Christianity is built around Jesus Christ...

[OlderButWiser]

...obviously. Or more importantly that Christ died for our sins. Which to me means he sacrificed himself for us. What I don't get is; why is that such a big deal? If the stories of his death are true then it wasn't a very pleasant death, sure. But, lot's of people have died to save other people and lots of people die unpleasant deaths. Why don't we worship them?

[Squatch]

1. Were they the son of God?

[OlderButWiser]

3. Well, yeah, he sent...

...his only Son to save us from ourselves. But it seems like since he is all powerful and stuff he could conjur up another son. And lots of mortal sons have died rescuing others.

[winter999]

5. Son is really a misnomer. He was

the embodiment of God made flesh. Remember just one God.

[OlderButWiser]

6. You're right, of course...

...it's that confusing Trinity thing.

But some of the Bible quotes make it even more confusing
"Father why have you forsaken me?" comes to mind.

[Spangle]

10. Ah

Not to argue, but just to point out that not all believe the son and the father are the same. Remembering that might help to understand some one elses comments.

[pingzing58]

24. God revealed himself (sic) as One. But in the "oeconomia salutis" or the economy of salvation

in history God has revealed his Son and the Holy Spirit. Further since the Father and Son are one (John 10:36) the early church fathers decided that the Son and Holy Spirit could not be "demi-gods" or "semi-urges" as in the Greek pantheon of Gods and cosmology. God has revealed God's self as three persons in One God in history.

[BurtWorm]

39. Just one God? And Jesus was it?

Is that what you believe?

[notadmblnd]

8. Christ refered to himself as the Son of Man, not the son of God

this is a common misconception of Christianity IMO

[tonkatoy57]

12. Good Point.

Especially in Mark, considered the earliest Gospel, Jesus always dodges the question of whether he is the Messiah. In Mark, when asked by Ponitius Pilate, if he was the Messiah Jesus answers, "I am". However the original Greek is a little less definite. It can be translated as "I am" or "Am I"?. In one of the later Gospels I believe Jesus answers, "You say that I am".

In Mark at least, the primary message of Jesus is that he is inviting his followers to come with him, to drink from the same cup. None do, so the main message of Mark is that of the failed follower.

To the original poster's point, substitutionary atonement certainly isn't a message of Mark and while the later Gospels certainly allude to it it's more how you think about the Gospels. Are they prophesy realized or are they prophesy historisized? I tend to come down on the side of using the Law and the Prophets to frame the story of Jesus and as a way to make sense of the Jesus story for early Jewish followers of the Jesus movement.

The whole idea of substitutionary atonement, or "Jesus died for my sins" is a rather late development in Christianity. I believe that St. Anselm in @1100 was the first to really make an argument for that claim. Or at least the first one the church listened to.

[OlderButWiser]

15. It's certainly convenient that...

...excerpts from the Bible can be interpreted in 180 degree directions.
----------------------------------------------
It can be translated as "I am" or "Am I"

[tonkatoy57]

16. Well,

in this instance it's not so much the Bible as it is the Greek language of that time. It's been a while since I read about it but if I recall correctly the particular phrase is one that relies on context.

[Igel]

19. What to make of the paschal lamb imagery, then?

That goes much further back than 1000 AD, and all the differences between "covering" and "substituting for" are quibbles and how to frame the text.

[Zebedeo]

22. RU sure?

Here's what Jesus Himself said about whether He is the Son of God:

"'What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" John 10:36

Here's another:

"'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" Matt. 16:15-17

Still not convinced that Jesus claimed His own divinity? How about this one:

"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Do you know what the expression "Son of Man" means? Certainly, Jesus was fully human and was therefore a man. But He was also fully divine and therefore God. The "Son of Man" moniker has significance because it would have been understood by the Jews of the First Century as a reference to this prophetic passage from the Book of Daniel:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

So, this "Son of Man" that Jesus called Himself is no ordinary man. He is someone who will come with the clouds of heaven and be given glory and sovereign power and be worshiped by nations and men of every language and have an everlasting dominion and indestructible kingdom. Does that sound like an ordinary man to you?

