The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice.

reply to post by Unity_99


I'm in agreement with you in regards to the symbolism of the cross and transfiguration. I'd never heard or considered the three as 3 levels but I've long held peter as the base disciple with john being the highest. Sometimes it needs to be connected for you. Thanks.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

And you do realize that Christianity has also punished people much like Jesus.

I think that you are being confused by labels.
Real Christianity would be these people you are referring to who are being "punished", and the usurpers of that name are like the religious institution that killed Jesus, who are only "religious" in name.

Christianity has been guilty of the very same thing your jumping up and down about the Romans.

If you are going to use such language, could you at least give me the benefit of quoting where I was doing such a thing?

edit on 7-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yes yes yes. Christianity to me is the problem. Not Jesus. Christians just don't get his message for the most part. Everything is so skewed by "church" teachings. For thoes who have ears to hear there are 2 churches. The harlot and the bride. And I'm not talking catholic vs Protestant. "Come out of her MY PEOPLE"

reply to post by Joecroft


Job well done, Joecroft. It is true that Christ Jesus was just trying to teach the Israelites a true message of the Kingdom. Logically, if you went out and taught people the way Jesus did, most countries would throw you in jail for years. In the U.S., you would most likely be "booed and hissed" and could be beaten up by those who don't see the big picture. Although like Master Jesus, you would also pick up a disciple here and there, but not many. Because the Spiritual Path is a narrow road just like the top of a pyramid. How do I know this? Because I also teach what the Master did in our modern times in the streets and even outside the United States. I have been threatened by so many religious people, I have stopped counting years ago. I even lost my job/business before due to my teachings. But it is always about the love. You want people to know what you know....how this knowledge and wisdom can benefit every walk of life.

So you see, Master Jesus was a great teacher and he still is. But that was all he was--a teacher. His blood can not save anybody. All he did was to show the way to salvation. In modern times, we call it ascension, or the path back to ONENESS with God. As my other Brother said, Master Jesus was not sent by God, he himself came here by his own free will, just the same as you and I. You may not understand this through the trials and errors of life. But I know that one day you will, for you have the Kingdom of Heaven within your hearts.

ctophil
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Job well done, Joecroft. It is true that Christ Jesus was just trying to teach the Israelites a true message of the Kingdom. Logically, if you went out and taught people the way Jesus did, most countries would throw you in jail for years. In the U.S., you would most likely be "booed and hissed" and could be beaten up by those who don't see the big picture. Although like Master Jesus, you would also pick up a disciple here and there, but not many. Because the Spiritual Path is a narrow road just like the top of a pyramid. How do I know this? Because I also teach what the Master did in our modern times in the streets and even outside the United States. I have been threatened by so many religious people, I have stopped counting years ago. I even lost my job/business before due to my teachings. But it is always about the love. You want people to know what you know....how this knowledge and wisdom can benefit every walk of life.

The spiritual path is very narrow, it has to be because supreme focus is required, no ego distractions. Yes one would like others to have the knowledge you have but its a purely individual soul growth (kindof like the ones wanting PROOF of how and why you came to specific conclusions regarding this world and the off world existances) they are not ready for the information unfortunately (just as if not more so valid). Love, empathy, compassion are tools and very effective.

ctophilSo you see, Master Jesus was a great teacher and he still is. But that was all he was--a teacher. His blood can not save anybody. All he did was to show the way to salvation. In modern times, we call it ascension, or the path back to ONENESS with God. As my other Brother said, Master Jesus was not sent by God, he himself came here by his own free will, just the same as you and I. You may not understand this through the trials and errors of life. But I know that one day you will, for you have the Kingdom of Heaven within your hearts.

