Was Jesus a "Human Sacrifice"

[John317]

...Yes, it is the TESTIMONY of Jesus that MUST be lifted up, for He alone could do what had to be done as we see in Rev. 5.

Read ALL of John 3 and you will find that one must practice the truth to come to the light (verse 21), not the other way around. So, how does one practice truth? By obeying the words of Jesus.

Sure, the testimony of Jesus must also be proclaimed, but that is different from Christ Himself being "lifted up" as he said in John 8: 28; 12: 32; and 3: 14, 15. One is the gospel commission and the other is the unrepeatable act of Christ laying down his life on the cross.

John 8:28

So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me."

John 12:32

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Noitce that Jesus tells the Jews, "when YOU have lifted up the Son of man," indicating clearly that "the lifting up" of which Christ speaks is His death, not the preaching about His death.

I also agree with you about the importance of obeying the words of Jesus, but again that is different from "lifting up" Christ in the sense that is referred to in John 3: 14, 15.

Just as the people of Israel looked at the snake and received healing, so when we look at the uplifted Christ in genuine faith, we also receive healing.

This is why Paul wrote Gal. 3: 1--

Galatians 3:1

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

The Galatians had stopped looking. Some today, too, stop looking.

The Bible urges us: LOOK AND LIVE!

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

As for what Paul said about Jesus in Romans 1:4, "....who was DECLARED the Son of God with power BY the resurrection...." I rest my case!

Yes, now you've quoted it accurately. You can see a big difference, I'm sure, between Christ being "declared" the Son of God and His "becoming" the Son of God.

The word "declared" is translated from the Greek word, horizo, Strongs #3724. Check out page 2236 in your NAS Key Word Study Bible. You will see that it has nothing to do with "becoming" but with "declaring" or "marking out," "appointing" (for this last, see NAS at Acts 10: 42). There's clearly a difference between making a declaration and causing something to "become."

So at the resurrection, Christ was "shown with great power to be the Son of God," (TEV); "He was proved to be the mighty Son of God" (LB); "marked out as the Son of God" (Phillips); and "designated Son of God" (RSV).

This word is used in the NT only in the following verses:

Luke 22: 22

Acts 2: 23-- "predetermined" (NAS).

Acts 10: 42-- "appointed" (NAS).

Acts 11: 29

Acts 17: 26

Acts 17: 31

Romans 1: 4-- declared, designated, marked out,

Hebrews 4: 7-- "fix"

As you will see, Romans 1: 4 is not saying that Christ became something at his resurrection that He wasn't before. It means that at his resurrection, He was shown without question to be the Son of God. The resurrection proved it.

Again, Paul shows all through his writings that Jesus Christ was God the whole time He walked the earth. In this he agrees with the apostles John and Peter.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Christianity basically presents the following primitive idea.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself for rules he made himself to prevent himself from killing everyone.

There is an obsession with blood which the ancients considered to have the power of life.

God did not "have to" sacrifice Himself. In His foreknowledge, He ascertained that the only way to ensure rebellion against His government would never arise again would be if He demonstrated beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that He is not selfish, arbitrary or capricious - that He always considers the best good of His creatures - that He is not self-protective. He gives us Himself in an act of self-abnegation so unthinkable that even those creatures closest to Him were, and continue to be, astounded.

His sacrifice is not about legalities. It is not a cooking of the books. It is not a whitewash of sin.

It's about transforming rebels into loyal sons and daughters of God.

What you are presenting here is a modern apologetic trying to make sense of an original sun worship concept in which the Sun god dies or is sacrificed when it sets and is raised from the dead at sunrise. The concept of eating ones god and drinking his blood comes from pagan sources. Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink.

"Parallel to the religious duties to god and state, "the Hellenic world also fostered a number of 'underground' religions, which countless thousands of people found intellectually and emotionally satisfying."[1] They were known as the "mysteries," because their adherents took oaths never to reveal their rites to the uninitiated. Several honored young male gods born of a divine father and human mother, resurrected after a heroic death. In some of these secret religions "celebrants shared a communal meal in which they symbolically ate the flesh and drank the blood of their god."[1]"

1. ^ a b Harris, Stephen L. 'Understanding the Bible' Fourth Edition p 286

You will find zodiacs in many 1st century synagogs and churches. Even the church fathers refer to Jesus as the Sun of god. Read the early apologetics where church fathers expound on the amazing coincidence that Jesus met all the signs of being the Sun of god.

