Jesus Died On the Cross For Our Sins.. WHERE is the logic?

reply to post by nicolaisecret


I do consider it unfortunate that Christianity went down that road called Atonement. It was something that never made sense to me. The logic behind it made me search for other answers. I found answers that worked for me in the Urantia Book. Especially the part on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Understand that it was his followers, not Jesus, who started teaching the "he died for your sins" doctrine. It was actually Paul who started the Atonement doctrine and he never met Jesus while he was in the flesh. Jesus only taught about God and Heaven. He always denied attempts by his followers to glorify him. He would say things like" don't glorify me, glorify him who sent me".

Here is another thing we need to remember as well. What we call Christianity today started out as a sect within Judaism and the concept of sacrifice runs deep in Judaism (the shedding of blood to atone for sins). Also, it was first century humans who started this. Even the Apostles of Jesus struggled with his concepts and Jesus was constantly rephrasing things so they would understand. That is why, among other reasons, Jesus ended up teaching in parables so that each would take for themselves that which finds a reception in their heart. Once something becomes legend or tradition it is hard for modern people to let it go even if it doesn't make sense. Just like many modern people still knock on wood for good luck even though there is no proof that helps.

Jesus tried to get his Apostles to understand the deeper meanings of his teachings, but 4 years with them was not enough to erase the deep seeded notions of the Jewish religion. Once Jesus was no longer with them to guide them they quickly fell back to their old ideas and changed the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus and how he died for our sins. That he was the sacrifice to end all sacrifice.

The good thing about it is that it is the natural progression of the religious sacrifice concept. Humans used to be sacrificed, then Moses directed that animals be substituted for humans. Then Jesus became the one to end all future sacrifice. I for one have never understood the concept of sacrifice, but I understand it from a history of religion point of view.

It boils down to your concept of God. Those who hold a more primitive religious concept of God humanize him and that leads to all kinds of problems. That is another area that the Urantia Book has helped me. My concept of God has enabled me to come to terms with the Universe and my place in it. I highly recommend it to anyone who struggles with religion.

To be clear, the Urantia Book is not a religion. Its more of a guide book that will help the individual discover their own religion. In the end we all have our own personal religious concepts.

Originally posted by Dr1Akula

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Dr1Akula

 

Not even one ancient temple stands now in greece, they have all met the violence of early christianity. only 1% is saved today of the ancient knowlege our ancestors left for us, books related to science , history, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy are lost forever, because some fanatic lunatics who couldn't understand them, thought they were related to Satan, because early christianity preached that all pagans were satan's worshipers!

LOL. A deity that they made up! As well, Christianity co-oped the pagan rituals and observances as their own.

I am leaning toward the belief that the Jesus character of the Bible is a composite figure of numerous messianic figures and his death symbolizes the death of the Jewish temple and all the men, women and children that were killed in the "Jewish Wars."

When did the Parthenon fall?

The Parthenon was used as a christian church in Byzantioum, It was not always just half columns and a roof, It was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, with ton's of detail and gold and ivory, The christians destroyed the statues to piecies, including the great statue of Athena, used the gold to make crosses and jewellery, burned the ''holy'' books kept in the treassure chest behind Athena and used the remain pieces of marble to build houses for the priests.

Okay n stuff..

but it's still standing.

reply to post by UB2120


And in the end, the truth remains more obscured than ever. Because no one wants it known!

reply to post by UB2120

. . . it was his followers, not Jesus, who started teaching the "he died for your sins" doctrine. It was actually Paul who started the Atonement doctrine . . .

You may be thinking of the writer of Hebrews who was making the comparison between Jesus' work, and the duties of the Jewish High Priest in the temple on the Day of Atonement.

Does the Urantia Book acknowledge that Jesus did in fact die, and in a brutal sort of way that could be described as being slain?

If so, was there any purpose to that event? If there was a reason for it, would it be because people were living such a perfect life, or would it have been as a result of people generally living what could be considered a sinful life?
If anyone made it through those hoops, then I think that they would agree that Jesus died for our sins, with the word "for" having a wide definition, including maybe even "because of".

Paul has a comment on that in 1 Corinthians 15:3,

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

where the Greek word translated as "for" is Hyper, with the general meaning of "in behalf of".
Another example of a verse using the word Hyper is 1 John 3:16,

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UB2120

 

And in the end, the truth remains more obscured than ever. Because no one wants it known!