As usual you speak a similar truth Ctophil; you are on the Path of Knowlege, the 'warrior's path' "because of the courage, determination, and constant struggle required to gain spiritual knowledge and defeat the ego for control of the process of consciousness evolution. This path requires considerable intellectual capacity and is more suited to the linear thinking of the the Western mind than the alternatives. It is on the path of Knowledge that you learn, firsthand, about the larger reality and how to manipulate energy to put the so-called paranormal or psychic phenomina to work in the the service of spiritual growth." Ibid Thomas Campbell "My Big TOE" page 448. Of course had Jesus lived today would have been ostracized as being clinically insane (no wonder he hasnt reappeared physically as a second coming, prevailing only as the physical messenger of off world ideas to change mankinds destiny) and would also explain his manipulation of matterform interpreted as 'miracles'.

reply to post by ctophil

His blood can not save anybody. All he did was to show the way to salvation.

OK, but how did he do that, exactly?
1 John 5:6a
This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. . . .
(2011 NIV)
Jesus is who he is not just from his baptism to this mission he was sent to fulfill, of spreading the gospel, but also going through his suffering and death, and then, ultimately his resurrection.

reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness

Originally posted by VoiceinTheWilderness

When I have time I'll create a new thread to respond to your post above (God willing).

Ok…I look forward to seeing your thread response…

Originally posted by VoiceinTheWilderness
Keep in mind that you don't have to believe any of this but we have to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). You have taken the scriptures out of context above but this is understandable because only the Jesus of the Bible can open the mind to understand.

Those scriptures can stand alone on their own, irrespective of the context.

And you don’t seem to have read between the lines, in my posts. I already understand, because God and Jesus, have shown me the truth.

Here’s the deal, I’ll answer 2 of your questions, and then you must answer, two of mine, I’ll put them at the bottom of this post.

Originally posted by VoiceinTheWilderness
In the meantime, I have the same question that I asked earlier:

1) What is the Gospel?

The Gospels are the books that the early church decided, were going to be, the only word of God. But I believe they edited, and added too the Christian Gnostic texts, which I believe predated, the 4 Gospels. There are many similar parallels between both religions, and also some key differences.

But Jesus truth of course, still shines like a light, not only in the 4 gospels, (if you can discern it i.e. search for Gods truth), but in the Gnostic texts as well.

Originally posted by VoiceinTheWilderness
2) According to the teaching of the Bible, who is Jesus the Christ?

You do realize that this is a question that’s been debated for centuries. A lot Depends on who you ask, different non – Trinitarian churches, will give you a different answer to it.

Trinitarians will give you the standard reply, that He’s part of the three in one Godhead. Some say he’s like and Angel. Muslims will tell you He’s only a prophet. Others, (some on this thread) will say, He’s just a teacher.

I personally believe that Jesus is The Son of God, which is not only mentioned in the 4 gospels, but in some of the Gnostic texts. But even if I’m wrong about that, the ultimate truth, is that God spoke through Jesus, which is the most important thing, above all else IMO, and puts the emphasis back onto his message.


Questions…

(1) If Jesus death is what excuses/saves people of all their sins, then why does Jesus say “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance”…why the need to repent, if Jesus did it all on the cross…?

(2) Can anyone be saved without Jesus message…? (and for argument sake, well just go with the standard Christian definition, of what being “saved” means)


- JC

reply to post by technomage1


Jesus did not remove sin.

He took upon himself the consequences of our sins.

This allows an alternate path for our ultimate destiny, something other than as 'one condemned and guilty'. The law is not abolished. It still stands, but now it is fulfilled differently in a way that allows us to "walk".

In regard to those saying "how can a loving God allow such an atrocious death?', with a little consideration, you will see that the requirement for justice from God is absolute.

Think about it, what would you think of a judge that let criminals go free with hardly a slap on the wrist? That judge would not be doing his job and wouldn't be worth paying. Society would not be protected from evil doers and the judge would essentially be making the law a total waste of time and effort.

So to enable the protection of the law, God has to enforce it. He HAS to be just.

And God's standards HAVE to be high. He is trying to get as many of us as He can to the next stage. A future society with evil unresolved and life expectancy essentially infinite, is NOT an optimal solution.

God's standards are so high that, as Jesus said, looking on someone "with lust" is the same as committing adultery with them in your heart and carrying hatred for someone is the same as murdering them in your heart. Heavy stuff but also painfully, self evidently, true.

