Did Jesus (pubh) die for his followers' sins?!

Salty

I think if we were indeed to educate Muslims better on Christianity, it is to put aside the theology and discuss the social and political side because as I said, that is where most of us humans would find common ground. An important thing to understand about why theology is of less value to outsiders is that it doesn't have a clearly identifiable foundation in this world. For example, there are no legal documents or organisations to represent what we define in our theology. Theology doesn't depict real-world entities and nor does it depict human states of mind that are compatible with the thinking of secular and mainstream culture. The start of meaningful discussion and learning about Christianity begins with real-world entities and phenomena.

Man made political expressions comprise Christendom. Why assert it as the basis of Christianity? Feel free to explain Christendom to a Muslim but why confuse it with Christianity? It only serves to confuse the issue even more.
 
path said:
But as for the Bible being a historic document, I have no idea why that would matter to anyone. The Bible is myth- not a lie, but rather a story that has deep meaning that is true to its faithful followers. The truth is there whether or not it is historically accurate, because the point of the Bible is to initiate a relationship between the mystery of God and the human being. The Bible is a thin point where the Divine touches humanity.

Making it about history, or science for that matter, and trying to prove the Bible is true takes away from what the Bible really is, in my opinion. It reduces the Bible to any other text, where the point is to figure out if it is true or not- its a categorization of literature. To me, scriptures like the Bible are not like any other type of literature and it is pointless to treat them as such. I think most people never think about how attempts to talk about proof or accuracy of scripture are operating out of a worldview that privileges science/history and degrades mythology as if it is worthless, when in fact, it is not. I actually find it to be a bit insulting toward scripture to treat it that way. Studying history and science is for a different purpose. Historical study in relation to scripture is for better understanding of what was written (just like learning another language allows us to translate between the two). It is not for proving or disproving what is said. Whether or not what is said is materially true or not is not as important as the meaning of what is said and its power to transform the faithful.

The problem with this view is that Christianity is an historical faith. It stands or falls of the reality of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul said:

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." - I Cor. 15:13-14

If there is no historic truth to that, we might as well pack it up and go home.

I'm not saying that we need to view the bible as absolutely accurate historically, but on major issues like this and even Mt. Sinai for the Jews, the text would have no meaning if the events we not true.
 
It would have meaning for me. That's all I can say. If it wouldn't for other people, that is not something I can speak to.

I experience a living Christ, and so the teachings have meaning for me. If they found Christ's body tomorrow, I'd still have this relationship with a living Christ, which means that He was risen... no matter what happened to His body. That's just my take on it. My faith in Christ is unshakeable because I have a relationship with Him now, not because of a historical event.

I respect that Paul may have had a different idea than I have. But Paul saying something about his idea doesn't force me to agree. This is one of the differences between people who think they have to agree with everything someone wrote in scripture and people who do not. Paul's letters were from the viewpoint of one man and sent to particular churches at particular times. They had particular purposes. I have no doubt that Paul was an inspired follower of Christ. But he was also a man who wrote letters, and that is not, to me, an indication that I have to wholesale agree with everything he said and toss out my own experience of God to do so.

If someone wishes to make their faith based on historical events, that is their perogative. Each person is free to base their faith on anything they wish. But I choose to make my faith based on a relationship I have with God and Christ right now.
 
I am very familiar with the storyline, but the doctrine goes into the how and I like to leave it at the "what happened." That is, it is doctrine that says there was original sin, and God couldn't let sin into His presence (despite OT passages to the contrary, as well as the Jewish belief that God can forgive without blood sacrifice), so God had to send Himself as Jesus to be the perfect sacrifice for all time and people, and therefore we need only believe to be saved. It seems to me that if Jesus wanted to make that point, He could have made it quite plainly, rather than saying all the other stuff that He did. In short, I find that the concept that the way was closed to God- that God could not or would not forgive sinners without sacrifice- is a distortion of Jewish beliefs and is not what the scriptures say.