Obscured how? It's really quite simple. The message of Jesus is very simple, love God as your Father and your fellow man as your Brother. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It was the early organizers of the Christian faith that made it like other man made religions, complex. That way there can be a hierarchy, thus control and power. Why do you think the religious leaders of the Jews wanted to kill Jesus? He was disrupting their power structure.

Try to understand the situation Jesus went into. He was born into the most religious society of his day. The Jews took their religion very seriously. People were frequently killed for blasphemy. The Old Testament is filled with the stories of prophets being killed because they were teaching outside the hierarchy. The schools of his day basically only taught the scriptures of those days. So this stuff was ingrained in the people. So when Jesus tried to teach his Apostles and followers they would frequently revert to their old ideas. When he was no longer with them to guide them they fell back and did not recover.

Also starting out as a small sect within Judaism and then breaking out on their own they absorbed a lot from other religions. The New Testament even has an account of this when Peter is accused of copying the rituals of Mithraism.

Also look at the wisdom of why Jesus never personally wrote anything down. One he knew his followers would fall into relic worship, but second the specifics of certain teachings must adapt to fit the times. New slogans must be developed and the teachings modernized.

God actually does want all to know as much as they can take in about him, but we must realize that since we are finite and are trying to comprehend an Infinite being and we will always fall short. That does not mean God loves us less, he is no respecter of persons. We must realize that there are limits to our comprehension.

reply to post by UB2120


If the truth so simple why are there over four hundred different versions of it? There should just be one church right?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by UB2120

 

. . . it was his followers, not Jesus, who started teaching the "he died for your sins" doctrine. It was actually Paul who started the Atonement doctrine . . .

You may be thinking of the writer of Hebrews who was making the comparison between Jesus' work, and the duties of the Jewish High Priest in the temple on the Day of Atonement.

Does the Urantia Book acknowledge that Jesus did in fact die, and in a brutal sort of way that could be described as being slain?

If so, was there any purpose to that event? If there was a reason for it, would it be because people were living such a perfect life, or would it have been as a result of people generally living what could be considered a sinful life?
If anyone made it through those hoops, then I think that they would agree that Jesus died for our sins, with the word "for" having a wide definition, including maybe even "because of".

edit on 2-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yes, the Urantia Book does discuss his death. There are actually hundreds of pages discussing him from his birth till his death. He died in the way that people were executed by the Romans in those days.

The purpose was that Jesus let natural events take there course. He taught that the sign of a great man is to refuse to use your power for self gain. So he allowed the Jews and Romans to capture him, mock him and ultimately kill him. From his point of view his mission was done anyway. He was sent to live a mortal life and death is a part of life.

The Urantia Book describes an interesting concept when talking about who we know as Jesus. It's kind of a detailed story, but I will try to cut it down. Basically God created an Eternal creation that we call Heaven and it exists outside of time and space. Within time and space God's sons create the galaxies we see and try to duplicate in time what God did in eternity. Before those sons can rule their creations they must 7 times live the lives of their creatures from high to low. Bestow themselves in the likeness of the given creature and know what it is like to be that creature. To know their point of view, thus being a more sympathetic ruler. Who we know as Jesus did this, from high spiritual beings to a lowly human. When he was born on Earth it was his 7th and final bestowal.

So his purpose was to live a human life. To revel God to man and man to God. He technically could have ended his mission when he was baptized by John. The spirit that spoke to them was acknowledging this completed life. He chose to stay a little longer and teach the common people. That high spiritual state he reached is something that humans can get to as well. We can progress to a point where we do not die but are translated to the next phase of existence.

Personally I feel the term "died for our sins" is most unfortunate. God deals with us as individuals, so your relationship with God is between you and God. There is not go between. Now technically we do go through our local creation to get to God, so we do go through Jesus in that fashion.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UB2120

 

If the truth so simple why are there over four hundred different versions of it? There should just be one church right?

Ever since the earliest humans developed what we call religion, those in control have amassed wealth. The concept of giving or sacrificing to God was one of the earliest developments. Thus religion became a business of sorts. More so today than ever before.

One day our world could have just one religion, but that is a long way off. It will take time for us to mature into that. When we realize that God only requires Unity and not Uniformity we will get there.

reply to post by UB2120

Personally I feel the term "died for our sins" is most unfortunate.