The law mandated that "the wages of sin is death" (which I take to mean total non-existence). So for someone to stand as our proxy for punishment, they would have to be in the same situation under the law as everyone that they proxied for but would have to be free from the consequences of their own sin. In all of human history, only Jesus, who was fully human (and also fully God) met the criteria of being sinless, human and volunteering for the sacrifice.

There is also an issue of the title deed to the world. Man was originally given it (dominion over the world and everything in it) but lost it to Satan at the fall. Jesus, being human and also the creator (refer to the book of John, chapter 1), has the right to reclaim it, bringing the whole world under His Kingdom and restoring what was annexed, into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Why Jesus had to die is also a mystery, something that we humans cannot fully understand, and yet we must accept that God had good reason and that through this incredible self-sacrifice, God is showing that He loves and cares for us in a fairly extreme way. He's definitely no "ivory tower" remote authoritarian in this.

reply to post by Joecroft


The "documentary hypothesis" was abandoned nearly 100 years ago.

The reasons that they believed that Isaiah had several (later) authors flies against tradition, logic and history.

Rabbinical scrolls, in use, last about 800 years (tanned skins, treated reverentially, untouched by human hands). So at the time of the Babylonian captivity (and hundreds of years afterwards) they would have had the the original scroll penned by Isaiah.

For someone to deface a scroll, revered by the community for generations, by adding to it, would be punishable by death.

There is no way that Isaiah had more than one author.

reply to post by chr0naut


This isn't the documentary hypothesis, but current scholarship. Isaiah was almost surely written by multiple people. At the very least, if you take the American Evangelical stance, you will have to admit that Ezra edited the entire OT. After the babylonian captivity, the script was changed from paleo-hebrew, a semi hieroglyphic writing, to the square script that we have now. Place names were given their current names, and sometimes an editors note is in there.

And also like Joe pointed out the multiple instances of "sacrifice and burnt offering I did not desire", or "in the day I brought you up out of Egypt, I did not give you commands concerning Sacrifice". Well who the heck did then???? Moses, Deuteronomists, the lying scribes, I'm not sure, but I do know God does not command sacrifice, and never has. At least not the Abba of Jesus. Anyway this brings us back to a documentary hypothesis type of understanding. I don't buy the DH personally, but there are clearly multiple voices within the Bible as a whole, and also within certain books, like Isaiah.

Also there is a big difference between the masoretic text and the LXX. So to say that there could be no tampering with the text is an unsupportable view IMO. Just to let you know I've lived almost my whole life under the modern evangelical paradigm. I know all the arguments. I've read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" the whole way through. And made a small group study out of it.

reply to post by Joecroft

You do realize that this is a question that’s been debated for centuries.

Yes and they settled it in 325 A.D (www.gotquestions.org...). Only those that are outside of the church are still trying to figure it out.

A lot Depends on who you ask, different non – Trinitarian churches, will give you a different answer to it. Trinitarians will give you the standard reply, that He’s part of the three in one Godhead. Some say he’s like and Angel. Muslims will tell you He’s only a prophet. Others, (some on this thread) will say, He’s just a teacher.

Opinions are many and endless. At the end of the day we shouldn't be concerned with opinions but what saith the scriptures.

I personally believe that Jesus is The Son of God, which is not only mentioned in the 4 gospels, but in some of the Gnostic texts. But even if I’m wrong about that, the ultimate truth, is that God spoke through Jesus, which is the most important thing, above all else IMO, and puts the emphasis back onto his message.

The reason why I focus on this is because Christianity is all about CHRIST, the Son of God. He is not a means to an end but the end itself (John 17:3). Many people come to Christ just for His messages/teachings and that’s all they’re interested in and yet His own messages point to Him and they're not willing to come to Him.

"But even if I'm wrong about that..." Here's what can happen:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

I just want to probe a little more to see where you're coming from: Are you saying that Jesus is the Son of God just to get it over with or do you truly and deeply believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, what do you mean that Jesus is the Son of God: 1) He is God's eternal Son or 2) He's the Son like the rest of us are or 3) He's the Son like how Angels and Adam are called sons of God?