But the scriptures do say that, P. Trust me, I understand the distinction between scripture and doctrine, and the idea that Jesus' death was necessary for the salvation of human beings is scriptural. I assumed by citing scripture in the gospels of John and now Matthew that this would be apparent; how many gospels will I need to cite, exactly, before the truth becomes clear?
 
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Hence my issues with "God withheld nothing-- not even his son. " and "G!d so loved the world he gave us his only son"

As I indicated from G!ds perspective I don't know why these things are quoted, from a parent's (Mary's) perspective it is quite different.Appears we agree.



We agree.... how? You believe that Jesus' crucifiction was not a painful event for God; I believe that it was. Where's the agreement?
 
But the scriptures do say that, P. Trust me, I understand the distinction between scripture and doctrine, and the idea that Jesus' death was necessary for the salvation of human beings is scriptural. I assumed by citing scripture in the gospels of John and now Matthew that this would be apparent; how many gospels will I need to cite, exactly, before the truth becomes clear?

My point is that the OT does not indicate, nor does Judaism hold, that God could/would not forgive people and be merciful before Jesus' death.

The position that this is the case flies in the face of Jewish belief and the Hebrew Bible/Jewish scriptures.
 
This conversation is a prime example of feel-good take the bits you like and leave the bits you dont and bible believing take it all or nothing trying to convince each other that their ways are valid..

The two dont mix and each others points are just a bunch of blah blah blah.

Its the same thing with a different topic.
 
My point is that the OT does not indicate, nor does Judaism hold, that God could/would not forgive people and be merciful before Jesus' death.

The position that this is the case flies in the face of Jewish belief and the Hebrew Bible/Jewish scriptures.

The problem isn't God's unwillingess to forgive but rather our refusal to accept it.
 
My point is that the OT does not indicate, nor does Judaism hold, that God could/would not forgive people and be merciful before Jesus' death.

The position that this is the case flies in the face of Jewish belief and the Hebrew Bible/Jewish scriptures.


Tell that to the priests that had to sacrifice every yom kippur. Someone or SomeTHING rather... had to die for the atonement of sins.
 
Tell that to the priests that had to sacrifice every yom kippur. Someone or SomeTHING rather... had to die for the atonement of sins.
Namaste FS,

I always understood that Yom Kippur was the one day the priest went into the holies...that this was an honor. Sacrifices were a regular thing. Sacrifices were the way the priests ate...we brough the fatted calf or lamb or goat as an offering to G!d or the gods prior...but it is what fed the workers of the temple.

Today our sacrifice or offering is not a tithe of our farming, ranching, herding but money...as our economies have changed.

Now as far as SomeThing had to die...we slaughter animals daily at an unheard of rate compared to that day...they sacrifice their lives regularly for our dinner table...and not just in death..but they live in horrendous conditions for our benefit...again...I don't see what taking animal sacrifice out of the system did except cause us to tithe with money so the priests go out and buy the animals slaughtered by butchers.

The sacrifice to me was a layover from other religions which was continued as a way to make sure the priests were fed.
 
Namaste FS,

I always understood that Yom Kippur was the one day the priest went into the holies...that this was an honor. Sacrifices were a regular thing. Sacrifices were the way the priests ate...we brough the fatted calf or lamb or goat as an offering to G!d or the gods prior...but it is what fed the workers of the temple.

Today our sacrifice or offering is not a tithe of our farming, ranching, herding but money...as our economies have changed.

Now as far as SomeThing had to die...we slaughter animals daily at an unheard of rate compared to that day...they sacrifice their lives regularly for our dinner table...and not just in death..but they live in horrendous conditions for our benefit...again...I don't see what taking animal sacrifice out of the system did except cause us to tithe with money so the priests go out and buy the animals slaughtered by butchers.

The sacrifice to me was a layover from other religions which was continued as a way to make sure the priests were fed.

Ask BB.. Im certainly not a scholar on the OT but I know that all this you say is not in the OT or the Torah. Yom Kippur literally means the day of atonement.

