Why was a sacrifice needed at all?

[nobspeople]

It's said Jesus came as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. But to whom did the sacrifice matter? God? If Jesus was also god, in a way (like some claim), he was sacrificing himself to himself...? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If Jesus is not god, then Jesus sacrificed himself to god. Why does god need a sacrifice at all? Some would say 'god can't be with sin' or the like. But why not? Surely, if god is the god it's said it is, god could change any 'rule' set up (as god itself had to set up the 'rule') and not require such a painful, terrible sacrifice? Isn't god 'enough' that being in its presence would, for lack of a better term, vaporize or negate all sin? God is greater than all sin (as some claim) then why is a sacrifice needed)
For discussion:
Why would god need a sacrifice if god created everything that is and had the ability not to need a sacrifice at all?

[1213]

...for example Slavery was once endemic but now isn't. But that didn't come from the Bible. ...

I think the end of slavery comes from Christianity. But, I also think slavery is nowadays maybe even stronger than ever. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave and by what I know, most of people must pay taxes.

...Stop becoming slaves of people.
1 Cor. 7:23

Lastly, if the crucifixion was not required to forgive sins, why does the crucifixion death and even resurrection (if one believes it) matter?

It showed for disciples of Jesus that death is not the end. That they saw Jesus resurrected, gave them courage to go fearlessly. Bible tells also:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

[brunumb]

...for example Slavery was once endemic but now isn't. But that didn't come from the Bible. ...

I think the end of slavery comes from Christianity. But, I also think slavery is nowadays maybe even stronger than ever. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave and by what I know, most of people must pay taxes.

Are you suggesting that people didn't pay taxes in antiquity? Aren't taxes designed to help everyone? It seems to me that they are something along the lines of what Jesus said: "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven".

By the way, modern Christians fought hard to retain slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

...for example Slavery was once endemic but now isn't. But that didn't come from the Bible. ...

I think the end of slavery comes from Christianity. But, I also think slavery is nowadays maybe even stronger than ever. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave and by what I know, most of people must pay taxes.

...Stop becoming slaves of people.
1 Cor. 7:23

That's looks like a quote out of context. The price is a metaphor for Jesus' sacrifice freeing people from sin -death. I think that slavery is Paul's metaphor for turning back to Sin. It doesn't make sense in that context to say that this is the Bible calling for abolition of slavery.

I cor 7 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

This is telling people that slavery is ok - while recognising that people didn't like being slaves. There may be many reasons why slavery apparently vanished from the Christian Roman Empire. But it wasn't because of any directives from the Bible, OT or new.

]

Lastly, if the crucifixion was not required to forgive sins, why does the crucifixion death and even resurrection (if one believes it) matter?

It showed for disciples of Jesus that death is not the end. That they saw Jesus resurrected, gave them courage to go fearlessly. Bible tells also:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9
[/quote]

But they already believed that. Resurrection was a Pharisee belief. Besides they'd already seen resurrection; the son of the woman of Nain, Jairus' daughter, and most spectacularly, Lazarus. Jesus' resurrection wasn't necessary for either teachings, or showing resurrection be true. It has to be for some other reason, if indeed it has any (Christian) reason at all.

I think the reason was what the Gospels say in many places, despite Christianity trying to smother it - The Romans killed Jesus as a messianic rebellion -threat. Just sayin'. I know that Christians reject that and insist that it's all to do with divinity and salvation.

[1213]

…. There may be many reasons why slavery apparently vanished from the Christian Roman Empire. But it wasn't because of any directives from the Bible, OT or new…

I believe it is because of the Bible teachings, even if you don’t accept the previous example. The “love your neighbor as yourself” alone should be enough reason to end slavery.

But they already believed that. Resurrection was a Pharisee belief. Besides they'd already seen resurrection; the son of the woman of Nain, Jairus' daughter, and most spectacularly, Lazarus. Jesus' resurrection wasn't necessary for either teachings, or showing resurrection be true. It has to be for some other reason, if indeed it has any (Christian) reason at all.

But still they were afraid, they didn’t trust to Jesus. Only after his resurrection they had courage to continue.

I think the reason was what the Gospels say in many places, despite Christianity trying to smother it - The Romans killed Jesus as a messianic rebellion -threat. Just sayin'. I know that Christians reject that and insist that it's all to do with divinity and salvation.