Still in doubt as to whether Jesus' use of "Son of Man" to describe Himself really was a reference to this figure from the Book of Daniel? Read Matthew 26:64 in which Jesus said:

"In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Matt. 26:64

[notadmblnd]

33. yeah, pretty sure...

let me break your argument down.

"'What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" John 10:36

this is Jesus asking a question as indicated by the question mark. He is not stating he is the son of God.


"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

again, this is not Jesus stating that he is the son of God. He is saying he and the father are one. Not Me and my Father are one. You or I could say "I and the Father are one" and be sincere in this statement. To me it simply means that they are of like minds.

"'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" Matt. 16:15-17

here, I think a couple of other verses are pertinent. With Jesus himself asking "who do men say that I the son of man am?" So we have Jesus referring to himself as the son of man. Opinions were divided regarding the identity of Jesus, but many thought that he was the risen John the Baptist. Hence the quotes you cited, which of course we again have someone else claiming that Jesus is the son of God, not Jesus himself.

16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.




"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."


again, this is someone else describing Jesus. Not Jesus making the claim that he is the son of God.

"In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Matt. 26:64

26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Again, this is Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man. So yes, I would say that I'm quite sure that I was correct in my original statement that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man.

Now I don't know where your other assumptions came from. But that was my statement and I'm sticking by it.

[cyborg_jim]

30. No - so it's worse for them.

[BurtWorm]

38. Do you really believe God Almighty has one half-human son?

[Squatch]

40. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God

[patrice]

2. All of those who Love are One in Christ.

Although they no longer claim me, that's called "The Mystical Body of Christ" in the Catholic Church.

.................................

"uniqueness", a.k.a. being separate, is an illusion, thus:

Oil Royalty = Pilate;
BushCo = Herod;
All of the Innocent Dead = Jesus;
You = ?

[winter999]

4. Jesus not only died for our sins but

went to hell for 3 days to pay for our sins. That would have been the end of the story and probably the end of Christianity, but then the Miracle of the Resurrection happened. Jesus was physically brought back to life and rose physically up to heaven (no terrestrial body remaining). Not your typical martyr.

[OlderButWiser]

7. What good Christian...

...wouldn't volunteer for the same assignment?

[John Gauger]

43. I don't quite understand all that.

It seems unnecessary. Why should he have to go down into hell so that our sins could be forgiven? Why not just forgive them, no muss, no fuss? That one man should have to endure all that stuff for our sake seems arbitrary and capricious. Firstly, how does his suffering redeem us? What is so special about his suffering? Haven't many billions of other people suffered similar and worse ordeals? What is the mechanism effected by his suffering that produced a redemption of our sins that has been absent from all other suffering? And why should only he have to suffer? That seems terribly unfair. Why doesn't everybody have to suffer for their sins? And why not just wipe the slate clean? It seems much simpler but with the same consequences.

[crawfish]

9. None of the others ever came back. (nm)

[OlderButWiser]

11. By "none of the others" you mean...

...mortals who have sacrificed their lives to save others? But wouldn't it be within God's powers to make that happen?

[Spangle]

13. Well

Before Christ, animal Sacrifice was used for the same thing. And since humans are sinful by nature, such sacrifices were needed yearly. It was considered to 'cleanse' the sins. One must be 'clean' before God.

Christ's Sacrfice replaced it for everyone. Doesn't have to be repeated over again. Because of Christ, the sacrifice for our sins has been made, we are cleansed of sin and can go before God. Without him and his sacrifice, we could not.

[OlderButWiser]

14. Couldn't God...

...couldn't an all powerful God have swept away our sin with a snap of his fingers?

[Igel]

20. Yes, of course, he could have. One would think.

He could have announced that people had to keep the sabbath, and then changed his mind. He could have said he was establishing a covenant with Israel, then decided other. He could have announced that the penalty for sin is death, and then said, "No, not really. Party on."

But since one of the ways he defined himself is in constancy, he'd be defeating the entire idea. Why believe him when he's likely to change his mind a bit later for no purpose.

I think it says something that, at least in my belief system, the one who instituted the law/penalty system put himself under it, and then underwent the penalty in the stead of those he loved when he didn't need to.

[OlderButWiser]

21. Wow! You see constancy in the Bible?

Because when I read it the only thing that is constant is it's inconsistency.

[trotsky]

26. Constancy?

Like requiring animal sacrifices, but then changing his mind and having his "son" take the place of those?

