Hawkpeter

In as much that I am left confused over the ambiguity that I find connected to biblical history, the more that I research Christianity the more I am puzzeled as to why, even if it is true, the value of crucifying an immortal Godman is so worthy of being 'the sacrifice' for all the world's sins.

Having recently attended a Christian course for discovering the basis of Christian faith I was left unsatisfied with just about all of my lines of questioning. When asking the above question to several followers, ranging from ministers to laity to life long members of the church council, the response I got was that the sacrifice that God made was with regard to the seperation that Jesus had from God while on the cross. This seperation of the Son from the Father is meant to be the sacrifice that was enough to make up for the sins of the whole of humanity.

Needless to say I wasn't very convinced with this explanation. Not far from my house two weeks before christmas a father swam out to his teenage son who had fell into the sea while rock fishing. The son survived, the father drowned. To me this was a much more impressive sacrifice.


Anyone heard a better explaination as to the value of Jesus' crucifixion?

Eidal

Not to mention that the waters are muddied even more when you consider:

A) God conceptualized the system in which sins must be washed away by blood...

and

B) God knew in advance that He would sacrifice Himself to Himself for doing things that He knew we would do already and that He made us capable of doing in the first place...

It also appears that the only actual "loss" involving said sacrifice is the pain and annoyance involved in having to ressurect oneself. And when you toss omnipotence into the mixture, "loss" suddenly becomes "infinitely small loss"

I'm interested in a Christians interpretation (give me the short version) of why this is a meaningful action on God's part?

My atheist analogy would be me leaving a poisoned steak on the ground near my dog, telling my dog not to eat it, then pulling the steak away at the last moment and sampling a small portion myself so as to get a minor stomach ache (and to compound the confusion involved for any outside observers wondering about the actual significance of nearly killing my dog then eating a bit of poison myself).

I guess it takes a divine mind to sit back and say : ("Whew, I could have done some really confusing things to mess with those mortal's heads. Good thing Jesus gave them easy messages like the crucificition and the trinity! With luck this won't lead to any confusion or misinterpretation...").

Artemus

I also asked the same question when I first heard what christianity was supposed to be about when I was in high school. The concept struck me as ludicrous at the time I heard it.After getting several (often contradictory) explanations from various theists, I concluded that it really was ludicrous. I doubt you will hear a more satisfactory explanation. However, this being BC&H, I'm sure that some of the regulars here can explain how such a belief evolved. As I understand it, the old testament concept of sins being washed away only by blood sacrifices mentioned by Eidal was critical to the development. The suggestion that it was taken from earlier pagan gods that sacrificed themselves for humanity (such as Mithra/Mithras) seems more controversial.

Anyone care to elaborate before I hurt myself?

mike_decock

I don't think many Christians today see the crucifixion in terms of a blood sacrifice but I think it's the only way in which the death of a God-Man acquires any redemptive value.

The sacrificial system was at the core of Judaism. This was the method in which sins were redeemed. They were to bring the best of their flock. The more perfect the sacrificial lamb, the more redemptive value it had.

The gospels depict that Jesus was crucified on passover, at the time when passover lambs were slaughtered. If you look at early Christian iconography, Jesus is usually depicted as a lamb.

What we have is a highly symbolic blood sacrifice. Jesus, the firstborn (just like the firstfruit of flock), is sacrificed on the passover for the redemption of sins. If the blood of a lamb can redeem the sins of one man, how much more redemptive value does the blood of the lamb of God have?

-Mike...

LeftCoast

To expand on the idea of a "sacrifice"; a sacrifice is universally understood to be the permanent forfeiture of some thing of value for some greater good or to achieve some end. Thus, giving ones life for some cause is always referred to as "making the ultimate sacrifice".

In the case of Jesus, there was really no sacrifice at all. Jesus was killed alright, but this only allowed him to return to where he originally came from in the first place, hardly a sacrifice - most of the inconvenience would have revolved around being forced to live as a human being for 33 years, which for a reputedly immortal being is not even worth mentioning.

I've heard some apologists make the claim that "well (the human) Jesus didn't know that he'd be resurrected when he was crucified" and this somehow ennobles and validates the "sacrifice"; however, presumably he was in on the planning so he agreed to the whole scheme before he was cast into human form. He knew he'd be back so there's no sacrifice, again just an inconvenience.

I guess, however, that the slogan "Jesus inconvenienced himself for your sins" just doesn't have the same ring to it……

judge

If you were on death row and I also was on death row and I offered to die in your place my offer would not be accepted. After all I am already under the sentence of death.

But suppose I was not on death row but an innocent and free man. Perhaps then I could offer myself in your place. It would not be quite the same as me also being condemned.

If you really wish to grasp the logical connection between the points you have mentioned the following book covers it all.

http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume5/index.html

"Abstract: This study is about the central message of the Christian faith: the redemption of mankind by the offering of the body of Christ, once for all. From data both scientific and theological, the author discusses some of the physical effects of the Fall of Adam from eating the forbidden fruit which then necessitated the Redeemer's virgin birth and incarnation, of why and how this Redeemer had to be both human and divine, and the physical aspects of the Redeemer's crucifixion and resurrection. Our redemption depends upon the kind of physical body possessed by both the First and the Last Adam. This study reveals how the Plan of Redemption determined just how God had to design mankind and even the very Universe for such an event."

Lanakila

But, why would an omniscient, all-powerful God have to set up the system? The thing is he wouldn't. The only answer to this is, its a made up, manmade system, that causes people to be dependent upon the church to teach them how, to be right with this God.

Hawkpeter

To go along with the analogy though I don't think any guilty feelings would have me allow an innocent man to stand in my place for my own actions. And if i did let that person stand in for me I'd certainly feel like I'd gotten away with something if the person who sat on death row ended up coming back to life.

I agree with Leftcoast's, "...the permanent forfeiture of some thing of value for some greater good or to achieve some end."

I'm still trying to find out what was forfeited and by whom.

I started to read through the link provided by Judge. It is pretty heavy going, not unlike just about all the Biblical literature I try to read. Why does the Bible need a intermediary for me to understand it?

Love Fountain

Hi Hawkpeter,

A better answer not from here but rather a mere view to ponder for the Messiah was sold for the price of a slave for that is what He was worth to those who claimed they knew him best. Yet as the words go, the Messiah who knew no sin was made to put on the sinful nature of the flesh. He spoke constantly about love and mercy, it is mankinds decision to sacrifice and step on the heads of those they put under rule. He has given mankind what it has lusted for in pride, greed, power, envy, jealousy, etc......yet for the sake of those who were caught in between it is allowed to them an opportunity to elect themselves to life when what He did will be evidenced when death is removed along with all its deception of thought that have progressed into actions that carry a consequence of choice in the value of lifes policies relating to the beliefs and understandings that leave out love which is the only guide to life.

Thoughts to ponder.

Happy New Year,
Love Fountain

Kosh

Thanks Mike.

It doesn't explain why a blood sacrifice would forgive sin, but it goes a long way to explaining how the myth of Jesus could have gotten started.