How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

originally posted by: Leahn
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.

Actually, considering evidence, it does have to do with truthfulness of the answer.

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

Really??

originally posted by: Leahn
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?

Firstly, those 2 books I've read after I was done with college, not during the college. Religion class covers evolution of religion, from polytheistic religions to today monotheistic and we did not go into details with any of them. Even at that, it was clear to religious folks that something is wrong and that there was lots of C/P...

That is quite arrogant claim you go there... and from what I see, 25 years of not asking correct questions might get you to point where you think you know better then rest of us... That is why are we here - to ask correct questions.

originally posted by: Leahn
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.

You go it bit wrong - it just supports radioactive dating, but it is clear why this does not make sense to you - because you don't want it to be true... as this clearly makes your little book obsolete... and now tell me something about closing your eyes...

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

That link supposed to explain something without much of evidence??

You should follow more correct link regarding given subject... and you will find nowhere we found human footprints among 290 year sediments....

paleobiology.si.edu...

Seems your woodoo science link has failed you, actually...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
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...

Biology is also not Medicine. What's your next argument? Numbers do not work with biology, therefore do not take planes or use cars? Tell you what, tell me the formula to calculate how many mutations were necessary to change from our last common ancestor with gorillas into what we are today, and I will stand corrected.

Keep in mind that, even in Medicine, things like correct prescribed dosage are based on trials, not on math. When there is any math regarding the correct dosage, it is a post-fact calculation.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Topic in my signature clearly states otherwise...

Never happened. You believing it and pointing to your own thread on the subject defending your wrong ideas does not make it true.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
My opinion is based on observation, where your opinion is based on wishful thinking...

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. You are even entitled to your Dunning-Kruger Effect on your own opinion. I beg to differ.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Actually, considering evidence, it does have to do with truthfulness of the answer.

No, it doesn't. Peter killed Mary or not, regardless of the existence of evidence either way, or even to the existence of contrary evidence. Evidence has nothing to do with truthfulness, although it can lead to it.

Philosophy is not your strong suit, is it? Maybe you should read 2 out of 4 books on the subject of Epistemology. Just so you can be an expert on the subject, like you are an expert on the subject of Theology.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

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

Really??

Yes.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Firstly, those 2 books I've read after I was done with college, not during the college. Religion class covers evolution of religion, from polytheistic religions to today monotheistic and we did not go into details with any of them. Even at that, it was clear to religious folks that something is wrong and that there was lots of C/P...

So, you admit to not going into details with any religion, and yet you expect to know more than someone that studied nothing but the details on the Christian Theology for 25 years? And I am the arrogant one?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You go it bit wrong - it just supports radioactive dating, but it is clear why this does not make sense to you - because you don't want it to be true... as this clearly makes your little book obsolete... and now tell me something about closing your eyes...

You should read that website you linked on the subject. That's where I got the information from. If I am wrong, then it is entirely their fault for informing me wrongly about their own subject of study, and yours for providing a faulty source.

No, it wasn't sacrifice, it was mild peril to a creature this godly. The real heroes are those humans that dies in exactly the same way [or worse], not knowing what death means, but nobody cares about them.

Apparently, this 'loving and understanding' god is giving us a choice [and all believers on here have supplied ample quotes] that you are alright...as long as you do as he wishes.

You do your own thing, such as asking questions because we can, then I will kill you. No worse, you'll get to suffer for ETERNITY. This god has no empathy with his 'production failures, the ones that can't help asking questions.
Shouldn't we get more lenience and forgiveness?
I didn't make myself, yet I have been seeking truth all my life, the only way for me to become complacent would be to give me a lobotomy. I can't have faith in a dubious god, when other explanations make more sense.
Do I deserve to go to hell, even though I am the most peaceful and honest person, who values the life of even the smallest creature???


With that in mind, I see jesus' crucifiction as even less of a sacrifice. To me it's merely a slightly tough job that can easily be dealt with by someone who isn't human, but which will yield a good outcome for the original oppressor of human kind.

This 'god' has no qualms threatening a large amount of his own creations with death, why should a stage show, by his son make me feel any different?

North Korea is also full of people that won't die and are allowed to sometimes do what they want, as long as they obey the system.

How is that any different with god and believers? Because of jesus dying the cross??? It's still an tyranny.

originally posted by: Leahn
Biology is also not Medicine. What's your next argument? Numbers do not work with biology, therefore do not take planes or use cars? Tell you what, tell me the formula to calculate how many mutations were necessary to change from our last common ancestor with gorillas into what we are today, and I will stand corrected.