Here... you can read the history of it yourself

MyJewishLearning.com: History of Yom Kippur

or even the site that bb gives out.

Judaism 101: Yom Kippur

either way.. your interpretation is nowhere in the bible. so once again its battle of the "take or leave bits and all or nothing."
 
As far as I understand my conversations with BB, sacrifice was not necessary for God to be merciful. Perhaps we can ping him and ask.

This seems to indicate the same thing, and explains Jewish ideas about sacrifice (from www.jewfaq.org):

Did the kohanim (priests) or anybody else eat the animals offered? Yes! Most types of offerings could be eaten. Certain types were eaten by the kohanim only, or by a specific kohein. Other types were eaten by the person offering the sacrifice and his family. The types of offerings and who was permitted to eat them will be discussed further below. Isn't sacrifice cruelty to animals? Animal sacrifice is no more cruel than slaughtering animals for food. In fact, the procedure for slaughtering livestock for sacrificial purposes is the same as the procedure used for slaughtering animals for food, a procedure that is designed to be as quick and painless as possible. See Shechitah. Judaism is very concerned about the proper treatment of animals, and would never advocate a cruel procedure for animal sacrifice. How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices? Forgiveness is obtained through repentance, prayer and good deeds. In Jewish practice, prayer has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3) (please note: the KJV translates this somewhat differently). While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Our prayer services are in many ways designed to parallel the sacrificial practices. For example, we have an extra service on Shabbat, to parallel the extra Shabbat offering. For more information about this, see Jewish Liturgy. As we shall see, the purposes for bringing sacrifice are very similar to the purposes for prayer. It is important to note that in Judaism, sacrifice was never the exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, was not in and of itself sufficient to obtain forgiveness, and in certain circumstances was not even effective to obtain forgiveness. This will be discussed further below. But isn't a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness? No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all. The Biblical book of Jonah tells of an entire community condemned to destruction that was forgiven when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or otherwise. (Jonah 3) The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood." Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come? Not according to Judaism. Jews don't believe that people need supernatural salvation from sin (sincere repentance and good deeds are sufficient to obtain forgiveness; see above), and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah. Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires. Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.
More is available at:
Judaism 101: Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

It seems to indicate a fair degree of complexity about the subject, but a general expectation that sacrifice was not necessary, but one way to work toward forgiveness.

Furthermore, as I am Celtic and not Jewish, it is unclear to me how I fit into the whole scheme of things.

I tend to find that I can still have conversations with fundamentalists, FS, but if you feel that we cannot converse because of our different beliefs, I would understand. For some people, interfaith discussion is just pointless.
 
As far as I understand my conversations with BB, sacrifice was not necessary for God to be merciful. Perhaps we can ping him and ask.

This seems to indicate the same thing, and explains Jewish ideas about sacrifice (from www.jewfaq.org):


More is available at:
Judaism 101: Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

It seems to indicate a fair degree of complexity about the subject, but a general expectation that sacrifice was not necessary, but one way to work toward forgiveness.

Furthermore, as I am Celtic and not Jewish, it is unclear to me how I fit into the whole scheme of things.

I tend to find that I can still have conversations with fundamentalists, FS, but if you feel that we cannot converse because of our different beliefs, I would understand. For some people, interfaith discussion is just pointless.

The art of sacrificing others seems to be virtually within all of humanity in one way or another. The Celts of course had it with the "Wicker man" which was rather ingenious.

Wicker Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well now tht I posted a dark side, like all races they consist of different levels of understanding. I appreciate the Celts for their great depth. I have a very personal interest in the Celtic legend of the Ninth wave.

The following is a hauntingly beautiful description of the Celtic spirit and its future. It is very deep and without any modern feel good superficiality. But here you smell the ocean and something very real even though "Tha mi Dubhachas!--I have the gloom" can send a chill up your spine. Enjoy

Prologue -- From Iona
 
FYI- the Wicker Man is largely considered by historians to be a piece of political propaganda on the part of the Romans.

