Question about Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins

Post Reply New Topic

I wondered about this, the conclusion I came to was that Jesus already existed as a Spirit Son of God.
His Spirit or Life force was put into a human egg that grew up to be a fleshly man the same as the rest of us, although he would probably have realised who he was before his Baptism, he still lived as an ordinary man, abliet rather Spiritual, if he was just the Angel Jesus inhabiting Human flesh, he wouldnt have had to spend all that time with the Elders in the Synagogues, learning all he could.

Remember how the fallen Angels had taken the form of Flesh, obviously its of some temptation to Spirit beings, Satan further added to this temptation when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness when he offered him control of all the world.
Jesus could have accepted, he would have lived forever as a Human being, King of the World, he could have shagged all the human women he wanted, his children would be born without Adamic sin so they too would have lived forever, they would have been just like the Demi-gods of Greek and Roman Legend.

But Jesus sacrificed all of this, he can never come back as his former fleshly self, although he can carry on existing as his former Arch-Angel self, he fully sacrificed an existence as a Human.

Regardless of the above, the legal payment is a life for a life, the Value of Jesus as a man without Adamic sin was the perfect balance for Adam before he learned sin.
So he gave his flesh in replacement for Adams flesh and invites us all to become his adopted Children rather than Adams.

Christians believe that during the time that christ spent on the cross, he experienced all of the suffering and sins that every man who ever lived and ever shall live felt. Therein it is claimed is the 'sacrifice'.

What puzzles me though how he is supposed to have paid for the sins of the unborn. It almost suggests that whatever happens, the sins committed in the future are bound to happen come what may, which negates the christian idea of free agency.

The two replies above just add to my understanding of the bible as a human construct, and makes me wonder if Occam ever applied his razor to his understanding of his religious beliefs. Had he done so, the obvious conclusion he would come to is that the "sacrifice for our sins" was the the only way his followers could explain his death at the hands of mortals. They then went a bit too far embellishing the story with the resurrection and thereby adding yet another contradiction to the bible.

All sins are a result of Adams transgression, we all inherit sin the Bible tells us.
If Adam hadn't learned knowledge of sin from that tree, none of us would even know how to sin, therefore, the sin itself is irrelevant, by Jesus substituting for Adam, he dies for all the sins that come about as a result of Adam.
Its as if Jesus had replaced Adam in the garden of Eden, not eaten from that tree, therefore its as if none of us sinned.

Major flaw to the argument of original sin. We know that the story of creation and therefore Adam and Eve is not true. And yes I use "know" accurately and without fear substantiated correction.

Eve's punishment wasn't for giving the fruit to Adam, but for eating it herself when God commanded otherwise. He told them both, "don't do it", and they selfishly rebelled after being tempted by Satan. Notice that when confronted by God, the first thing they both do is blame someone else. Adam blames both Eve and God, while Eve herself blames the serpent. Neither were willing to take personal responsibility, which serves as evidence for the fallen nature we all have as a result.

Also, notice God never said Eve was completely free of pain during childbirth, just that her suffering would be increased as punishment for going her own way. Forgiveness does not equal the removal of all consequences.

During His time on Earth, Jesus was simultaneously human and divine in every sense. As such, he was able to take the full punishment for sin within a finite amount of time. That doesn't mean it was easy; after all, Jesus begged God for another way in Gethsemane, but there wasn't one...and in the end, He obeyed.

Hmmm I am assuming that you are only talking about the story, as to believe adam and eve as literal you might as well believe in santa. In fact santa probably has more going for him than doe the story of a and e. After all we have no definitive evidence against his existence.

I don't think flying reindeer are real, but St. Nicholas of Myra did place coins in people's shoes, which formed the basis for Sinterklaas, and later Santa Claus.

As for Adam & Eve, I do believe they existed as the Bible claims. It makes a lot more sense than assuming we just spontaneously erupted from a cosmic belch some untold time ago, with no intelligence involved.