Modern medicine is very closely related to biology, from evolutionary biology to microbiology. More about how numbers work with biology you can learn from here: Mathematical and Theoretical Biology: A European Perspective

originally posted by: LeahnKeep in mind that, even in Medicine, things like correct prescribed dosage are based on trials, not on math. When there is any math regarding the correct dosage, it is a post-fact calculation.

Care to explain to us how statistic about trial works without math??

originally posted by: Leahn
Never happened. You believing it and pointing to your own thread on the subject defending your wrong ideas does not make it true.

Again wishful thinking... and history tells us otherwise... Pretending that dark age lead by religion never happened...yet, closing your eyes...

originally posted by: LeahnAgain, you are entitled to your opinion. You are even entitled to your Dunning-Kruger Effect on your own opinion. I beg to differ.

You are talking about your claim that you know the best religion, because you believe?? You are clear example of Dunning-Kruger Effect.

originally posted by: Leahn
So, you admit to not going into details with any religion, and yet you expect to know more than someone that studied nothing but the details on the Christian Theology for 25 years? And I am the arrogant one?

Again not understanding what I said and modifying my words.

I said - I did take a class...but AFTER I was done, then I read Bible and Quran, just because I wanted to, not because someone forced me as child to learn and believe.

Now, what is there to study for 25 years, unless you building myth about the book?! It is clearly you know very little about your little book, and are very biased and believe you know everything... sorry... you just don't show knowledge on the subject.

Back to topic - OP was correct, in no way it was sacrifice...

originally posted by: Hecate666
No, it wasn't sacrifice, it was mild peril to a creature this godly. The real heroes are those humans that dies in exactly the same way [or worse], not knowing what death means, but nobody cares about them.

If you are unable to provide an answer, refrain from the discussion. Nobody is impressed with your teenage angst.

originally posted by: Leahn
If you are unable to provide an answer, refrain from the discussion. Nobody is impressed with your teenage angst.

Yep, Hecate666 is not entitled to opinion...

I forgot why... please do remind us.

Ad-Hominem at its best, where at least Hecate666 is on topic...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Yep, Hecate666 is not entitled to opinion...

I forgot why... please do remind us.

Ad-Hominem at its best, where at least Hecate666 is on topic...

Yes, because answering a question of "how was Jesus' death a sacrifice" with "it was not a sacrifice, the true sacrifice is people that die every day" is completely on topic and a matter of opinion.

It is like answering a history question of "how did world war I start" with "I don't consider it a war, the true war is what the politicians do to us every day."

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Yep, Hecate666 is not entitled to opinion...

I forgot why... please do remind us.

Ad-Hominem at its best, where at least Hecate666 is on topic...

Yes, because answering a question of "how was Jesus' death a sacrifice" with "it was not a sacrifice, the true sacrifice is people that die every day" is completely on topic and a matter of opinion.

It is like answering a history question of "how did world war I start" with "I don't consider it a war, the true war is what the politicians do to us every day."

i might have missed it in all the ruckus of the last 17 pages, but did you provide an actual explanation of how jesus' death constitutes as a legitimate sacrifice?

a reply to: SuperFrog

We still did not get answer, who did Adam and Eve's children make babies with?? 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?!

In that time period tradition tells us that the entire life support was different than we have today. Can't give any stats because we are discussing theology. It is theorized by some that Adam and family had a closed environment with a greenhouse effect. The laws of biology were different than today and without that knowledge we really are simply assuming the life force from that era to this era.

Tradition tells us that both Cain and Able had twin sisters. As maturity approached, Cain desired to mate with his twin but Able also desired Cain's twin sister. Adam desired that Cain mate with the twin of Able and Able mate with Cain's twin sister. Adam took the matter to the Creator and the Creator ordered a show of offering upon His alter. Whichever offer the Creator accepted, that desire of the one who was accepted would be honored. As it then is said, the offering of Able was accepted and Adam's desire was honored. Cain was given the twin sister of of Able and Able was given the twin sister of Cain by the Creator.

This served two purposes. Firstly, incest was not the issue because DNA was not altered at this time. Sin had not entered the flesh of the family as yet and was unaccountable. Secondly, this was the first union of people by marriage and honored by the Creator God. The pattern was established for unions of the future.

Entirely tradition and theology----

a reply to: Seede

what does incest have to do with anything? i wasnt aware that jesus was a product of incest nor that incest was a contributing factor in his crucifixion.

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Hecate666
No, it wasn't sacrifice, it was mild peril to a creature this godly. The real heroes are those humans that dies in exactly the same way [or worse], not knowing what death means, but nobody cares about them.

