How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Ghost147
There is nothing there, man. He's insane.

I feel more strongly about that statement each post he produces.

What is here is a talk about Jesus Christ.

Why was it a sacrifice?

He gave his life. He was innocent.

It doesn't matter if he was promised he was going to be raised back from the dead, now, does it? The fact remains he still gave his life.

He gave it.

He died.

A perfect man.

For all our sins.

You don't get it?

No.

Well, even then, it took faith in his Father and God, Jehovah that he would be raised from the dead. So the ultimate sacrifice also called for the ultimate act of faith.

Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, as he was dead.

He himself said that he came to start a fire in the world. And here, all these years later, even unbelievers are still talking about it.

And yet, the significance of what he did has a bearing on all humanity, and your very life. And things are going to happen in the near future, that he foretold, because of it.

originally posted by: JackReyes
It doesn't matter if he was promised he was going to be raised back from the dead, now, does it?

Yes, this detail is of the utmost importance on the matter. If he was promised that he was going to be raised back from the dead and be the king of heaven, that's not a sacrifice, that's a trade (as stated in an earlier post). If he was told he was going to go to hell afterwards for the rest of eternity, and he chose to give his life for our sins, THAT would be a sacrifice.

The definition of a 'Sacrifice' is: an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy. Jesus' life has no value because he is a god, there was nothing for him to give up. He wasn't extinguished from existence, he existed before, during and after he went to earth. Therefore, nothing was given for the sake of something else.

originally posted by: JackReyes
The fact remains he still gave his life.

He's immortal, he existed beforehand, during, and after his time on earth. He didn't lose anything.

originally posted by: JackReyes
You don't get it?

I do get it, it's just that to claim it is a sacrifice is either inaccurate, or dishonest.

originally posted by: JackReyes
Well, even then, it took faith in his Father and God, Jehovah that he would be raised from the dead. So the ultimate sacrifice also called for the ultimate act of faith.

Except that Jesus is his father. The holy trinity are separate and the same. Just like how Water can be liquid, ice, and steam. He didn't need faith in himself because he is omniscient.

originally posted by: JackReyes
Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, as he was dead.

Holy trinity, all the same thing, therefore himself raised himself from the 'dead'.

originally posted by: JackReyes
He himself said that he came to start a fire in the world. And here, all these years later, even unbelievers are still talking about it.

Because it perverts the progression of humanity, not because we consider it a valid historical fact.

originally posted by: JackReyes
And yet, the significance of what he did has a bearing on all humanity, and your very life. And things are going to happen in the near future, that he foretold, because of it.

Proving a word by it's own word is circular reasoning, and therefore not proof at all.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed.

a reply to: Ghost147

You stated that Jesus "is immortal" so what does it matter. It matters everything. He was not immortal.

There is something you should understand to help you grasp things better. There is a difference between immortality and eternal life, and everlasting life. A difference you have never been taught.

Do you know what it is?

a reply to: JackReyes

Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: JackReyes

Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

Because of the difference between immortality and everlasting life. Do you know what it is?

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: JackReyes

Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

Because of the difference between immortality and everlasting life. Do you know what it is?

I thought it was eternal? Nevertheless, enlighten me

(I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll have to respond in the morning)

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: JackReyes

Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

Because of the difference between immortality and everlasting life. Do you know what it is?

I thought it was eternal? Nevertheless, enlighten me

(I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll have to respond in the morning)

I understand, it's late here too.

No one is, well, was, immortal but God himself. You see immortality means the impossibility of dying. So the very fact that Jesus died shows that he was not immortal. He had to give up his life.

In fact all spirit creatures were created with eternal life. That means, the ability to never die. But that does not mean they are immortal. In fact Satan and his angels are going to be destroyed, proof that angels are not immortal. Although they do have everlasting life, they can die.

Jesus died. Proof he was not immortal.

You see, Jehovah God cannot die. He has always existed and will always exist into the future. He is the "King of Eternity."

Jesus subjected himself as a human and learned obedience to his Father. And then died, he gave up his life for all humankind.

A perfect person has no reason to die. None. He is just and righteous, innocent, committing no sin. He can live forever. In fact, if Jesus was not murdered he would still be alive like the young man he was. He did not have sin. He would never have died.

But even as a perfect human, not worthy of death, he willing submitted himself to be murdered by Satan to give himself as a sacrifice to all humankind.

That should move you to sorrow, to shame, and to repentance. It should move you to tears, to appreciation for what he did.

He, although not deserving death, and without willing consenting, would have never met death, died, for you. He gave his life in exchange of the ransom. So yes, it was a sacrifice.