Also the GOSPEL message is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and the Gospel is about Christ: His death, burial and resurrection, according to the scriptures. Do you believe in this?

These are very important questions because there is another jesus, another spirit and another gospel out there. For your information, my final and absolute authority is the 66 Books in the Bible.

reply to post by chr0naut

The law mandated that "the wages of sin is death" (which I take to mean total non-existence).

That is a small part of a longer sentence written by Paul in the New Testament book of Romans, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you are trying to say that it means.
Paul was making a comparison between what the system of this world has to offer, and what God's plan for those who believe has to offer.
It's like that old saying, the only sure things in life are death and taxes, where you can rest assured that the natural world has no shortage of death.
He is using as a rhetorical device the well known thing back then of how the Roman military took care of its soldiers, which was that no matter what, they always were provided with a daily food ration, which is the terminology Paul is using, that comes from that system.

The confusion comes from salvation theorists who are grasping for anything in the Bible to support their pet theories, taking that and completely reversing Paul's point by making "wage", which is a form of payment, and making it out to mean something like a denomination of debt.

God is not stuck where He is somehow forced to have to extract payment for satisfying some sort of sin debt.
I realize that Medieval theologians had that sort of idea, probably based on a Roman thinking in their justice system, where all crimes had to be settled, one way or another. This would be exemplified by situations where there would be an injured party who demanded restitution.

zardust
reply to post by chr0naut

 

This isn't the documentary hypothesis, but current scholarship. Isaiah was almost surely written by multiple people. At the very least, if you take the American Evangelical stance, you will have to admit that Ezra edited the entire OT. After the babylonian captivity, the script was changed from paleo-hebrew, a semi hieroglyphic writing, to the square script that we have now. Place names were given their current names, and sometimes an editors note is in there.

And also like Joe pointed out the multiple instances of "sacrifice and burnt offering I did not desire", or "in the day I brought you up out of Egypt, I did not give you commands concerning Sacrifice". Well who the heck did then???? Moses, Deuteronomists, the lying scribes, I'm not sure, but I do know God does not command sacrifice, and never has. At least not the Abba of Jesus. Anyway this brings us back to a documentary hypothesis type of understanding. I don't buy the DH personally, but there are clearly multiple voices within the Bible as a whole, and also within certain books, like Isaiah.

Also there is a big difference between the masoretic text and the LXX. So to say that there could be no tampering with the text is an unsupportable view IMO. Just to let you know I've lived almost my whole life under the modern evangelical paradigm. I know all the arguments. I've read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" the whole way through. And made a small group study out of it.

edit on 8 2 2014 by zardust because: Added the last paragraph

The idea that Isaiah was written by more than one person is due to the fact that Isaiah, son of Amoz could not have known about the captivity in Babylon and the subsequent restoration.

But, he WAS a prophet. In fact the WHOLE of the book was essentially "in the future" from his perspective but he still wrote as if events were occurring right then or had already occurred.

Isaiah was very educated and erudite and the entire book is written in the same academically advanced style with many picturesque metaphors and plays on words. It doesn't change style during the book.

The calligraphy changed from paleo-hebrew AFTER the captivity. So assigning changes to the book DURING the captivity (as most of these "scholars" do), as being because it was transliterated into the new lettering, is just illogical.

During this period, the original scrolls were not allowed to be modified. It was only centuries later where The Masorettes added vowel points (and later cantillation points). They didn't allow notes in the margins at this early stage, either. Instead, they had separate rabbinical commentaries.

Your quote "in the day I brought you up out of Egypt, I did not give you commands concerning Sacrifice" is not from Isaiah. It is from from Jeremiah 7:22. The other quote is from Psalms 40:6. Both are speaking of something quite different from each other and need to be read in context, not lumped together and quoted out of place. There are, however, a few quotes from Isaiah where God says that He would rather that the people obey His laws rather than have sacrifices and feasts. But this can't be 'spun' as easily to try and negate the requirement and prophecy of Christ's sacrifice. God plainly gave the laws regarding sacrifice in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and scattered through the old testament books) and even the 'Akedah' in Genesis also plainly pre-figures the Father giving the sacrifice of His Son, so I think it is plain that the quoted passages do not have the meaning that you have inferred.