Or forbidding the consumption of pork, or meat with dairy, but then changing his mind, allowing Christians to enjoy a delicious bacon cheeseburger?

Or destroying all of mankind save one family, then changing his mind and promising later to never do it again?

God is constant. Heh. That's a good one.

[Sanctified]

31. Poor examples in my opinion but if thats the best you can bring.

God required a sacrifice for sins and sacrificed His only Son for our sins, nothing changed.

God forbade the Children of Israel from eating pork, Gentiles were free to eat all the delicious bacon cheeseburgers they wanted while the Children of Israel to this day do not.

God cleansed the earth of all sinners except for one family then made a promise never to do it again and to this day he has not, where has he changed?

[trotsky]

32. Poor answers in my opinion but if that's the best you can do.

God required a sacrifice for sins and sacrificed His only Son for our sins, nothing changed.

Before animals were OK. Now animals aren't needed. Change.

God forbade the Children of Israel from eating pork, Gentiles were free to eat all the delicious bacon cheeseburgers they wanted while the Children of Israel to this day do not.

So he has different rules depending on the circumstances. Change.

God cleansed the earth of all sinners except for one family then made a promise never to do it again and to this day he has not, where has he changed?

He viciously murdered ("cleansed" sounds so sanitary, doesn't it?) EVERY man, woman, child, and INFANT (those damn sinful babies) except for a small family. If you believe a global flood literally happened, that is. Then he changed his mind and said he wouldn't ever do it again. Change.

[Sanctified]

34. Nothing Changed

He requires sacrifice for Sin, according to Leviticus the sacrifice varies on the sin and who commits it. For the sins of the world past and future it required the sacrifice of His Son.

Gentiles were eating pork before and after He set the rules for the Children of Israel.

After the flood He did not change His mind and decide what He did was wrong, He just made a covenant with Noah that he would not curse the earth for the misdeeds of man or kill every man again.

Change for God would require that He goes against one of His covenants which He has not done.

[trotsky]

35. Sounds exactly like

"the surge is working!"

Whatever lengths you have to go to, to prop up your evidently weak faith.

[Sanctified]

36. Thank you! ;-) n/t

[nels25]

17. As someone has already pointed out

it is the resurrection of the Christ (celebrated last Sunday as Easter) that makes all the difference.

In prevailing over death he became the vehicle for others to also do so if they choose to believe.

But remember AND I STRESS THIS it is and individual choice and each individual can choose how they may or may want to deal with it.

It is always up to the individual, God wanted it that way.

[Deep13]

18. Christianity is built around Roman civil administration.

JC was not the founder of Christianity. St. Paul brought it to the classical world and Constantine standardized it and made it part of the Roman institution.

Killing JC to save third persons from their sins only makes an ounce of sense if one believes in blood sacrifice. Pagans of the time believed that one had to sacrifice blood for the gods to hear a prayer. Usually it was the blood of animals, but sometimes it was human blood. The whole circumcision thing from the OT is essentially a blood sacrifice as the price of admittance into the clan.

[knitter4democracy]

23. He died to pay the blood-debt for all of Creation.

It's a bit more than one person dying to save a buddy in battle or to keep a community safe.

[Evoman]

25. Don't try to make sense of it...unless you believe in it (and even if you do)

it doesn't REALLY make sense.

Christians can't really explain it...that's why many of them just try to guilt you into:

Theist: B.b.b.ut..HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS! GOD LOVED YOU SO MUCH HE KILLED HIS ONLY SON

Evoman: Yeah, but why?

Theist: FOR YOUR SINS. HIS ONLY SON! CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT?!!

Evoman: Uh..not really...cause I don't need to have someone die in order to forgive...

Theist: SINS! HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS! HIS ONLY SON!

Evoman: Yeah..you said that.but explain it to me.


Sometimes, they will try to explain it as if it makes logical sense:

Theist: They used to kill small animals. But Christ died so that we wouldn't have to..he was sacrificed so we would be forgiven for all thime.