There is no rational relationship between transforming rebels into loyal sons and daughters by having one's god killed. There are humans that suffered far greater torture and gave up much more than Jesus did. Thousands of Jews were crucified along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and had to suffer for days.

Granted, the evolution of Christianity has many creative writers, but the evidence and the rationale is simply not there.

[John317]

I have always believed that whether or not "the human Jesus" died or not was not the question. All that mattered/s to me is that He had the resurrection power which He also imparts to us.

It matters because the only way we know for sure that He has resurrection power to impart to us is His own resurrection, and the fact that He raised Himself from the grave. This is what assures us that He has the keys of death.

If the human Jesus didn't die, then he was lying in Rev. 1: 18, where He claimed:

"I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

We know that deity cannot possibly die. Deity is immortal, which means not subject to death.

1 Tim. 6:15-16

which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, [16] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

NOTE: While the above verse speaks of the Father as the One whom no one has ever seen or can see, Jesus Christ also is all the fullness of Godhead, and as such He also is immortal.

Also, Col. 1: 17 tells us that Christ's deity has always been upholding the universe. See also Hebr. 1: 4; Col. 2: 9.

John 1: 4 says that in the Word was life. When the Word became flesh, or man, life didn't cease to be in Him. He was God all during His public ministry.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Do you know of any Bible texts that would support one way or the other?

In John 2: 19, Jesus says that He will raise up His human body from the grave. That is only possible if deity did not die but only humanity died.

[John317]

I'd like to see you make your best case for a direct connection (with documentation) between Isaiah 53 and the pagan myths:

Quote:

Isaiah 53:1-12

Who has believed what they heard from us?

And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

[2] For he grew up before him like a young plant,

and like a root out of dry ground;

he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,

and no beauty that we should desire him.

[3] He was despised and rejected by men;

a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;

and as one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

[4] Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.

[6] All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

[7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he opened not his mouth;

like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,

and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,

so he opened not his mouth.

[8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

[9] And they made his grave with the wicked

and with a rich man in his death,

although he had done no violence,

and there was no deceit in his mouth.

[10] Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;

he has put him to grief;

when his soul makes an offering for sin,

he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;

the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

[11] Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be accounted righteous,

and he shall bear their iniquities.

[12] Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,

because he poured out his soul to death

and was numbered with the transgressors;

yet he bore the sin of many,

and makes intercession for the transgressors.

[John317]

What you are presenting here is a modern apologetic trying to make sense of an original sun worship concept in which the Sun god dies or is sacrificed when it sets and is raised from the dead at sunrise. The concept of eating ones god and drinking his blood comes from pagan sources. Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink.

What you are presenting here is a theory. Show your theory to be based on fact.

The mere evidence that there are some similarities is no proof that they are one and the same thing or that they derive from the same source.

If you believe you can show by more than simple claims and conclusions that I am wrong, then I would like to see you do it.

[cardw]

I'd like to see you make your best case for a direct connection (with documentation) between Isaiah 53 and the pagan myths:

[John317]

...One had to OBEY what God said to do--LOOK at the snake. One had to NOT do something-eat from the tree. This too was all about obediance. The Passover Lamb's blood had to be placed just as what God Commanded them to do. It was what they did with the blood that saved the first born Males.

Agreed that they had to do what God told them to do with the blood of the Passover Lamb in order for them to be saved. Not to obey was to prove they did not have faith. But would you say that their obedience in placing the blood over the door earned them salvation from Egyptian slavery?

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Now, as for Jesus' death, He WAS and was just like the Passover Lamb--His death will NOT mean anything for anyone UNLESS they DO something--and that means that they MUST obey what God said to do. Period! Jesus died, and was the ONLY one that could do this, for the penalty of Adam's disobediance.

