Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Any teacher that teaches a doctrine that begins with human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty should lose his or her job for corrupting the morals of minors.
Any teacher that teaches a doctrine that begins with human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty should lose his or her job for corrupting the morals of minors.
You have yet to grasp that Jesus was not a human sacrifice--and that God did not punish him. Yes, a few Christian denominations teach this (I know Calvinism does), but Calvinism does not represent all Christian denominations.
Then what was the crucifixion about?
Then what was the crucifixion about?
In many ways it was about some Pharisees who were in power at the time (Annas, Caiaphas and that family) who were willing to sell out to Rome. It could be said that the ways of man ran head-on into the ways of God. Christ lived his life in obedience to the Father. He offered this life of obedience to God, an example for all of us that we can choose obedience to God over the ways of the world. At the beginning of his ministry, Christ was offered all that Rome and the High Priests had. He chose a different way, and one that led to his death, a death he freely offered. In choosing death, he chose life. That is his model to us: Obedience to God even when it leads to a horrible death.
Now, let's go back to sacrifice. In the Old Testament people offered grain, sheep, a goat--something of value to tell and show God how sorry they were for their sins and their promise to strive to do better. Other times, they laid their hands on a goat, telling of their sins, and then this goat was released into the wilderness, bearing their confessed sins with it. Today Christians (or at least Catholic Christians) offer to God what is most valuable to us--our life in Christ, and our determination to strive for the obedience that is Christ. Isn't our life in Christ the most treasured offering we have for God?
Putting this all together, did God ever punish a bowl of grain or anything else that was offered to him? Then it follows that He would not punish an offering of perfect obedience either. Christ offered up his life, he presented his life to the Father, and received his life back, more glorified than it had been before.
This is what the Crucifixion is all about.
I really am trying to understand you here, but I am getting two messages. At first, you seem to be saying the crucifixion was not a sacrifice, it was martyrdom. He wouldn't just go along with the program so we nailed him up. I get that, but it doesn't jive with the idea that Jesus died for your sins. You then talk about sacrifice, which is how I have always understood the crucifixion. If Jesus was a sacrifice and he was human, then that seems to make it human sacrifice.
The implication of the sacrifice (if that is what you meant) really doesn't involve punishment. When the Aztecs cut out the hearts of their captives, they weren't punishing those people, they were offering them up to God. The idea here is not that God requires punishment (though I suppose one could see that) but God does require blood.
SELF sacrifice.....(from a Calvinist, by the way, we don't teach it either)......Any teacher that teaches a doctrine that begins with human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty should lose his or her job for corrupting the morals of minors.
You have yet to grasp that Jesus was not a human sacrifice--and that God did not punish him. Yes, a few Christian denominations teach this (I know Calvinism does), but Calvinism does not represent all Christian denominations.
Then what was the crucifixion about?
SELF sacrifice.....(from a Calvinist, by the way, we don't teach it either)......
I really am trying to understand you here, but I am getting two messages. At first, you seem to be saying the crucifixion was not a sacrifice, it was martyrdom. He wouldn't just go along with the program so we nailed him up. I get that, but it doesn't jive with the idea that Jesus died for your sins. You then talk about sacrifice, which is how I have always understood the crucifixion. If Jesus was a sacrifice and he was human, then that seems to make it human sacrifice.
Thank you for bearing with me. I do have trouble writing my thoughts plainly. Let's try considering Jesus' priority. Was his priority for becoming man to die for our sins, or was his priority that we might have life and have it more abundantly? An abundant life is a life free of sin, not a life where our sins are free. In the latter we are still enslaved by sin. Jesus was teaching us that while a life of obedience to God may seem (at first glance) to be harder and even worthless, this way of life is actually the more worthwhile. We can imagine someone asking, "But we stop this way of life before it kills us, right?" and Jesus replying, "No, take it right up through death."
Another question that might be asked: "Then when we fail in obedience, we will be punished for disobedience, correct?" And Jesus would reply, "Incorrect. When you fail, repent and return to obedience. God will forgive you."
The implication of the sacrifice (if that is what you meant) really doesn't involve punishment. When the Aztecs cut out the hearts of their captives, they weren't punishing those people, they were offering them up to God. The idea here is not that God requires punishment (though I suppose one could see that) but God does require blood.
Life belongs to God, and blood is often seen as the symbol of life. Oftentimes in Old Testament sacrifice, there was no blood involved. When an animal was killed, it was its blood and some fatty parts that were offered to God. The rest of the animal was shared by priest, family, community. If a sin offering does not require blood, then looking a little more deeply we find something else where blood is required. And that something is a Covenant. Christ's blood is the sign of the New Covenant where mankind may now choose to enter into a right relationship with God--mankind's right relationship with God was restored in/with Christ.
I used the word blood in a more metaphorical sense. Think of it more as life. I can't do this without anthropomorphizing God, but just to make a point.... God has the capacity to forgive, or there could not be forgiveness. So the requirement that something die before there is forgiveness is a choice on the part of God. So, for me, the implication of the sacrifice is that God won't forgive unless something dies. Which seems to me more of a quid pro quo. Perhaps that is the covenant you referred to.
I used the word blood in a more metaphorical sense. Think of it more as life. I can't do this without anthropomorphizing God, but just to make a point.... God has the capacity to forgive, or there could not be forgiveness. So the requirement that something die before there is forgiveness is a choice on the part of God. So, for me, the implication of the sacrifice is that God won't forgive unless something dies. Which seems to me more of a quid pro quo. Perhaps that is the covenant you referred to.