But again, it doesn't REALLY make sense because you wouldn't think a good, forgiving god would need blood sacrafices. Not only that, but it doesn't really make sense that we could still (if you believe in it) go to hell if his sacrafice absolved us of our sins. Nope. You have to actually BELIEVE in the whole fucking insane thing as well. Which seems to me pretty fucking arbitrary. After all, why should simple belief or credulity be held more important than actions? But somehow it makes some sort of sense to christians.

[trotsky]

27. That's when the next level of absurdity kicks in.

It MUST be true, BECAUSE it's absurd. Only god could be so crazy as to be unbelievable. Don't you see?

[Evoman]

28. Ha!

What astounds me, and I've said it on this board, is that people think Jesus had it so bad. Thousands upon thousands of people have suffered worse than Jesus. Jesus had it pretty fucking sweet... a couple of days in hell, then he gets to spend the rest of eternity with old dad in Heaven.

Sorry god, but you didn't really sacrifice your son if you got him back three fucking days later.

"B..b...but god LOANED his only son to absolve of you of your sins"

:rofl:

[Meshuga]

29. Laugh it up

and you might get mauled by two she bears.

[John Gauger]

45. Oh snap!

You, sir or madam, have earned my eternal respect.

[EvilAL]

37. haha loaned.

that's a good one.
I was thinking like he creates a son out of the blue just, I'll make a son and fuck with people. Then makes his life pretty crappy until a torturing death. For everyone's sins. Then send him to hell where Satan must have taken a long weekend. You'd think Jesus would have been raving about hell, the stories he must have told. He's been to hell and back. Been back from heaven yet?

[John Gauger]

44. Wow, that's a really good point.

I never really thought about that. Death doesn't really mean all that much if it isn't permanent. They make such a big deal out of it, because, after all, it's fucking DEATH, the most serious thing in the world. But it isn't really. It's a faux death.

[onager]

48. A faux death by 1/3 of a god...

:rofl:

As to "died for my sins," that would require me to believe in the idea of original sin, which I don't. And that whole idea came from St. Augustine, but it was such a useful marketing tool that the Church hierarchy back-fitted it into the theology.

Original sin was certainly one-size-fits-all. Not even the most innocent creatures on Earth, human babies, were free of original sin.

Or as Wikipedia puts it: (Augustine) concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.

Those eternally frying infants bothered many theologians. One of Augustine's contemporaries and fellow clerics--a Bishop, no less--wrote him a scathing letter, saying that the whole idea of infant damnation was not only un-Xian but inhuman and probably insane.

The whole story is in Charles Freeman's great book, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

[uberllama42]

49. The "three days" idea is one of the most blatant contradictions in the bible

Jesus says he will return after three days and three nights, but in point of fact the Gospels have him being dead for no more than 47 hours. Even counting the days inclusively (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) there is no way Friday night and Saturday constitute three nights. You'd hope that the chronology of the most important event in your religion would be a little more solid than that. No matter, though. It's easy enough to assume that it was three days if you never think about it, which of course most people don't.

[shenmue]

41. Why wouldn't it be a big deal?

Do other people want to die so that sins may be forgiven?

[dmallind]

42. Why does anybody need to die for sins to be forgiven

I don't require death before I forgive bad things, even those done to me - and unlike God I can be physically hurt, I didn't create the people who did the bad things in such a way that they would do so, and I don't give people a choice of forgiveness if they grovel to me, or eternal torment if they don't.

I'm not particularly altruistic or noble or selfless, and yet even I can forgive more easily, at more risk to myself and at less cost to those I forgive than God?

[John Gauger]

46. No, and here's why:

Prove to me that sins exist. You know, you can say all this, you can say Jesus loves us, you can say Jesus died for our sins, you can say that sin is a real thing, but without evidence, it's all pretty meaningless. If I don't know for certain, and accurately, I might add, that my death will actually redeem someone's sins, then I want no part of that business thank you very much. I don't want to die for "might" or "could." I want to know.

[TrogL]

47. Christianity as a religion is built around Paul and Augustine

Christ has almost nothing to do with it.

[jjray7]

50. faith

I agree generally with your point of view; however, it's hard to argue this with a Christian who believes through faith in the theology of the Nicene Creed.
Link: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made ... etc. etc.

If Jesus were but a flesh and blood man, then we may argue the value of his accomplishments made during his human life. But as the one true God, there is no argument possible as to why Jesus is important ... he just is.