If you are unable to provide an answer, refrain from the discussion. Nobody is impressed with your teenage angst.

Teenage angst, at 48, why thanks for the compliment!

Nobody is supposed to be impressed by anything, I'm saying that other people [real humans who would die as a result of the method and were probably scared] should be acknowledged more than jesus, who was never really in any proper danger. How is it even possible to read 'teenage angst' into it?

Why even bother posting a response if nobody is impressed with my opinion anyway? Did I hit a nerve?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Modern medicine is very closely related to biology, from evolutionary biology to microbiology.

Still not Biology. Where is the formula I asked for?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Care to explain to us how statistic about trial works without math??

Sure. You keep trying higher and higher dosages until people start having adverse effects, like dying. Then you make a note "do not go above this dosage".

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Again wishful thinking... and history tells us otherwise... Pretending that dark age lead by religion never happened...yet, closing your eyes...

Dark Ages... you mean that period of History about which until recently almost nothing was known about, hence the name? That Dark Ages? What's that to do with the subject?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You are talking about your claim that you know the best religion, because you believe?? You are clear example of Dunning-Kruger Effect.

When did I claim that? Care to quote, please? Or recant.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Now, what is there to study for 25 years, unless you building myth about the book?

Yes, I understand that a person that never studied anything beyond Christianity 101, who self-admitted never going into any details about any religion, might not understand that he may not know everything about the subject. Textbook Dunning-Kruger effect. "Never studied the subject in detail, but I know everything to know about it".

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I might have missed it in all the ruckus of the last 17 pages, but did you provide an actual explanation of how jesus' death constitutes as a legitimate sacrifice?

Yes, I did.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
What does incest have to do with anything? i wasnt aware that jesus was a product of incest nor that incest was a contributing factor in his crucifixion.

Some atheists with an axe to grind managed to derail the thread somewhat.

originally posted by: Hecate666
Teenage angst, at 48, why thanks for the compliment!

Nobody is supposed to be impressed by anything, I'm saying that other people [real humans who would die as a result of the method and were probably scared] should be acknowledged more than jesus, who was never really in any proper danger. How is it even possible to read 'teenage angst' into it?

Why even bother posting a response if nobody is impressed with my opinion anyway? Did I hit a nerve?

If I was a 48 year old person who had just been called out for acting like a teenager, I would not consider that a compliment. But then again...

As I said to another person, your answer was akin to answering "what started the world war I" with "It was not a war, war is what politicians to do us every day." Hence, teenage angst.

a reply to: Leahn

According to God's plan, Jesus came to Earth, and remained sinless for 33 years, and was killed thereafter. When his blood was spilled, there was no sin of his own to pay. Instead, Jesus presented to his father his blood in payment for Adam's sins.

Still , not a sacrifice.

If you think the mythic scenario portrays some sort of sacrifice on Jesus' part, you must not think very much of his pre-earthly condition. I mean, if he thought living 33 years of a relatively charmed life, without breaking any of commandments within the creation of his father's making, and dying like every other life form that to enter this reality, was really a hard thing to do, it doesn't say to much for him, in my opinion. Especially since he gets to go back to his charmed existence in heaven for eternity, and he got even more accolades just for being a good human. Plus, he gets to send anyone who doesn't believe in him to eternity in HELL!

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I am Gnostic and hold no belief systems.

Gnosticism is no different from all of the other fake 'belief systems'...

They all have a hidden agenda and just like all other cults, they think that they alone know the truth.

Gnosticism a dead end in any search for ultimate truth and a complete waste of time...

Studying it makes just as much sense as studying Scientology.

originally posted by: adjensen
In a very real way, Gnostic Christianity was the Scientology of the Second Century.

Satanic practices throughout the world can be traced in an unbroken line directly back to Gnosticism...

Curse of Canaan

Source: Satanic roots of the Gnostic Church Exposed

Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible.

The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead.

His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.

Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?

So, the New Age necessitates a New Age Religion, one that denies the universal claims of the Christian Faith, while making universal claims of its own. But little in New Age Religion is actually new. Much of it can be traced to Gnostic groups that formed in the early days of Christianity, and to even earlier Pagan or Eastern religions.

To the New Age Movement, all religions are the expression of the same inner reality. Therefore, the death of Jesus on the cross must be denied or re-interpreted. That is why we see phony writings such as the neo-Gnostic gospels fraudulently elevated to seeming authenticity by New Age writers such as Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown.