I can agree that the reason for Romans to kill him was to kill rebellion and to show an example what happens to Jews, if they try to rebel. Even if so, the reason for God and Jesus allowing it to happen, can still be divine.

[JoeyKnothead]

By the way, modern Christians fought hard to retain slavery.

And a good bunch of em're pushing to, no pun intended, whitewash the history of it.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to brunumb in post #32]

By the way, modern Christians fought hard to retain slavery.

Because they're better than others. It's a common issue with christianity even today.
It's a selfish religion so we shouldn't be so surprised that, even today, so many look down their noses at others.

[TRANSPONDER]

…. There may be many reasons why slavery apparently vanished from the Christian Roman Empire. But it wasn't because of any directives from the Bible, OT or new…

I believe it is because of the Bible teachings, even if you don’t accept the previous example. The “love your neighbor as yourself” alone should be enough reason to end slavery.

But they already believed that. Resurrection was a Pharisee belief. Besides they'd already seen resurrection; the son of the woman of Nain, Jairus' daughter, and most spectacularly, Lazarus. Jesus' resurrection wasn't necessary for either teachings, or showing resurrection be true. It has to be for some other reason, if indeed it has any (Christian) reason at all.

But still they were afraid, they didn’t trust to Jesus. Only after his resurrection they had courage to continue.

I think the reason was what the Gospels say in many places, despite Christianity trying to smother it - The Romans killed Jesus as a messianic rebellion -threat. Just sayin'. I know that Christians reject that and insist that it's all to do with divinity and salvation.

I can agree that the reason for Romans to kill him was to kill rebellion and to show an example what happens to Jews, if they try to rebel. Even if so, the reason for God and Jesus allowing it to happen, can still be divine.

Well, obviously some people were not Neighbours. Jesus' damning of the Jews showed that these people didn't qualify as 'Neigbours'.

cue "But he was denouncing them out of love, to make them see what they should do".

But if so, it is legitimate to leave people lying by the wayside, because God is teaching them a lesson. And that's the message of the NT on slavery: "Don't fight your masters. Buy yourself out if you can, but God made you a slave for a Purpose", just as Master Robert believed that there was a Purpose in Slavery - to educate and Christianise them Africans. Whatever it was that ended slavery in the Roman Empire - if it did. I can't recall when it was banned by the state, can you? If it did, it wasn't because the Bible told them to.


The courage of the disciples to continue. Well, you know, If you went by a basis if Jesus being executed for rebellion, Crucifixion specifically as a punishment for rebellion had been known in Judea from the Hasmoneans, and still the rebellions went on. The fact is that the Jews didn't need to believe in any resurrection more than in the Pharisee sense when the dead would rise when the Messiah returned. In that respect the disciples actually look rather fearful. They just sat tight and waited. They didn't go out and preach the way Paul did. They were less active than the rebels who took on Rome during the Jewish war. On that basis an inspiring resurrection looks less evident.

It's good that you see that Rome executed Jesus for rebellion. King of the Jews is a messianic title and not divine, though Matthew clearly thinks it is 2, 2-5 and 26.65. Clear evidence that non -Jews wrote the Gospels and not the followers of Jesus. However, anyone can point to the way things happen for reasons that look 'Natural' or just the way they happen and claim 'Divine' behind it. But that is obviously a begging for being fooled. 'Whatever happens, I think it is all your financial scheme working out. Doesn't matter it hasn't paid out in 2,000 years - I have faith that it will'.

And no, that a lot of people are being bilked on a global scale doesn't make it anything less of a Ponzi scheme. And a very profitable one. At least you must recognise that postulating a god doing something when it doesn't need it is no evidence or reason to believe and is merely a Faith claim.

The analogy that atheists use is a belief that even though we know how Internal Combustion engines work, there are invisible Engine -Gnomes making it happen. You can't prove there are not. So crucifixion and resurrection as done by the Romans would only inspire the followers of Jesus to Messianic rebellion. If God wanted something else, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin do it (as they could) rather than have the Romans do it and then have to make it look like they didn't? No, the resurrection has to be more that a failed messiah going back to heaven either in the spirit or the body - whether the old one or a new incorruptible one - the both had the holes in according to the three contradictory accounts.