Adam & Eve may appeal more to your sensibilities but it doesn't agree with the real world evidence regarding the origin of humans and all other animals and plants on Earth which shows evolution to be factual; whether you like it or not.

I believe that the universe created life and transforms life in the same way that my mind might create the illusion of inanimate objects morphing into animals or animals morphing into other animals, if I was on psychedelic drugs. I view the universe as having a mind far beyond that of humans, yet is also in a deep daze. It is neither conscious nor unconscious by conventional terms. It is a mysterious force that creates beautiful works of art from nothing. It is directly connected with the physical forces of the universe, but only manipulates them in subtle ways.

There are more than 2 possibilities for the way that life could have begun. My explanation is really culturally irrelevant, but the universe extends far beyond the limits of culture.

This claim of "we just spontaneously........" shows that you have not properly educated yourself on the subject of evolution, the initial spark of life may be spontaneous, but the slow progression of evolution most certainly is not. It can be shown in computer models which outcomes for particular genetiv traits are most likely and these computer models match the evidence found in nature. And regarding the initial spontaneity of creation are you aware amino acids were "created" in laboratory experiments over 60 years ago!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

You may think that biblical creation makes more sense, but it simply is not true. Researchers do not know exactly how the initial replicating molecules came about (they have a pretty good idea though), we do know how molecules formed and we do know where those initial particles came from. We don't yet know how the universe was formed or if indeed there was even a singularity, some evidence is now pointing to the universe existing back in infinite time.

What does all this mean, well whilst researchers do not have all the answers they can say categorically that the story of creation, taken in its literal form, is FALSE.

What annoys me with creationists, is they say that evolution makes no sense, but they have not bothered to read about it and understand it before making that claim, what they do is to construct a nonsenical interpretation of evolutionary theory. Worse still they pass their assumptions, based on ignorance of the facts, to kids and perpetuate the myths. The actual evolutionary theory is quite simple and marvellously complex at the same time, and rather than not making sense of the natural world, it does the exact opposite, bring the natural world into sharp focus in all its magnificence.

Moviefan do yourself and your god a favour, learn about the facts. Stop letting other people square the circle for you, bending verifiable knowledge so it fits into your mythology.

Are you suggesting that verifiable facts change with culture? A culture may wish to reject facts which contravene cultural "truths" but this does not reduce the voracity of the verifiable facts.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. Culture and language affect the way people perceive things and what they are more likely to believe, but the truth isn't dependent on or limited to ideas that are culturally relevant or concepts that exist within a person's native language, though it is often treated like it is. Most people are quick to rule out any possibility that is outside of their limited subjective perception, without attempting to expand their mind with out of the box ideas that might change their entire way of looking at things, no matter what their take on those ideas ends up being. Just being able to understand the ideas and the way they influence other people could contribute to their understanding of the minds of others, which could lead to new ideas that end up changing their entire way of looking at things. It's better to understand than to not understand, but not everything that is understood needs to be accepted.

Yep.

How very Bertrand Russell of you

I tend to agree with your sentiment, I like Russell's that if an opinion brings you to anger then you should try and explore the prejudice that caused the anger.

I often thought this, his companions and followers couldn't believe their saviour (in the mortal sense) was gone, dead, killed. They expected to be freed of oppression and then all ended so brutally. Total denial set in and a new story emerged of how it was all God's plan, it wasn't really disaster, it was to save us all from God's wrath at our sins, we were so bad He could only forgive us if His son was tortured and killed first (never understood that bit either), the apostles hadn't really given up their families and livelihoods for nothing.

Similar events have happened more recently, one American sect had members who had given away all their possessions, left their jobs and waited for the spaceship which was coming for them while the rest of mankind was to be destroyed for its wicked ways (sound familiar?). Spaceship didn't come. Rather than admit they were wrong, they believed a new theory that mankind was forgiven because the sect's devotion in sacrificing all possessions and waiting all night, showed such faith that the world was saved as a result of their actions. They became even more devoted to their cause of converting others.


Hmm,