However, we do know that the Celts sacrificed things, particularly by tossing stuff in sacred pools. Normally it was metal objects. Sometimes they did sacrifice animals and even people.

My point about being Celtic was not to say they never sacrificed anything, but rather to say that their sacrifices had nothing to do with Jewish law. They did this for different reasons that made sense within their own religious system. So what I'm getting at is that it is unclear to me how Jewish Law relates to me, when my people were not under the law.

I took a course in Sacrifice at one point in college- yeah, it really was the title of the course. It was taught by a prof that, of all things, went on to become a Buddhist monk and leave academia. At any rate, I thought it would be about sacrifice in at least a partially metaphoric sense, but no- it was literally about sacrifice and we spent a quarter looking at slides of ritual instruments from all over the world.

It seems that the concept of sacrifice was very prevalent at the beginning of agricultural civilization, and generally tied to the pastoral lifestyle in which the Divine (God(s)/Goddess(es)) was someone you had to appease with gifts so as to have life continue and another year of crops and whatnot. Disease, drought, etc. were seen as divine retribution against people, variously interpreted- some like the Celts thought it was due to ignoring powerful entities, others like the Jews thought it was due to human behavior (see the plagues sections of the OT).

It seems to me that (thank goodness), humans have mostly moved into a state of understanding the world around them that make it clear that natural cycles just happen. This allows us to look more deeply at what sacrifice can really mean to us individually, rather than being in a knee-jerk reaction trying to avoid the whip of Divine punishment by offering the blood of an innocent being.

I happen to think that the Jews began to have this distinction early on and the OT scriptures and complexity of Jewish thought about sacrifice indicate this dialogue.
 
path said:
I experience a living Christ, and so the teachings have meaning for me. If they found Christ's body tomorrow, I'd still have this relationship with a living Christ, which means that He was risen... no matter what happened to His body. That's just my take on it. My faith in Christ is unshakeable because I have a relationship with Him now, not because of a historical event.

Without the concept of the physical resurrection you wouldn't be having a relationship with the living Christ. The movement would have fizzled out in obscurity, and Jesus Christ would have just been another in a long line of self-professed Messiah's that were prevalent at that time. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.

wil said:
I always understood that Yom Kippur was the one day the priest went into the holies...that this was an honor. Sacrifices were a regular thing. Sacrifices were the way the priests ate...we brough the fatted calf or lamb or goat as an offering to G!d or the gods prior...but it is what fed the workers of the temple.

I find it highly relevant that God took the Day of Atonement very seriously. If the High Priest did not prepare himself just right, in the ritual cleansing, donning of the proper apparel, and careful handling of the sacrifice, he would have been instantly killed as soon as he stepped behind the veil. The assisting priests had to tie a rope around him in the event that happened, so they can pull him back out in case he died. Honor or not, it was very risky business.

path said:
My point is that the OT does not indicate, nor does Judaism hold, that God could/would not forgive people and be merciful before Jesus' death.

The position that this is the case flies in the face of Jewish belief and the Hebrew Bible/Jewish scriptures.

Obviously, in those times in which the Temple in Jerusalem wasn't available, such as in the Babylonian captivity, no sacrifices could be properly offered. The Hosea verse about prayer taking the place of bullocks were directed to the Northern Kingdom at the time. The Temple was of course in the Southern Kingdom, inaccessable to the Northern Kingdom, since they were at odds with each other. Obviously the same applies today, since the Temple isn't currently available.

The Day of Atonement is all about reconciliation with God. " For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before HaShem." - Leviticus 16:30 (Jewish Bible, JPS 1917)

And while the amonishment in Leviticus 17:17 pertains to the dietary warning not to eat blood, it's addressing those who are offering ox, goats, and lambs to the altar at the tent of the meeting, not the ultimate sacrifice of the High Priest. (Not that the blood of High Priest sacrifice shouldn't be eaten either, but there is a distinction in which sacrifice is being addressed.) The fact remains that the High Priest's sacrifice upon the Holy of Holies is the blood atonement for the sins of the people toward God, and thus statement that the life of the flesh is in the blood is nevertheless relevant.