I agree with you to a point. His death will certainly not save us if we don't obey God. Yet it is not the same as saying that our obedience earns us salvation.

An example: A man is drowning in the river. He has only a few minutes before he will die if he's not rescued. Then someone throws the drowning man a rope and yells for him to grab it and hold on. If he obeys, he will live; if he disobeys, he dies. But would anyone think to say that this man's obedience earned him his salvation? No. He was rescued because of the pure, unmerited kindness of another person.

Nevertheless, the truth is, as I said before, Christ's death has benefited all humanity and all of the animals. They have all been given life through the blood of Christ.

You are certainly right that Christ was the only One who could die for the redemption of the human race. That is because Christ is God. Only God's life is of infinite value, and only God is not subject to law but above law. No created being-- no angel, however perfect-- could come here and die for humanity. No creature could show us what God is like. It required that God Himself come and show us God.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

What you are presenting here is a modern apologetic trying to make sense of an original sun worship concept in which the Sun god dies or is sacrificed when it sets and is raised from the dead at sunrise. The concept of eating ones god and drinking his blood comes from pagan sources. Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink.

What you are presenting here is a theory. Show your theory to be based on fact.

The mere evidence that there are some similarities is no proof that they are one and the same thing or that they derive from the same source.

If you believe you can show by more than simple claims and conclusions that I am wrong, then I would like to see you do it.

I'll pull one out of your play book.

Prove that it isn't true.

[John317]

You're the one who's making the claim. So the burden of proof is on you to show that it's true.

[cardw]

You're the one who's making the claim. So the burden of proof is on you to show that it's true.

This is interesting. When I have asked you to provide proof of your claim that the god of the Bible exists all of a sudden there is no burden of proof on the one making the claim.

Now I'm willing to provide evidence, but before I do that you need to answer this question.

What would be sufficient evidence to prove the pagan origins of Christianity?

[Overaged]

You are certainly right that Christ was the only One who could die for the redemption of the human race. That is because Christ is God. Only God's life is of infinite value, and only God is not subject to law but above law. No created being-- no angel, however perfect-- could come here and die for humanity. No creature could show us what God is like. It required that God Himself come and show us God.

[Overaged]

Quote:

Think of how much it cost Christ to leave the heavenly courts, and take His position at the head of humanity. Why did He do this? Because He was the only one who could redeem the fallen race. There was not a human being in the world who was without sin. The Son of God stepped down from His heavenly throne, laid off His royal robe and kingly crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity. He came to die for us, to lie in the tomb as human beings must, and to be raised for our justification. He came to become acquainted with all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He rose from the grave and proclaimed over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." One equal with God passed through death in our behalf. He tasted death for every man, that through Him every man might be a partaker of eternal life. {HP 13.3}

Only The Father could release Christ from the grave' proving that divinity died; how can a mere human save us?

Quote:

Only the Father Could Release Christ.--He who died for the sins of the world was to remain in the tomb the allotted time. He was in that stony prison house as a prisoner of divine justice. He was responsible to the Judge of the universe. He was bearing the sins of the world, and His Father only could release Him. A strong guard of mighty angels kept watch over the tomb, and had a hand been raised to remove the body, the flashing forth of their glory would have laid him who ventured powerless on the earth. {5BC 1114.1}

[John317]

This is interesting. When I have asked you to provide proof of your claim that the god of the Bible exists all of a sudden there is no burden of proof on the one making the claim.

When did you ask me for "proof" that God exists? You know there is no "proof" that God exists. No one can put God in a test tube or laboratory.

There is strong and persuasive evidence that God exists, but that is not "proof" in the ordinary way of using the term. Only people who misunderstand the concept of God would even think of asking for such "proof."

However, you are making the kind of claim that does call for historical proof. You are saying that the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the Christian view of Christ are all the result of pagan myths, etc.

Are you saying that you think that claim is similar to the claim that God exists?

[John317]

You are certainly right that Christ was the only One who could die for the redemption of the human race. That is because Christ is God. Only God's life is of infinite value, and only God is not subject to law but above law. No created being-- no angel, however perfect-- could come here and die for humanity. No creature could show us what God is like. It required that God Himself come and show us God.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Now you just told me above that John 2:19 says that the Christ who died on the cross was "human."