He was not immortal. He died for our sins, and remained dead for parts of three days, a perfect, innocent, humble, loving person.

When he was raised to life, he was raised as a life-giving spirit, with an incorruptible and immortal spirit body, never again, being able to die.

This is a wonderful truth. Beautiful in all its aspects.

(Hebrews 7:26-28) 26 For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest who is loyal, innocent, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike those high priests, he does not need to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, because he did this once for all time when he offered himself up. 28 For the Law appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses, but the word of the oath sworn after the Law appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever.


(1 Timothy 6:15, 16) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. . . .


(2 Timothy 1:10) . . .but now it has been made clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and has shed light on life and incorruption through the good news. . .

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I suppose you are not allowed or supposed to participate is all.

Not allowed to participate in what and by whom?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You seems to deal with very religious folks, so I could see why you think that way...

Actually, I deal with people on a daily basis. I work with what would the equivalent of your social services in my country. So, yes, I have a first row seat to see how people are wicked and corrupt on a daily basis.

Of course, you can close your eyes and pretend that the world is not filled with disease, wars, famine, corruption and crime.

You can close your eyes and pretend that there are no people dying right now of hunger, in spite of the fact that 40% of world's production will rot untouched, and that the food producers would rather let food rot than sell food for a lower price than their intended margins, or to give it away to the poor.

You can close your eyes and pretend that there are no people dying right now of diseases which could have been long eradicated by spending a fraction of is spent yearly on things as frivolous as cosmetic research.

You can close your eyes and pretend your politicians are not corrupt and defending the interests of big corporations instead of the interests of the small people they were supposed to represent.

I could go on and on, but you got the idea already. I thought the motto of this website was "deny ignorance", yet it seems that such ideal has fallen out of grace and been replaced with "be a snarky ignorant regarding all you disagree with".

originally posted by: SuperFrog
BTW, as for your previous answer to my question, if Adam and Eve in beginning had 2 sons, one of them killed his brother, (so essentially he killed 25% of human race at the time) and they had few kids later... still lost, did they all make rest of humans from poor sisters?? What kind of monster would not provide, if he is all powerful and don't like sin... or should he be responsible for first sins as well??

I already answered your question. Something is only a sin if and when God declares it to be so. Do you have any Biblical passage where God tells Adam and his family that incest was a sin?

originally posted by: Leahn
Since you claim to know that the minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10k, can you prove it?

Sure, but just a warning, it has a word that causes your brain to stall...

Before we go into it, did you ever hear about Toba Catastrophe Theory? (let's hope your brain does not shut down on this word )

The Toba supereruption was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The Toba catastrophe hypothesis holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of 6–10 years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode.

In 1993, science journalist Ann Gibbons suggested a link between the eruption and a population bottleneck in human evolution, and Michael R. Rampino of New York University and Stephen Self of the University of Hawaii at Manoa gave support to the idea. In 1998, the bottleneck theory was further developed by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The Toba event is the most closely studied super-eruption.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

We know eruption did happen, we have approximate time when did happen, but don't for certain know that 6-10 years of global volcanic winter followed - that part is still hypothesis - not proven correctly.

Now, what this has to do with minimum viable population size (MVP for short) - it is believed that at the time humans population was as low as 10000 and that is safe minimum required for survival. Smaller number might be possible as well, but not with this much of variation in this short time. You can read more about this here: alfin2100.blogspot.com...

Now, some believe that number can go as low as 160, but that would include today medicine and reproductive knowledge - and might be minimum for future colonization of space.

I am still in disbelief that you can believe one pair, or later one family might be enough in short period of time to get us to over 7 billions... It just does not make sense mathematically...

originally posted by: Leahn
Actually, I deal with people on a daily basis. I work with what would the equivalent of your social services in my country. So, yes, I have a first row seat to see how people are wicked and corrupt on a daily basis.

Of course, you can close your eyes and pretend that the world is not filled with disease, wars, famine, corruption and crime.

You can close your eyes and pretend that there are no people dying right now of hunger, in spite of the fact that 40% of world's production will rot untouched, and that the food producers would rather let food rot than sell food for a lower price than their intended margins, or to give it away to the poor.

You can close your eyes and pretend that there are no people dying right now of diseases which could have been long eradicated by spending a fraction of is spent yearly on things as frivolous as cosmetic research.

You can close your eyes and pretend your politicians are not corrupt and defending the interests of big corporations instead of the interests of the small people they were supposed to represent.

I could go on and on, but you got the idea already. I thought the motto of this website was "deny ignorance", yet it seems that such ideal has fallen out of grace and been replaced with "be a snarky ignorant regarding all you disagree with".