The Masoretic, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll versions of Isaiah are almost identical and while there was some attempt to translate possible references to Jesus out of the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus and so are in high agreement on the actual translation of the original text.

So, I'll disagree with the "scholars".

jmdewey60
reply to post by chr0naut

 

The law mandated that "the wages of sin is death" (which I take to mean total non-existence).

That is a small part of a longer sentence written by Paul in the New Testament book of Romans, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you are trying to say that it means.
Paul was making a comparison between what the system of this world has to offer, and what God's plan for those who believe has to offer.
It's like that old saying, the only sure things in life are death and taxes, where you can rest assured that the natural world has no shortage of death.
He is using as a rhetorical device the well known thing back then of how the Roman military took care of its soldiers, which was that no matter what, they always were provided with a daily food ration, which is the terminology Paul is using, that comes from that system.

The confusion comes from salvation theorists who are grasping for anything in the Bible to support their pet theories, taking that and completely reversing Paul's point by making "wage", which is a form of payment, and making it out to mean something like a denomination of debt.

God is not stuck where He is somehow forced to have to extract payment for satisfying some sort of sin debt.
I realize that Medieval theologians had that sort of idea, probably based on a Roman thinking in their justice system, where all crimes had to be settled, one way or another. This would be exemplified by situations where there would be an injured party who demanded restitution.

edit on 9-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Genesis 2:17
Isaiah 3:11

reply to post by jmdewey60


Oops, for some reason my previous post in response to your was truncated.

It was:

Genesis 2:17
Proverbs 11:19
Ezekiel 18:4

reply to post by chr0naut


Second time it truncated??

What's goin' on?

I typed a stack of text both times and each time have only a few lines? Oh well, it's late and I'm tired.

reply to post by chr0naut

"Quote" my post.
It looks as though the glitch both times was caused by the non-printing symbol combination "

reply to post by chr0naut

Genesis 2:17
Proverbs 11:19
Ezekiel 18:4

The first verse is the caution to Adam about death from eating from the wrong tree.
The second one is that evil doers will bring about their own death.
The third one is ". . . the soul who sins will die."

These don't describe a sin-debt that has to be "payed", or is transferable to another person who can pay it.

Paul takes up the theme from the Eden story and says that in the natural scheme of things people die, which is a result of sin in the beginning.

Proverbs is a group of wise truisms but not especially theological, rather astute observations.

Ezekiel is speaking for the god of Israel who is saying the people belong to Him and He will decide who will suffer the consequences of their actions, rather than some automatic function that is part of nature.

reply to post by chr0naut

Originally posted by chr0naut
The "documentary hypothesis" was abandoned nearly 100 years ago.

According to the source in my link, that I’m about to give you, it was only abandoned 40 years ago, not 100. But I even disagree with that, because I’ve found sources debating it’s usefulness, as early as 2005! And also no one owns the “documentary hypothesis”, its been used and developed by many other scholars since its original conception.

Anyway, there has been a new resurgence in the "documentary hypothesis" except they’re now calling it the “Neo-Documentary Hypothesis”. Which is pretty much the same thing as the DH, except they’ve updated and refined the techniques. You can read all about it here.

Originally posted by chr0naut
The reasons that they believed that Isaiah had several (later) authors flies against tradition, logic and history.

Rabbinical scrolls, in use, last about 800 years (tanned skins, treated reverentially, untouched by human hands). So at the time of the Babylonian captivity (and hundreds of years afterwards) they would have had the the original scroll penned by Isaiah.

For someone to deface a scroll, revered by the community for generations, by adding to it, would be punishable by death.

There is no way that Isaiah had more than one author.