New Age Religion

originally posted by: stupid girl
Most of the Apostlic letters that make up the last half of the New Testament were written with the intent to refute the increasing heresies of Gnosticism. The Nicene Creed was also written as a statement of faith based on the true Gospel Message as given by Jesus to the Apostles which was recorded for mankind in the 4 synoptic accounts that begin the New Testament. Many new believers were led astray by the Gnostic perversions of Jesus' message. That is why Jesus said to seek first the Kingdom. Men have the inherent desire to seek wisdom & knowledge first, which is the modus operandi of Gnosticism in & of itself.

So in essence, Gnostic beliefs are based on the opposite of what Jesus instructed those who follow Him to do. Gnostic beliefs go against the Truths revealed to us by Christ Himself through His Apostles. Thus His Apostles referred to Gnostic teachings as 'anti Christ'. Read the First Epistle of John (1 John, not the Gospel of John). The entire purpose of that Letter is centered on the subtle lies of Gnostic teachings. When he refers to 'anti Christs' in his letter, he is referring to Gnostic beliefs.

The New Age movement & those promulgated by the UFO contactee phenomenon are largely based on Gnosticism. All types of mysticism are respectively based on various mixtures of Kabbalah, Gnosticism & Eastern Philosophies. Which in turn, are all basically based on each other. We are not gods. And we are only one in Christ- not in Gaia, or Christ consciousness, or universal consciousness, or karma kundalini or the galactic federation of light, or Chaka Khan Shamalama Ding Dong. We are all unique and individual and we are each accountable for the choices we make during our lifetime here on earth.

a reply to: Leahn

ah, thank you. i have read the post you linked, and while i find myself wholly unable to agree with it, i also dont challenge your right to an opinion.

i do agree with hecate666. jesus was never in any danger whatsoever. and his sacrifice wasnt a sacrifice anymore than driving my volkswagen directly into a tree and using the insurance payout to upgrade to a lockheed sr-71.

originally posted by: windword
Still , not a sacrifice.

If you think the mythic scenario portrays some sort of sacrifice on Jesus' part, you must not think very much of his pre-earthly condition. I mean, if he thought living 33 years of a relatively charmed life, without breaking any of commandments within the creation of his father's making, and dying like every other life form that to enter this reality, was really a hard thing to do, it doesn't say to much for him, in my opinion. Especially since he gets to go back to his charmed existence in heaven for eternity, and he got even more accolades just for being a good human. Plus, he gets to send anyone who doesn't believe in him to eternity in HELL!

God's game, God's rules. You may not agree with the rules, but that does not mean that they cease to exist, nor that the answer is inaccurate. As I said to another person, your disagreement is not with the answer itself, but with the fact that you disagree that this constitutes a sacrifice. You believe your standard of sacrifice to be superior to God's and demand that He subjects Himself to your standard instead. Yet, God's game, God's rules, not yours.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
ah, thank you. i have read the post you linked, and while i find myself wholly unable to agree with it, i also don't challenge your right to an opinion.

i do agree with hecate666. jesus was never in any danger whatsoever. and his sacrifice wasn't a sacrifice anymore than driving my volkswagen directly into a tree and using the insurance payout to upgrade to a lockheed sr-71.

See what I wrote above. As I said to another poster who raised the same argument, is not the death itself that is relevant. There are multiple examples of resurrections in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT showing that death was never intended to be eternal. To point was to die sinless. While human, Jesus was, in fact, human. He was subjected to the same temptations that we are, with the sole difference that he was not naturally inclined to sin. He was, in fact, very much like Adam. A perfect human, with no natural inclination to sin, being subjected to temptation to sin.

The sacrifice lies in that he was under no obligation to help us. He choose to. The sacrifice lies in that he would be subjected to all of our troubles, under no fault of his own, and under the obligation to not to fail, while bearing the whole destiny of mankind on his shoulders. And yet, he choose to.

And because he did not fail, he was rewarded, yes, and royally so, and deservingly so. But there was no guarantee that he would not fail. He would have to face Satan, both directly and indirectly. And if he failed, he would actually die because he would be a sinner, then. And yet, he was under no obligation to help us. And yet, he still choose to.

How was that not a sacrifice? As I said before, I beg to differ.

a reply to: Leahn

God's rules.

What rules?

Genesis 4:6
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

There's no hope of "mastering sin" by believing that someone else's spilled blood will magically remove "sin". There is no such natural law or rule that says the murder of an innocent victim will "save the world".

You believe your standard of sacrifice to be superior to God's and demand that He subjects Himself to your standard instead.

Everybody has to die. If Jesus existed, so did he. Those are the rules. Jesus' death was no greater sacrifice than my own death. We are ALL spiritual being have a temporary physical experience.