It sounds like your book of knowledge has Jesus dying for himself, just to have the experience to help his own development as a person.
Hmm.
I cannot see myself ever joining up with this religion, based on your brief summary of its principle beliefs concerning Jesus.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Modern mainstream (not cult members) biblical scholars do not see this describing a Satan.

I think that somewhere along the line, the people who swear by the Protestant Canon somehow allowed non-canonical books like Enoch Books and Qumran Jubilees writing to become part of a hidden canon.

That means the ideas come from Enoch and Jubilees and then canonical verses are twisted and distorted so as to "prove" the ideas. Much contradiction and hypocracy going on.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If the truth so simple why are there over four hundred different versions of it? There should just be one church right?

I might ask the same thing about the Law of One material. I've read 2 Ra sessions and about 45 pages of the Introduction to Book 1. So far, nothing simple. When does it get beyond an anthropomorphic "Creator" character who wants this and desires that for his creatures?

There are people on this forum who seem to use Law of One vocabulary, but they don't seem to agree on things much either.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by UB2120

 

Personally I feel the term "died for our sins" is most unfortunate.

It sounds like your book of knowledge has Jesus dying for himself, just to have the experience to help his own development as a person.
Hmm.
I cannot see myself ever joining up with this religion, based on your brief summary of its principle beliefs concerning Jesus.

edit on 2-7-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

To be clear, the Urantia Book is not a religion. It's more of a guide book to help the individual develop their own personal view. One of the main points in mortal life is to experience and grow in wisdom from that experience. Nothing can take the place of actual experience. You can read a book about marriage or parenthood but it takes experience to really know them.

The brief summary I gave was really discussing the reason for the bestowal. By your answer it appears you believe in the effectiveness of sacrifice and/or atonement to God. All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UB2120

 

If the truth so simple why are there over four hundred different versions of it? There should just be one church right?

Same as the NT period. There was the church at Galatia, at Ephesus, in Rome, in Thyatira, at Babylon, so on and so forth. If the essential doctrines are Biblical than the secondary things are just matter of preference.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60

Modern mainstream (not cult members) biblical scholars do not see this describing a Satan.

I think that somewhere along the line, the people who swear by the Protestant Canon somehow allowed non-canonical books like Enoch Books and Qumran Jubilees writing to become part of a hidden canon.

That means the ideas come from Enoch and Jubilees and then canonical verses are twisted and distorted so as to "prove" the ideas. Much contradiction and hypocracy going on.

Why is it an issue to refer to a book the Jesus Christ also referred to? Are you more holy than Christ for not referring to this or that book that He mentioned something from? Jude quotes from Enoch in his letter. Quoting or ferrying to a book doesn't affirm that it's inspired canon. Heck, numerous people reject books that ARE considered inspired canon.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why is it an issue to refer to a book the Jesus Christ also referred to?

It's been a while since I've read the Enoch Material. There is evidence that the churches have adopted those ideas, but I can't think of instances where the gospels version of Jesus refers to it. I've seen more evidence that his ideas, or at least context for ideas, were coming from Psalms of Solomon than Enoch.

Are you more holy than Christ for not referring to this or that book that He mentioned something from?

How does relative holiness fit into the question?

Jude quotes from Enoch in his letter.

A late date pseudapigrapha doesn't prove any thing about what Jesus may or may not have spoken of.

Quoting or ferrying to a book doesn't affirm that it's inspired canon.

Okay then, I agree.

reply to post by UB2120

By your answer it appears you believe in the effectiveness of sacrifice and/or atonement to God.

I agree with Paul, when you can find what is authentic writings by him in the New Testament.
Paul sees a reconciliation between man and God taking place through the gift of Jesus from God, so it is not like the Old Testament idea that we have to offer things to placate an angry god, but a way to show people that God is approachable through Jesus, and shows that God actually loves us by giving of Himself, his son, in order to expose what is our enemy (evil) and to demonstrate who is on our side in the fight against it (God).

All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness.

As it is often taught by some preachers, I would agree, but I think they are wrong and are not properly interpreting the New Testament, and giving too much recognition to Old Testament concepts, or rather what they imagine the writers of the OT were saying (more misinterpretation).

Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers.