But whoever wrote Isaiah 1:11-13, is clearly against sacrifices, so just based on that alone, it doesn’t logically add up, that the same author wrote Isaiah 53.

And I don’t like to quote Wikipedia, but scholars have pretty much proven there case.

Here are a few extracts…I’ve tried to highlight the important parts…

Isaiah identifies itself as the words of the 8th century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is ample evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian exile and later. The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles: Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from exile. While one part of the consensus still holds – virtually no one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person – this perception of Isaiah as made up of three rather distinct sections underwent a radical challenge in the last quarter of the 20th century. A great deal of current research concentrates on the book's essential unity, with Isaiah 1–33 projecting judgement and restoration for Judah, Jerusalem and the nations, and chapters 34–66 presupposing that judgement has already taken place and restoration is at hand. It can thus be read as an extended meditation on the destiny of Jerusalem into and after the Exile

The newer approach looks at the book in terms of its literary and formal characteristics, rather than authors, and sees in it a two-part structure divided between chapters 33 and 34:
· 1–33 – Warnings of judgement and promises of subsequent restoration for Jerusalem, Judah and the nations;

· 34–66 – Judgement has already taken place and restoration is at hand.

The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles in the book of Isaiah. A typical outline based on this understanding of the book sees its underlying structure in terms of the identification of historical figures who might have been their authors:

· 1–39 – Proto-Isaiah, containing the words of the original Isaiah;

· 40–55 – Deutero-Isaiah, the work of an anonymous Exilic author;

· 56–66 – Trito-Isaiah, an anthology of about twelve passages.
…

Proto-Isaiah is written in the mid 8th century…And Deutero-Isaiah, revolves around events in the mid 6th century.
That’s just too big a gap, to have been realistically written, by the same author.

While it is widely accepted that the book of Isaiah is rooted in a historic prophet called Isaiah, it is also widely accepted that this 8th century prophet did not write Isaiah the book.

The observations which have led to this are as follows:
Historical situation → Chapters 40–55 presuppose that Jerusalem has already been destroyed (they are not framed as prophecy) and the Babylonian exile is already in effect – they speak from a present in which the Exile is about to end.

Chapters 56–66 assume an even later situation, in which the people are already returned to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple is already under way.

Anonymity → Isaiah's name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.

Style → There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40; numerous key words and phrases found in one section are not found in the other.

These observations led scholars to the conclusion that the book can be conveniently divided into three sections, labelled Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah.

Early modern-period scholars treated Isaiah as independent collections of sayings by three individual prophets, brought together at a much later period, about 70 BC, to form the present book. The second half of the 20th century saw a marked change in approach, and scholars have begun to detect a deliberate arrangement of materials to give the book an overarching theological message

Source


It’s important to note, that Chapters 40–55, are speaking from a present perspective in which the exile is already happening, and are then prophesying, how that will come to an end.

In other words, you don’t build prophecies, on top of prophecies. One event is clearly framed in the present, because it’s already happening, which means the real prophecies are those based around those presently occurring events, and how they will turn out etc….

To used your own words, there is no way, that Isaiah is all written by the same author; because to believe so, flies in the face of logic, stylistic differences, and the different time periods, in which they were all written in.


- JC

Jesus' ''death'' is often referred to as a ritualistic sin sacrifice, akin to the OT's animal sin sacrifices. And christians teaching sin-sacrifice theology reduce Jesus to a mere sacrifical animal. However, Jesus did not stay ''dead'' and no kind of sacrifice comes back to life after being, well.... sacrificed. At no point during Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection did Jesus ever say anything about how the whole thing was supposed to be one grand sin offering. So where did christians get this idea from? This so called ''sacrifice'' was carried out by pagan soldiers... It was just another days work for them, and they sure did not intend to ''sacrifice'' anything to anybody. Jesus' execution has been misinterpreted as a ''sacrifice''.

Sin sacrifice theology has one more problem. The prophetic book of Ezekiel says the animal sin sacrifices are prophesied to return! So If Jesus was the ''perfect'' and ultimate sacrifice for sins, then just whats the point of going back to sacrificing animals?