We're going a bit off topic here, but just to make sure we understand each other - current conditions on earth we can mostly thank for religions dividing humans, for teaching them to hate and kill each other as well as belief that some should serve others... Same religion was behind slowing to almost stop all human progress for several hundred years.

I think that you don't have slightest idea about what I see and how... so keep your poetic qualities for yourself...

originally posted by: Leahn
I already answered your question. Something is only a sin if and when God declares it to be so. Do you have any Biblical passage where God tells Adam and his family that incest was a sin?

That is wicked logic, and at least we know who creates laws, judges by them and then gets pissed and kills everyone. But what is more Amazing, he delivers 'his' message in small part of earth... clearly planning on killing everyone who does not live close to get his message... Something is just wrong in all idea... and I can't believe that you don't see it that way. I am sure you do, but it is too much to acknowledge that it just sounds ridiculous...

a reply to: Ghost147

I'll have to agree with you there. The spirit within Jesus was a spiritual being, it could not die. Maybe his dad sent him here to learn about the world and to try to teach people how to be good and get along. Now part of the lesson was to learn what pain and suffering was, how would any being be able to comprehend something like life on earth without experiencing it.

I believe there is a being or collective consciousness that most refer to as god. I do not believe that Jesus was sacrificed though, if anything I believe he was killed by humans who wanted to remain in power because he was not playing their game the way they wanted it to be played. So he went back from where he came from I guess. I do believe Jesus would have been what they refer to as a Messiah.

Now going to hell afterwards? I doubt if that was the case. Jesus spread good policy, not bad. He spread compassion and sharing as a way of life.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I don't believe an all-loving god would condone murdering people for trivial reasons, that early humans lived nearly 1000 years, that Earth predates all the stars in the Universe, that plants can thrive without a Sun, that a person can live inside a whale for 3 days, that someone can walk on water and then turn that water into an alcoholic beverage with magic...

I don't believe that because I value evidence over faith.

No, you don't. You value what your priests in lab coats tell you to value, simply because they tell you they have evidence for it, and you believe them, because you have faith in them. The difference between us is that I am not in denial.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The issue isn't that mankind can survive or not, it's that genetic diversity wouldn't be what it is today without about that number of people.

That was not what you claimed. Your exact words were 'How did all humanity start from single family, when today we know that minimum number of humans for humanity to survive is around 10,000?!' Since you claim that we KNOW that, go ahead and prove it?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Leahn
Considering how low was life expectancy even mere two centuries ago, how is that relevant?

Firstly, If you believe Adam and Eve existed, don't you also believe that people in those days lived for hundreds and hundreds of years?

It is relevant because when I refer to 'life-threatening conditions' I mean that they might as well be still-births because there is no way they could possibly survive even a few weeks without the aid of modern medicines. It sounds like you're thinking about long-term conditions, like asthma or Allergies. However, I'm talking about severe birth defects, often ending in an early death (as in weeks or less). And that's with today's medicines.

Incest born children and their health issues is incredibly relevant to the Adam and Eve story (not to mention the great flood when basically the same thing occurs)

You should study more history. Specially statistics on child mortality and life expectancy during the course of the centuries. Everything you say is irrelevant. Considering that I am a father, and that the doctor does teach you about birth defect (there is always a chance of birth defects for any woman older than 25 years, so they have to explain it to you), you are essentially talking about something you know nothing about to someone who had to recently study about the subject.

To make it clear to you how irrelevant your statistics are, the chance of birth defect for a second-degree relationship, that is, if you had a children with your cousin, is about the same as the chance of birth defect for a woman who is 45 years old on her first child. It is a exponential curve that starts at 25 years old for women.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yeah, because you know, no civilization ever left anything behind that would identify they were there at any given time. No bones, no tools, no structures, no literature, so on and so forth. Are you honestly saying that you believe we have no evidence, what so ever, that shows that the migration of pre-colonial populations?

No, I am saying that radioactive dating is a method that depends on assumptions that can be changed to suit whatever finding the researcher needs to find.

originally posted by: Leahn
Not sure why you need to remind me, I am well aware I asked it. But when you state something that doesn't make sense, or isn't justified, and you don't present anything to back up your claims, I am more than free to correct your errors.

I need to remind you because you believe you can lecture me about theology. Do you want to discuss science? Sure, go ahead. Do you want to act as if you know more about theology than I do? Then I will have to keep reminding you that you are the one that are here asking for help to understand the subject, and I am the one that are here explaining it to you.

It takes a lot of hubris, not to mention ego, to act like you know more about the subject than the people that are teaching it to you.

