down Jesus' words?

It seems to me that if you accept the accuracy of the recording of Jesus' words, shouldn't you also accept the accuracy of the other words the Apostles wrote?

The New Testament has several verses talking about Christ as sin sacrifice, so you're faced with the question of whether to accept them as reliable as Jesus' words. Both as historically reliable, and reliable as the foundation of Christianity. I'm curious to know which path you take.

For me, it seems to be accept the New Testament, reject all of it, or reject parts of it. I'm only comfortable accepting all of it as it is.

Oh, on the subject of broken bones. I've heard a few medical people say that the nails were probably driven through his wrists. I mention that only as an interesting curiosity, I don't see where it changes anything.

With respect,
Charles1952

As far as sin-sacrifices and the Romans, remember that Pilate tried eveything in his political/legal bag of tricks to save Jesus and set Him free. Only his fear of the Jews, who may well have had some dirt on him, caused him to cave in to the demands of the Jewish mob and condemn Jesus.

Jesus Himself said that He laid His life down on His own, and that no man took (and I assume could take) it from Him. Further, He said that no greater love had any man, than he who laid his life down for his friends. Friends - that's us! He. of course, was speaking of Himself as the One who laid down His life.

John the Baptist declared Him to be the "Lamb that takes away the sin of the world."

God, demanded blood for the remission of sin in the OT. Now we know that Jesus is the very God of the OT, because the tetragrammaton/YHWH/Yahweh means, if we insert the very ancient pictographic meanings of the letters, "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail." It all makes sense together.

God knew that the blood of endless sacrificial animals could not sufficiently deal with the sin problem, so He purposed to to it Himself, dying so that His creation and creatures could live. Only the blood of Christ could satisfy the requirements of God's own Holy Law. The Bible hints that He made this decision before the foundation of the world.

This is Christianity 101 folks, as I just realise, so what is the real purpose of this thread? Someone needs to go back and read the New Testament in its entirety, methinks.

In order to understand the concept of "sin sacrifice", you must first designate what sin is. And what the price is for indulging in it.

Sin, as exemplified in the first book of the bible, is transgression against the law of God. He told Adam and Eve, "Thou shalt not..." and they did it anyway. This was a transgression. The penalty for that transgression was death. "There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood." (See Hebrews chapter 9 among others)

So the precedent was set in the garden of Eden. Then God made a covenant with Abraham, and confirmed it with Israel through Moses. In that covenant, Israel agreed to abide by the laws of God. And also agreed to the penalty for breaking those laws. And the prescribed remedy for atonement if they did break them. Sacrifice. The shedding of innocent blood.

Jesus "sacrifice" accomplished and fulfilled the requirements demanded by the original covenant made with Israel once and for all time. He never transgressed the law or the covenant, and therefore was innocent. During his lifetime he kept the law to the letter. So in his life and death, he embodied everything the original covenant demanded. Only in this way could his death free Israel from the original covenant. Allowing God to establish a new covenant with them. A covenant which reconciled man back to God through the ultimate sacrifice.

To the christian, Jesus is the only way God can be approached one on one. It is through, and "in Christ" that the reconciliation was accomplished. And it is only by invoking the name of the author and finisher of the new covenant that God can be approached.

This is an extremely brief and loose way of explaining the concept to someone who hasn't studied the bible as a whole, but it gives you a general idea of what christians are talking about, and why they believe what they believe.

Without Jesus, there can be no christianity. He is its essence because of what he accomplished. Which was much more than a sin sacrifice.

reply to post by Klassified


Well said!

reply to post by Klassified



Hello.

Actually, I was not asking for the theology behind the Jesus' sin sacrifice. I know there is a lot of it... both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I also know that all of it rests on the assumption that Jesus' execution was the sin offering that christians invoke when speaking of the crucified Jesus.

Please understand that I am more interested in the biblical account of the crucifixion. From what I read, Jesus crucifixion was a Roman style execution... yet christians believe that there was a ritualistic meaning to Jesus crucifixion under Roman governance.

reply to post by 547000


Still, none of those words are proof that Jesus' execution by Romans was the "sacrfice" to take away the sins of the world.

Why do you take Jesus execution by the Romans, for things that the Jews complained about to be the sin-sacrifie that Christians believe in?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

I'll answer with 2 questions.

# 1: Who did Jesus say was the greatest prophet born of a woman? (Luke + Mark)

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


off topic, sorry. didn't read through the whole thread before impulsively replying.

I might be misunderstanding the OP but the question seems to be whether the Crucifixion would hold validity as a "sin sacrifice" if that wasn't the intent of those who crucified him. It's well established in the bible that it was the intent of "Jesus" to allow his death to occur and to act as a redemptive sacrifice. It was the intent of the Romans to "execute a criminal"

If Jesus intended on offering up his body as a blood sacrifice, it would've been impossible for one of his disciples to prepare an altar for the killing of a close friend/spiritual leader/father figure. Instead, the Romans acted as the agent of death for the physical body of "Jesus", and the ritual took place regardless. I believe the bible also says "God works through His creations" (paraphrasing)

The important thing to remember is that the outward/exoteric/"public" interpretation of a ritual sacrifice is immaterial, only the process and purpose of the sacrifice is significant

This is all speculative, of course

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


It is in the understanding of that theology that the answer to your question lies. Of course it was a Roman style execution. Since it is they who executed him. To the christian, the execution was the fulfillment of prophecy given in Genesis, and was repeatedly spoken of, and elaborated on throughout the old testament. In words, and in "types". To them, it was a promise made, and a promise kept by God himself.

Only someone who has a cursory understanding of how the Jews conducted sacrifices would be able to see how that same "ritual" played out in Jesus life.

Just as it also helps to understand how the Jews handled marriage contracts in order to see how Christ exemplifies the "Bridegroom."

Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?

Originally posted by Hydroman
Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?

Seeing as they are not sinless they cannot be a sacrifice.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman
Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?

Seeing as they are not sinless they cannot be a sacrifice.

So they were merely executed while Jesus was sacrificed?

I actually have to question all of it. I mean here we are in 2012, we've sent probes out of the solar system and to the moon and other planets, yet.. No one has explored "Jesus'" final resting place? Exhumed a body? Ground sonar? Nothing? I find it all hard to believe. However I do agree that it's all been turned in to one big farce.
Like much of history, it's gone from fact to fiction by word of mouth (chinese whispers).

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman
Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?

Seeing as they are not sinless they cannot be a sacrifice.

So they were merely executed while Jesus was sacrificed?

Jesus went willingly, making it a sacrifice. Think about it - He enjoyed meals and conversations with friends, teaching, and ministering to people. Giving up those things was a sacrifice, the sacrifice of His life.

The two thieves did not go willingly, and that was an execution. Their deaths did no good to anyone, except for (hopefully) fewer thefts.