Not just that, but that there is no limit to where you can take it, even to the point of death, which is what Jesus meant when he said to pick up your cross.
For example, this whistleblower, Snowden, look at how his life is virtually destroyed by pointing out the criminality of some unaccountable government agencies. What if everyone who worked for the government had the same attitude and the willingness to put themselves out there as a target? Corruption would not be able to exist.

Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God.

Salvation is being reconciled with God. What happens beyond that is yet to be seen, and is not now predictable.

The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.

Not exactly. We do those things first because God tells us to.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'll try to keep it short and simple.

The bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death". We sinned. We deserve to die because we have broken God's perfect law. Yes, God is good and God is love, but he is also holy, just and righteous Our evil nature cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because God has an opposing nature. Isaiah 64:4 tells us that 'our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." That is how holy God is.

Simply put, we broke the law. We deserve judgement and punishment. Jesus (second person of the Trinity) paid our fine by dying an undeserved, gruesome death; the death that we all deserve. Through his blood, we as believers are cleansed and justified.

reply to post by UnaChispa

The bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death". We sinned. We deserve to die because we have broken God's perfect law. Yes, God is good and God is love, but he is also holy, just and righteous Our evil nature cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because God has an opposing nature. Isaiah 64:4 tells us that 'our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." That is how holy God is.

Phrases like, "uptight", "anal retentive", and "stiff-lipped" come to mind. Guess we'll just add 'perfectionist' and 'obsessive compulsive' to the long list of character defects.

reply to post by UnaChispa

he bible tells us that the "wages of sin is death".

Paul said that, in Romans. The word translated as "wages" comes from a ration of dried fish that the Roman soldiers were given, which would theoretically at least keep them going for another day, but wasn't especially enjoyable. Paul was personifying Sin and making an analogy to the Imperial government not being lavish on their solders but needing them only to be able to do the work of keeping up the system. The idea was to compare that kingdom that we naturally live in (which we "serve" by sinning), with the kingdom that God has to offer (where we serve God and live righteously).
Too many people take the verse, not just out of context but in a contrived context, to make it mean that rather than a "wage", that it is talking about the opposite, a debt, which is not what Paul was talking about. This is another example of the wrong way to use "proof-texts" to create theology.

We sinned.

and so it has been from the very first man, up to Jesus.

We deserve to die because we have broken God's perfect law.

That may have been the case in the Sinai wilderness as it is described in the Torah. According to the New Testament, a sin means that we need to make amends to whoever we have wronged. The NT nowhere orders Christians to kill anyone.

Yes, God is good and God is love, but he is also holy, just and righteous Our evil nature cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because God has an opposing nature.

Which is why we need to be born of the spirit to have a new nature.

Isaiah 64:4 tells us that 'our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." That is how holy God is.

What Isaiah was talking about there was how when Babylon came and destroyed the temple at Jerusalem, the priesthood saw themselves as the victims of the punishment brought down upon the nation thanks to those who were circumventing the temple services, while the priests who were righteously serving the correct temple, were the ones carted off into captivity.

Simply put, we broke the law. We deserve judgement and punishment.

Right, if you were in the camp in Sinai and Moses saw you sinning, you very well could have been killed. Luckily for us, we don't live under Moses, but directly with the Lord, Jesus, who says to repent and be baptized and be forgiven.

Jesus (second person of the Trinity) paid our fine by dying an undeserved, gruesome death; the death that we all deserve.

Except that there is nowhere in the NT that says that Jesus died to pay anything.
You may be thinking of the verse in Colossians where it says that the ordinances against us were cancelled. The ordinances themselves were canceled. It was not cancelling the punishments deemed necessary by those ordinances by satisfying those demands. I realize that preachers sometimes add this bit on there, where they will say something like, "and all there was left was a note saying, 'paid in full'" but that is not an actual Bible quote.

Through his blood, we as believers are cleansed and justified.

OK, but how do you come up with the definition of what it means to be cleansed. If you mean in a way of blood being a sort of literal cleaning agent that removes sin debt, then that is not taught in the New Testament, but probably a way of seeing how things worked spiritually back at some point in the Bronze Age.
The way that we are cleansed of sins is by believing in Jesus, and then repenting, and being baptized, and having the spirit of God dwell in us to give us rebirth and a new nature to where we no longer sin, then we are cleansed of sins, meaning we no longer have sin attached to us and defiling us because we now live righteous lives.

reply to post by pthena


Well you also mentioned Jubilees. Jude quoted from Enoch.