Again, this is not Christianity 101 that you are used to discuss about here. To fully grasp this subject, you would need to correctly understand the overreaching theme of the Bible, all the consequences of the events that happened during the Fall of Eden, the nature of sin, and God's personality. All subjects you clearly know little to nothing about.

Again, you are a person with a poor recollection of what you learned of Newtonian Physics on high school, acting all high and mighty about Quantum Physics, talking everybody down and declaring it to make no sense and be wholly wrong because you cannot grasp it. When everyone else clearly sees that the faulty lies on you and on your ignorance. Be humble. Remember that you were the one that asked the question. At least, be humble and try to learn, instead of acting like you are superior to the ones that are teaching you. Or at least be courteous and pretend to.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes, this detail is of the utmost importance on the matter. If he was promised that he was going to be raised back from the dead and be the king of heaven, that's not a sacrifice, that's a trade (as stated in an earlier post). If he was told he was going to go to hell afterwards for the rest of eternity, and he chose to give his life for our sins, THAT would be a sacrifice.

You only consider so because you refuse to acknowledge people's answer, and demand that God follows your rules of sacrifice instead of His. I already explained this very same subject to you before.

Loss of life is not a sacrifice. There are multiple examples of resurrections in the Bible, all clearly demonstrating that death from sin is not eternal, not irreversible. Death was never intended to be eternal.

Again, your disagreement lies in the fact that you are demanding that God follows your rules of what would constitute an acceptable sacrifice, instead of His. The problem does not lie on people's explanation. It lies on your hubris to consider your standard of sacrifice to be superior to God's, and the demand that God subjects Himself to your standard.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I do get it, it's just that to claim it is a sacrifice is either inaccurate, or dishonest.

No, you don't.

And the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching.

originally posted by: Leahn
I need to remind you because you believe you can lecture me about theology. Do you want to discuss science? Sure, go ahead. Do you want to act as if you know more about theology than I do? Then I will have to keep reminding you that you are the one that are here asking for help to understand the subject, and I am the one that are here explaining it to you.

You are doing very poor job at teaching something that you can't even explain why you believe. You see, we, humans - today require more then a word - we require evidence, because for thousands of years small portion of us used superstition to live as leach on human society, while blocking knowledge, learning and progress.

Answer - just because I said so - does not work even with kids today. They know better...

originally posted by: Leahn
It takes a lot of hubris, not to mention ego, to act like you know more about the subject than the people that are teaching it to you.

Again, this is not Christianity 101 that you are used to discuss about here. To fully grasp this subject, you would need to correctly understand the overreaching theme of the Bible, all the consequences of the events that happened during the Fall of Eden, the nature of sin, and God's personality. All subjects you clearly know little to nothing about.

Again, you are a person with a poor recollection of what you learned of Newtonian Physics on high school, acting all high and mighty about Quantum Physics, talking everybody down and declaring it to make no sense and be wholly wrong because you cannot grasp it. When everyone else clearly sees that the faulty lies on you and on your ignorance. Be humble. Remember that you were the one that asked the question. At least, be humble and try to learn, instead of acting like you are superior to the ones that are teaching you. Or at least be courteous and pretend to.

Why do you think that you know more about religion then rest of us? I personally took religion in college just because I never learned anything during childhood. (thanks to my parents) After that I read 2 out of 4 major religious books and both left me with wonder - how do people really can believe what is written in there and somehow think it is true and worst - try to take it as moral guide?!

Just as you see in this topic - just idea that Jesus crucifixion is sold as sacrifice - which really it is not sacrifice at all.

Your claim about dating method might work , if we don't have other methods to date, for example sediment layers.

paleobiology.si.edu...

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: JackReyes
Yes, you are correct, I should have said 'eternal'.
However, how would that make my argument any less valid?

Because of the difference between immortality and everlasting life. Do you know what it is?

I thought it was eternal? Nevertheless, enlighten me

I already did explain it to you here. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge people's answers to you, all the while claiming that the whole subject does not make sense, even when it is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone that it is you who are refusing to even attempt to understand it.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Before we go into it, did you ever hear about Toba Catastrophe Theory?

Let me put it bluntly to you, and as simple as possible, ok?

Have we mastered every working aspect of the DNA, every working aspect of human biodiversity, every working aspect of human genetic adaptation, in order to declare that we know it to be impossible? Raise your hand whoever is willing to make this claim and prove it.

And prove it by doing something other than citing an Wikipedia article that clearly says that the whole theory is still filled with a lot of holes and unknown variables.

Are you up to the task? No? I thought so.