How could a mere human save us, or die for our sins?

John 2: 19 shows that Christ's deity did not die but that the humanity did.

I am saying that Jesus Christ was not a mere human. I am saying Jesus Christ was and is both God and man.

Therefore, since Christ was a real human being, it was a real human being who died on th cross. But I am saying that deity did not die. He was both human and deity. A single individual, named Jesus of Nazareth, was both God and man. He, the man, died. God did not die, just like God did not get hungry or tired or need to sleep. God wasn't temptd by sin, but Jesus the man was.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Here is John 2:19

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (KJV)

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered, "Tear down this Temple, and in three days I will build it again." (GNB)

I don't read in this verse what you say is there about Jesus being human when He died.

That verse shows that Jesus raised his body from the grave. The expression, "destroy this temple," refers to the death of his human body. We know that Jesus the man died on the cross. Yet Jesus Christ also raised his dead body from the grave.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Are you sure you are not interpreting one isolated phrase of Ellen White's and subverting all your scripture references to this quote?

No, certainly not.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Are you saying that if divinity did die; that Jesus would not then be able to rise again? How would you prove that?

If ALL of Christ had died-- that is , if both His human nature and His divine nature had perished-- then certainly He could not have raised Himself from the grave.

The Bible teaches that all three persons of the eternal Godhead were involved in the resurrection of Christ. The Bible clearly says that Christ raised His body temple from the tomb. I'm saying that He could not have done this if He didn't have life in Him while His human body was dead in the grave.

The ony way this could have happened is if Col. 2: 9 were true--- that is, that in Christ lives [continually] the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is interesting. When I have asked you to provide proof of your claim that the god of the Bible exists all of a sudden there is no burden of proof on the one making the claim.

When did you ask me for "proof" that God exists? You know there is no "proof" that God exists. No one can put God in a test tube or laboratory.

[Dr. Rich]

Yes John, when a preacher declares a man and wife to be ONE, then he also means that they have become ONE. When a man is appointed the President, then he then becomes the President. As I said before, I rest my case.

[shelly]

This is what happens when we try to bend things to our own understanding. We do not understand how God became man, so we create a hybrid being-both God and man. We know that God cannot die, so we have a situation in which Jesus could not have fully died on the cross. He only sort of died because his divine nature did something unknown for 3 days. Christ stated he had not yet presented himself to the father when speaking to Mary. He could not have been dwelling as one with the Father during that time according to the bible. Why was it necessary to reserect his earthly body if his true form never died? Somethings are unexplainable. When we try to reason them out we end up digging ourselves into a deeper whole than we started from. This line of thinking gets us to where Jesus did not die for our sins . . and if that is true what are we all doing here?

[Dr. Rich]

Hey Rich, Would you agree that Satan is a master at deception? If so, then what would keep Satan from creating 'religions' that masked and looked like the real thing, but were actually lies? Please note that ALL of the religions known today have been created by Satan in order to divide and destroy--even Adventism has been changed by what happened in 1888. It now is following after the steps of plain old catholic mother church.

There is NO religious group today that has all of the truth! However, there is still the kingom of heaven that comes out from the SDA and from this group there is or will be ONE person who will be feeding the fellow servants of Jesus, the real truth--not new prophecy, but proclaiming exactly what Jesus said MUST be proclaimed, and that is the gospel OF the Kingdom of Heaven, not the same gospel that Paul taught. (Matt. 24:45)

Matthew 20:28 states "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom (bail) for many." (not the whole world). This agrees with Ex. 19:5-8 and Rev. 5:9-10. Please notice Ex. 19:5 "Now then, IF you will indeed OBEY My voice and KEEP My Covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine."

Nothing has changed except that Israel refused to obey and were forever removed from being God's people (KOH) as found in Matt. 21:19 and 43.

[phkrause]

There is actually no evidence at all that the god of the OT exists. So there is no strong or persuasive evidence to reference.

