The Meaning behind the Sacrifice of Jesus who is Christ.

reply to post by GodIsRelative


Amazing how an opinion on this subject brings out the worst in people, and the people with the most to say about it are always the non believers!. If i was to start a thread about aliens raping animals the same people would give a rational and understanding reply. Instead its the old response "the bibles bollocks/edited/changed etc", these guys are the ones who think they're on the cusp of the truth because they had the "X files" box set but now they've moved onto "Fringe"!!. To all the non believers out there respect peoples beliefs cos if they're right your going to wish you hadn't said what you have, somehow i don't think your x files and fringe box sets are going to last 2000 years!!

Aphorism
reply to post by GodIsRelative

AphorismJesus on the cross was a charade devised to convince the masses that our flesh, the world, and our bodily existence, is meaningless. This worked to such a degree that a torture device is the symbol of an entire religion.

Yep; not sure that person knew its future proclaimation as never wrote a thing about his commitment to becoming the 4th in the trilogy added, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, (whoever eats the fastest gets the most) SHILL. The torture device astounds me in its evil implication of (WARNING of what exactly and people pray to this artifact as a rosary prayed with; or a necklace crucifix worn). I do understand the sacrifice as metaphor "flesh is flesh, and you/your spirit is/are more than that encased bodyform 3D"; but this idea brought forward is over the top "Zombie Jesus" is reserrected, Fear factor methods to manipulate.

Jesus had one message and only one message. It wasn't that God sacrificed Jesus, but that Jesus sacrificed himself to his friends. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:14)

He embodied the golden rule to the letter. Did everything to others that he would want them to do to him.

He lived completely within the Law of the Jews, and because of his complete faith in God, his temple was made a holy dwelling by the Lord. The Lord lived through Jesus so all men would know what God desires, that we should be good to each other and always care for each other and help each other. Jesus received this one command from God, that we love each other as He loves us, and followed the command to his death for the Glory of God.

I don't care what other "Christians" take all this to represent. I know it means that I'm going to love each and every person I meet as much as I possibly can, even if it kills me.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

Jesus had one message and only one message. It wasn't that God sacrificed Jesus, but that Jesus sacrificed himself to his friends. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:14)

There is a bit of context to this verse and some theological meaning. I don't think that Jesus was giving a lecture on sacrifice, but was explaining a truth about real love which knows no upper limit.

I have commandments.
Commandments are important in relationships, for example the way I follow God's commandments myself.
These relationships are vital to happiness.
Love each other.
For example the way I loved you.
To the point that I would die for those who are my loved ones.
Those are who do as I do, following that commandment.

I think that the writer of this particular gospel had an agenda which was to clear up what may have been some ambiguities in Matthew and Mark, such as if his death was a sort of aberration, or if it was actually an important part of the plan for his earthly life.

He lived completely within the Law of the Jews, . . .

Huh? Jesus was a person of the type, Judean, of the ethnic group with Jerusalem as their center of the world, in the belief that their God lived there and its temple was the proper location to sacrifice to that God.

and because of his complete faith in God, his temple was made a holy dwelling by the Lord.

I don't think that a person being a "temple" is a New Testament concept.

The Lord lived through Jesus so all men would know what God desires, that we should be good to each other and always care for each other and help each other.

Jesus was The Lord, as he says so himself in the gospel of John. He did more than just give an example to us but proclaimed his status as God.

Jesus received this one command from God, that we love each other as He loves us, and followed the command to his death for the Glory of God.

Jesus had a lot of "commandments" that he followed constantly but that one particular commandment was the one that he gave to us.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't think that a person being a "temple" is a New Testament concept.

1st Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;"

John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he spoke of the temple of his body."

I think these two passages say enough on the subject of Temples.

I don't think that Jesus was giving a lecture on sacrifice, but was explaining a truth about real love which knows no upper limit.

While I agree that this was probably meant to describe love to the disciples or the masses, it serves a double purpose to illustrate the great love that Jesus had for his disciples when he died for us.

Jesus was The Lord, as he says so himself in the gospel of John. He did more than just give an example to us but proclaimed his status as God.

This may be the point where we have the biggest difference in opinion. What you interpret to be Jesus claiming to be God, I see as God speaking to the world using Christ's mouth. I cannot believe anything in one gospel without believing what's in the others. So if Jesus says "I am the Lord" but he also says "The Father is in me and I am in Him" and "I seek not my own glory, but there is One who seeks it," I feel I must interpret these to be the words of Jesus, and where he says "I am the Lord" these are the words of God inside him.

Jesus had a lot of "commandments" that he followed constantly but that one particular commandment was the one that he gave to us.

Jesus did not say we shouldn't follow the law or the commandments, but that the One Commandment was greater than all the others, and if we were to truly follow the One Commandment, then we would automatically follow the rest of the commandments.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

I think these two passages say enough on the subject of Temples.

The translation that you are quoting is interpretive rather than literal because both words, bod and temple, are in the singular in the original Greek text.
The word 'you' in ". . . the Holy Spirit, who is in you, . . ." is in the plural.
Paul was saying that the church as a group of people is the temple.

In the second quote, where it says, "But the temple he had spoken of was his body." this was not something known at the time that Jesus said it, while to everyone who heard it always took it to mean the literal physical temple that he just got through cleansing.
It wasn't until after he was resurrected that his disciples realized that there was another way to understand what he was saying, that it could be a metaphorical allusion to a future event that he was foretelling.
So it was not Jesus giving a lecture on the nature of temples and bodies, but an example of Jesus' foreknowledge of things that were to happen, because they were all part of a plan.

. . . where he says "I am the Lord" these are the words of God inside him.

My argument may be overly complex but it goes something like this:
"The Lord" is a technical term that you see in the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, substituting for the word, YHWH, in the Hebrew version.
"The Lord" is really an angel who appeared to Moses in a burning bush, saying that "he is" the same person who appeared to the Patriarchs as God.
So to me the correct conclusion is that the actual person, God, never appeared to anyone, but was always a heavenly being who could take on god-like powers to serve as the executor of God's will, and also the spokesperson for God.
This is vital to the story because this person talking to Moses is exactly the same person those mouth spoke the words of promise to Abraham, and so was connected directly to it, to the point that he would find it in his own interest as a true representative, to see those promises carried through.
The big leap in logic in my explanation comes in how I transfer this title in the Greek from this person in the OT, to the person in the NT who seems to be filling the same role.
The job description and the title remains the same, but the person filling it is different, where Jesus actually has a higher inherent status than the former holder of that name.
This is suitable because he is representing a higher or better promise in the new covenant.

if we were to truly follow the One Commandment, then we would automatically follow the rest of the commandments.

What "rest"?
I don't see Jesus endorsing any of that.
People asked him questions specifically about the Law so he answered them, about the Law, but that is not endorsing it.
Jesus picked out specific ideas that just happen to be in the Law, to endorse.