Of course, this only pertains to sins committed against God and not other people, For that we must go to others seeking forgiveness.

Yom Kippur is celebrated even until this day, and even though there is no longer a blood sacrifice, the Jewish people look back to those sacrifice that were made when the Temple was still standing and look forward to a future Temple when sacrifices will be made once again. The Seder Avodah of Yom Kippur recalls the Temple sacrifices. If there were a Temple standing in Jerusalem today, I'm sure that there would be Temple sacrifices.
 
My point is that the OT does not indicate, nor does Judaism hold, that God could/would not forgive people and be merciful before Jesus' death.

The position that this is the case flies in the face of Jewish belief and the Hebrew Bible/Jewish scriptures.


Thank you all for exploring the subject in a very detailed, interesting, informative way. I was following the discussion, though I didnt interfer before...

What strikes me with the belief that Jesus died for his followers' sins is the same idea that sister path of one holds it above... God is the All Merciful, and the All Just, then how can He forgive just those who believe in Jesus's death for their sins or that He couldnt forgive those before Jesus' death...

I think that the idea of atonement came as a result of being affected by the Jewish tradition as the following text explains:
The interpretation of Jesus as the sacrificed victim is a human creation. It was shaped in a first-century world by the disciples of Jesus, who drew on their Jewish liturgical symbols as a way the Crucifixion might be understood. They borrowed this understanding directly from the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, in which an innocent lamb was slaughtered to pay the price for the sins of the people. The sinful people then had the cleansing blood of that sacrificial lamb sprinkled on them.

Source: Jesus did not die for our sins | Catholic New Times | Find Articles at BNET


I just want to share with you the Islamic view about the slaughtering of lamb. The story in the Quran says: "
<A name=102>[37:102] When he grew enough to work with him, he said, "My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you. What do you think?" He said, "O my father, do what you are commanded to do. You will find me, GOD willing, patient."*
[37:103] They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to sacrifice him).

[37:104] We called him: "O Abraham.
[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.
[37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.
[37:108] And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
[37:109] Peace be upon Abraham.
[37:110] We thus reward the righteous. [37:111] He is one of our believing servants.

Muslims believe that the lesson behind this story is not that this lamb is an atonment of our sins. No AT ALL. The lesson is that a true believer should submit by all his belongs to God, even by his childern. A true believer should bring up his/her children for God's cause, and not for any other goal and pleasure. That was the test for both a parent and a son: Abraham and Ismail peace be upon them. They both pssed the test. They showed us how a relation between a parent and a son should be built on a common ground of submitting to God. The slaughtering of the lamb is a just a symbol of this meaning. It has nothing to do with forgiving sins. God is not angry blood thirsty god whom his fire of anger, and thurst of blood may be quenched by spots of blood. God is All Merciful, All Compassionate, All Just......There is no mediator between God and His creatures.

God says:
[2:186] When My servants ask you about Me, I am always near. I answer their prayers when they pray to Me. The people shall respond to Me and believe in Me, in order to be guided.
 
did Jesus die for our sins ?

well if you read the New Testament and believe it then the answer is very obviously YES.
 
Your link to the Catholic Times for a Spong quote is a little misleading.

dialogue said:
[37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.

Er..um..it was Isaac that was set up to be sacrificed by Abraham, not Ismail, was it not? Read Genesis 22.
 
Your link to the Catholic Times for a Spong quote is a little misleading.
Namaste Dondi,

It was the Catholic New Times, a paper founded by Catholics who were attempting to foment change from within. They printed articles about the differences between the current practicing and nonpracticing Catholics and the Church, on topics like abortion, women's rights, same sex unions and the like.

Yes Catholic Insights called them the Anti-Catholic New Times....but he accurately posted the link... some may think the former paper misleading but it appears his link was not. Jesus did not die for our sins | Catholic New Times | Find Articles at BNET
 
Back
Top