Actually in the NT John refers to Jesus as the God of the OT. John 1:1-5=In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not suppressed it. If you read the rest of the chapter, it clarifies these 5 verses very nicely.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There is actually no evidence at all that the god of the OT exists. So there is no strong or persuasive evidence to reference.

Actually in the NT John refers to Jesus as the God of the OT. John 1:1-5=In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not suppressed it. If you read the rest of the chapter, it clarifies these 5 verses very nicely.

I'm aware of claims, but the evidence in the context I'm talking about is physical evidence that the creator god, if this god exists, is the god of the OT.

I see little difference between the claims of other religions about their creator god or goddess and Christianity. None of them have any contemporary evidence that it is their god.

This is independent of a complexity argument for a god. One could plead from the complexity argument that there is a creator god, but have no proof that this god is the god of the OT.

[cardw]

Hey Rich, Would you agree that Satan is a master at deception? If so, then what would keep Satan from creating 'religions' that masked and looked like the real thing, but were actually lies? Please note that ALL of the religions known today have been created by Satan in order to divide and destroy--even Adventism has been changed by what happened in 1888. It now is following after the steps of plain old catholic mother church.

I see no motive for Satan to do this. The syncretic development of religion can be traced from one civilization to another when we have the writings intact.

The difficulty with Christianity is that it destroyed much of the knowledge base and all we have are apologetics that refer to these so called heresies. It seems that Christianity was anti-intellectual from the start. It destroyed libraries and temples and art all over the world. If ever there was a Satanic religion as judged by its violence to the world I would say that Christianity would be right at the top.

As we dig up more and more writings and inventions of the time when Christianity was formed in the first 4 centuries it appears that Christianity delayed the industrial revolution by a couple thousand years in it's quest to destroy all who would even speak against it. Hence the Dark Ages.

[Overaged]

As we dig up more and more writings and inventions of the time when Christianity was formed in the first 4 centuries it appears that Christianity delayed the industrial revolution by a couple thousand years in it's quest to destroy all who would even speak against it. Hence the Dark Ages.

Your religion characterizes Christianity in some very unrealistic ways. Christianity was formed well before "the first 4 centuries," for one thing, and Christianity is not an invention.

You consitently pipe away at the alleged fact how that you present us with "evidence" against Christianity; yet if anyone takes the time to read through your posts, a very self-appointed rationalizing philosophy can be heard like a heard of elephants running through the china shop. I wish you would quit calling your rationalizing against Christianity "evidence." That just is not so.

[cardw]

You consitently pipe away at the alleged fact how that you present us with "evidence" against Christianity; yet if anyone takes the time to read through your posts, a very self-appointed rationalizing philosophy can be heard like a heard of elephants running through the china shop. I wish you would quit calling your rationalizing against Christianity "evidence." That just is not so.

I don't call my rationalizing evidence. I call it reasoning. And I wish you would address the ideas instead of this generalized rant.

I generally post references and instead of addressing the references most of you, with the exception of Tom, Bravus, and few others, either attack the author or myself.

And it's a bull in a China shop. I don't know what a "heard of elephants" is unless you are referring to their big ears.

[Dr. Rich]

Overaged, Rich has some really good points as I too have read about and understand what he is talking about. It would great if you were right, but clearly history and science is on the side of Rich. Paul did invent the christian religion and of course it was 'codified' and their bible was created by using some of the Law and the Prophets along with other writings that were not considered "scripture" even by Jesus Christ Himself. Paul's Jesus was clearly not the same as the one described by Jesus' eyewitnesses.

Then along came Mohummad who invented Islim and now you have three great religions fighting against themselves. God the Creator clearly did not invent or create all of these religions. This is why there was a 'dark ages' when NO ONE had the truth (See Rev. 12:14).

As for proof that the God of the OT was the same as the NT, read Jn. 8:58, Dan. 12:1 and Ex. 3:1-3 and 14-15 and Ex. 23:20:23.

It is clear that Rich's Jesus of the NT is the same as the one that Paul created for his religion. Now don't be hard on him as many believe like he does and for good reason.

[Overaged]

Then along came Mohummad who invented Islim and now you have three great religions fighting against themselves.

Kind of like the way you fight against them too, eh?