The Good News is, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins," not, "Something must die for the forgiveness of sins." Catholics believe the New Covenant is summed up by the Prophet Jeremiah:
"I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
I don't hold myself out as any sort of expert on Christianity and certainly not Catholic doctrine, so please don't see this as any kind of attack. I'm not a Christian but I really am doing this because I'm interested. I'm trying to understand what you believe.
Would there have been repentance for the forgiveness of sins if Jesus had not been crucified?
I don't hold myself out as any sort of expert on Christianity and certainly not Catholic doctrine, so please don't see this as any kind of attack. I'm not a Christian but I really am doing this because I'm interested. I'm trying to understand what you believe.
Would there have been repentance for the forgiveness of sins if Jesus had not been crucified?
Jesus lived at a time where many Jews were dirt poor. They could barely meet the needs of subsistence for self and family, let alone spare any grain or animal for a sin offering. And there were people who were very rich, and many made their wealth off of those who made their sin offerings: Money changers, priests, etcetera. Now imagine an itinerant preacher spreading the word of, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins..."
Yes, I think that message was taking hold in Jesus' lifetime, and I think it may have scared a lot of people, or at least people who mattered. Jesus was spreading a truth, a truth that did not smother upon his death, but instead began spreading throughout the land.
In my opinion, yes. He forgave King David. We see God's forgiveness all over the Old Testament. Remember, however, the Jews were not interested in spreading the Kingdom of God. He was their God, they were His people.I am talking about forgiveness from God. Had Jesus not been crucified, would God offer forgiveness of sin just as God does now?
In my opinion, yes. He forgave King David. We see God's forgiveness all over the Old Testament. Remember, however, the Jews were not interested in spreading the Kingdom of God. He was their God, they were His people.I am talking about forgiveness from God. Had Jesus not been crucified, would God offer forgiveness of sin just as God does now?
In my opinion, yes. He forgave King David. We see God's forgiveness all over the Old Testament. Remember, however, the Jews were not interested in spreading the Kingdom of God. He was their God, they were His people.I am talking about forgiveness from God. Had Jesus not been crucified, would God offer forgiveness of sin just as God does now?
So not a sacrifice at all. Simply a refusal to back down from a principle. This is a different approach than I have heard. Thank you.
Any teacher that teaches a doctrine that begins with human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty should lose his or her job for corrupting the morals of minors.
You have yet to grasp that Jesus was not a human sacrifice--and that God did not punish him. Yes, a few Christian denominations teach this (I know Calvinism does), but Calvinism does not represent all Christian denominations.
I really am trying to understand you here, but I am getting two messages. At first, you seem to be saying the crucifixion was not a sacrifice, it was martyrdom. He wouldn't just go along with the program so we nailed him up. I get that, but it doesn't jive with the idea that Jesus died for your sins. You then talk about sacrifice, which is how I have always understood the crucifixion. If Jesus was a sacrifice and he was human, then that seems to make it human sacrifice.
Thank you for bearing with me. I do have trouble writing my thoughts plainly. Let's try considering Jesus' priority. Was his priority for becoming man to die for our sins, or was his priority that we might have life and have it more abundantly? An abundant life is a life free of sin, not a life where our sins are free. In the latter we are still enslaved by sin. Jesus was teaching us that while a life of obedience to God may seem (at first glance) to be harder and even worthless, this way of life is actually the more worthwhile. We can imagine someone asking, "But we stop this way of life before it kills us, right?" and Jesus replying, "No, take it right up through death."
Another question that might be asked: "Then when we fail in obedience, we will be punished for disobedience, correct?" And Jesus would reply, "Incorrect. When you fail, repent and return to obedience. God will forgive you."
The implication of the sacrifice (if that is what you meant) really doesn't involve punishment. When the Aztecs cut out the hearts of their captives, they weren't punishing those people, they were offering them up to God. The idea here is not that God requires punishment (though I suppose one could see that) but God does require blood.
Life belongs to God, and blood is often seen as the symbol of life. Oftentimes in Old Testament sacrifice, there was no blood involved. When an animal was killed, it was its blood and some fatty parts that were offered to God. The rest of the animal was shared by priest, family, community. If a sin offering does not require blood, then looking a little more deeply we find something else where blood is required. And that something is a Covenant. Christ's blood is the sign of the New Covenant where mankind may now choose to enter into a right relationship with God--mankind's right relationship with God was restored in/with Christ.
SELF sacrifice.....(from a Calvinist, by the way, we don't teach it either)......Any teacher that teaches a doctrine that begins with human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty should lose his or her job for corrupting the morals of minors.
You have yet to grasp that Jesus was not a human sacrifice--and that God did not punish him. Yes, a few Christian denominations teach this (I know Calvinism does), but Calvinism does not represent all Christian denominations.
Then what was the crucifixion about?
I used the word blood in a more metaphorical sense. Think of it more as life. I can't do this without anthropomorphizing God, but just to make a point.... God has the capacity to forgive, or there could not be forgiveness. So the requirement that something die before there is forgiveness is a choice on the part of God. So, for me, the implication of the sacrifice is that God won't forgive unless something dies. Which seems to me more of a quid pro quo. Perhaps that is the covenant you referred to.
The Good News is, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins," not, "Something must die for the forgiveness of sins." Catholics believe the New Covenant is summed up by the Prophet Jeremiah:
"I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
In my opinion, yes. He forgave King David. We see God's forgiveness all over the Old Testament. Remember, however, the Jews were not interested in spreading the Kingdom of God. He was their God, they were His people.I am talking about forgiveness from God. Had Jesus not been crucified, would God offer forgiveness of sin just as God does now?