The point being that a resurrection as proof of Messianism isn't enough for Christianity. There has to be something more. Which Paul invented.

[1213]

…It's good that you see that Rome executed Jesus for rebellion.

I just want to clarify, I didn’t mean that Jesus was rebel in that sense he would have been violent or done something wrong.

And no, that a lot of people are being bilked on a global scale doesn't make it anything less of a Ponzi scheme. And a very profitable one.

If one thinks it is a Ponzi scheme to gain profit, I think one ha no understanding of what Jesus says in the Bible.

…If God wanted something else, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin do it (as they could) rather than have the Romans do it and then have to make it look like they didn't? …

Jews said according to the Bible:

Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
John 18:31

But, I think the murder was purely what people wanted. And I don’t think humans are any better nowadays.

The point being that a resurrection as proof of Messianism isn't enough for Christianity. There has to be something more. Which Paul invented.

I think that is baseless claim. I have no reason to take it seriously.

[JoeyKnothead]

I just want to clarify, I didn’t mean that Jesus was rebel in that sense he would have been violent or done something wrong.
...

I think a problem here's that 'violent' is a subjective term.

For right or wrong, I consider overturning them tables there an act of violence - if only mildly so.

[TRANSPONDER]

…It's good that you see that Rome executed Jesus for rebellion.

I just want to clarify, I didn’t mean that Jesus was rebel in that sense he would have been violent or done something wrong.

And no, that a lot of people are being bilked on a global scale doesn't make it anything less of a Ponzi scheme. And a very profitable one.

If one thinks it is a Ponzi scheme to gain profit, I think one ha no understanding of what Jesus says in the Bible.

…If God wanted something else, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin do it (as they could) rather than have the Romans do it and then have to make it look like they didn't? …

Jews said according to the Bible:

Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
John 18:31

But, I think the murder was purely what people wanted. And I don’t think humans are any better nowadays.

The point being that a resurrection as proof of Messianism isn't enough for Christianity. There has to be something more. Which Paul invented.

I think that is baseless claim. I have no reason to take it seriously.

You are right to pick me up on some things which I should clarify:

I actually think - if there is a basic true story at all, he was, or intended to be, a rebel using violence if needed (which it would be, and was, in the Jewish war). But even if not, his execution was just what the Bible implies (under the veil) that rebellion against Rome was what he was executed for, whether or not he was actually guilty of it. That nonsensical blasphemy charge was never used, it was rebellion that was the charge.

I don't mean the whole Christian thing was a swindle to make money, but it worked the same way, buy persuading people to invest their credibility into their claims. Though, as I remarked, some can make money out of it, too.

There has been some debate over it but the history seems to indicate that the Sanhedrin, even under Pilate, had the power of execute people, though the Roman Governor would have to agree. Therefore since Pilate says 'go and execute him yourself according to your Law', that's what they could and should have done - If it was all invented. That they had to get the Romans to do it on the grounds that they couldn't put anyone to death, which was surely not true and Pilate would have known it after more than 20 years as governor (as I recall and working with Caiaphas all that time) suggests to me that Rome had executed Jesus and that was inconvenient for the Gospel -writers, so they had to shove the blame onto the Jews. As you pointed out by having them in Matthew (but nobody else, by which I mean, he invented it) recite the infamous line that was the pretext for all anti - Semitism thereafter and for which Christianity should be ashamed.

Even if it was true, it was unfair for the blame to be applied to all Jewish people even at the time, let alone thereafter. But that is clearly the intent.

I don't know whether you do not take seriously that there has to be something more to Jesus dying on the cross as something planned by God, than just a resurrection that they saw. But maybe you have a case. While they may have believed in being resurrected, seeing it actually happen is a lot more than just being told they could rely on it. So I'll give you that. It just raises the question of whether that was why God allowed Jesus to die, just to motivate the disciples and thus there is no need for it as a way of allowing God to make a loophole in his own Law (which is pretty silly anyway - if he wanted to, he could just Do It, couldn't he?). So yes, aside what I personally credit about the story, I can see that a resurrection before their own eyes would be powerful motivator without fearing their own death.

Which sorta means I just agred that the disciples would not indeed die for a lie