The problem with your argument is that Biology is not Physics. Biology does not have formulas that are precise to the tenth digit like Physics. It is of little use to claim that a Biology argument does or does not make mathematical sense because unless you have the Algebra to prove it does not make mathematical sense, and you don't, I will simply remind you that Biology is Social Science, not STEM.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
We're going a bit off topic here, but just to make sure we understand each other - current conditions on earth we can mostly thank for religions dividing humans, for teaching them to hate and kill each other as well as belief that some should serve others... Same religion was behind slowing to almost stop all human progress for several hundred years.

No, we can't.

And religion was never 'behind slowing to almost stop all human progress for several hundred years.' That never happened.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
That is wicked logic, and at least we know who creates laws, judges by them and then gets pissed and kills everyone. But what is more Amazing, he delivers 'his' message in small part of earth... clearly planning on killing everyone who does not live close to get his message... Something is just wrong in all idea... and I can't believe that you don't see it that way. I am sure you do, but it is too much to acknowledge that it just sounds ridiculous...

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I beg to differ. Keep in mind that I am the one that actually do understand the subject.

originally posted by: Leahn
Let me put it bluntly to you, and as simple as possible, ok?

Have we mastered every working aspect of the DNA, every working aspect of human biodiversity, every working aspect of human genetic adaptation, in order to declare that we know it to be impossible? Raise your hand whoever is willing to make this claim and prove it.

And prove it by doing something other than citing an Wikipedia article that clearly says that the whole theory is still filled with a lot of holes and unknown variables.

Are you up to the task? No? I thought so.

The problem with your argument is that Biology is not Physics. Biology does not have formulas that are precise to the tenth digit like Physics. It is of little use to claim that a Biology argument does or does not make mathematical sense because unless you have the Algebra to prove it does not make mathematical sense, and you don't, I will simply remind you that Biology is Social Science, not STEM.

Seems that you don't know much about biology, which is not social science, but natural science. Here, from beloved wiki - some Biology 101 you should have read before this false claim:

Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.[1] Modern biology is a vast and eclectic field, composed of many branches and subdisciplines. However, despite the broad scope of biology, there are certain general and unifying concepts within it that govern all study and research, consolidating it into single, coherent fields. In general, biology recognizes the cell as the basic unit of life, genes as the basic unit of heredity, and evolution as the engine that propels the synthesis and creation of new species. It is also understood today that all organisms survive by consuming and transforming energy and by regulating their internal environment to maintain a stable and vital condition

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Also your claim that numbers do not work with biology, that is somehow not possible to apply numbers... next time you have to take medicine, try not to use prescribed doze and let us know how it works...

originally posted by: Leahn
No, we can't.

And religion was never 'behind slowing to almost stop all human progress for several hundred years.' That never happened.

Topic in my signature clearly states otherwise...

originally posted by: Leahn
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I beg to differ. Keep in mind that I am the one that actually do understand the subject.

My opinion is based on observation, where your opinion is based on wishful thinking...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You are doing very poor job at teaching something that you can't even explain why you believe. You see, we, humans - today require more then a word - we require evidence, because for thousands of years small portion of us used superstition to live as leach on human society, while blocking knowledge, learning and progress.

Your unwillingness to believe religion, or my willingness to, has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the answer. Treat it as fiction, if you will. A question about how exactly Superman's weakness to magic works has little to do with whether Superman is real or not.

He asked a question about Biblical Theology. I answered his question from Biblical Theology. Your objection is nothing more than a red-herring.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Why do you think that you know more about religion than the rest of us? I personally took religion in college just because I never learned anything during childhood. (thanks to my parents) After that I read 2 out of 4 major religious books and both left me with wonder - how do people really can believe what is written in there and somehow think it is true and worst - try to take it as moral guide?!

Because I do. Because I am the one with the answers, and you are the ones with the doubts. That clearly establishes that I know more about the subject than you do. You read 2 books in College and think you know a lot? I've been studying it for over 25 years. Do your 2 books in College beat this?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Your claim about dating method might work , if we don't have other methods to date, for example sediment layers.
paleobiology.si.edu...

Which would be a good counter-argument, if it didn't have the same problems. Stratigraphy bases the date of the sediments on things like fossil dating, which rely on... radioactive dating.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Your claim about dating method might work , if we don't have other methods to date, for example sediment layers.

What about sediment layers? Sedimentary layers are mostly all oxidized minerals, which form spontaneously from their elemental reactants. Key word there, spontaneous. I see no reason why these layers supposedly prove the earth to be so old?

Especially when we're finding human footprints in supposed "290 million year old" 'Permian Era' Rock: Human Footprint in Permian Strata

Your 5th grade geology knowledge has failed you.