Ultimate sacrifice?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
This idea of an "ultimate sacrifice" is a farce. Christians say and type these words without even thinking about them. What did God supposedly sacrifice for us in the story of Jesus? Did he sacrifice his only son? No, he actually didn't, as he rose up again in about a day and a half. And they both know that was going to happen. If you gave up your ...[text shortened]... your Queen for a pawn so you can queen two of your pawns. No loss of material--only gain.

i think the sacrifice was the pain he went through, being whipped and nailed to a cross is sacrifice to me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Did he sacrifice his only son? No, he actually didn't, as he rose up again in about a day and a half. And they both know that was going to happen.

Doesn't change the fact that it was a sacrifice. Sacrifice does not require uncertainty; and no one makes a sacrifice without some expectation of compensating rewards. What makes a sacrifice a sacrifice is that something important to the person is freely given up.[/b]

It was technically a "sacrifice." The "ultimate sacrifice"? Not really. At least not if "ultimate" means that his sacrifice was more difficult, more painful, or more heroic than all others.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i think the sacrifice was the pain he went through, being whipped and nailed to a cross is sacrifice to me.

Something needs to be sacrificed for it to be a sacrifice, that is, something has to be given up.

Originally posted by telerion
It was technically a "sacrifice." The "ultimate sacrifice"? Not really. At least not if "ultimate" means that his sacrifice was more difficult, more painful, or more heroic than all others.

Explain, please, how you see the technical aspect of the sacrifice.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Something needs to be sacrificed for it to be a sacrifice, that is, something has to be given up.

dictionary definition 1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
This idea of an "ultimate sacrifice" is a farce. Christians say and type these words without even thinking about them. What did God supposedly sacrifice for us in the story of Jesus? Did he sacrifice his only son? No, he actually didn't, as he rose up again in about a day and a half. And they both know that was going to happen.

This is my guess. The idea of sacrifice was a fundamental one in both Jewish and pagan
worship. Jews living in Jerusalem had the capability of experiencing 100s or even 1000s of
sacrifices -- for purification, at birth, at Passover and so on. Keep in mind that one of the
fundamental teachings of Jesus, especially reported by St Mark, was the idea that the kingdom of
God is at hand. A Jew hearing these words was thinking that the Jewish people were going to
rise up against the oppressive Roman state and reclaim their birthright of Israel. Jesus, at least at
some point in His ministry, likely had a good number of followers -- while I'm certainly inclined to
understand the 5000 (or whatever number) as a figurative use of numbers, I believe it points to a
point in Jesus's ministry where He had an unusually high following. And while the Gospels report that
His hard sayings of personal sacrifice for the good of the needy drove some (and possibly many)
away, He certainly got attention.

By all accounts, His death took His followers, even His closest, by surprise. 'Where was the foretold
kingdom that was promised and seemingly at hand?' I'm sure they wondered. They were now lost,
alone and confused -- their leader was dead. And, so, being Jews, they interpreted their experience
as they did everything, through the lens of their Scripture, their Truth, their Faith. Jesus, sent and
blessed by God, the 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God,' was a sacrifice in the Jewish sense. The term
equating Jesus with the 'Paschal Lamb' was codified rather early (I Corinthians 5:7b) and was, like
the other sacrifices of doves, pigeons, lambs, oxen and so forth, for the purposes of cleansing and
purification, but not of the body but of the soul. That is, as the blood of the ox shed on the altar
will render a person bodily pure, the blood of Jesus shed on the Cross renders a person spiritually
pure.

This understanding would have been utterly implicit from a Semitic Christian's perspective. But, as
2000 years (or even a few hundred) will do, this term has come to be misused and abused in
Christendom. It isn't like sacrificing pieces in chess or not splurging on CDs so you can buy a car.
It was viewed as the ultimate purification process, cleansing the soul.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
What is faith? Faith is merely believing and doing the will of the Father and trusting his words, no? Christ stuggled with his faith in that he in no way wanted to go to the cross. Who would? I am not sure the majority of the torment revolved around the physical aspect of his endevour. I believe it was more of a psychological and spiritual pain of knowin ...[text shortened]... n. If you do not believe in the ressurection then that is your business. As for me I believe.

Would you provide some of the verses that indicate Christ doubted his faith?

Remember the parable of the sheep and goats. A group of people who thought themselves good christians are nevertheless rejected for salvation. Even if the bible is true, as you would like to believe, it is not certain that you will make the "sheep" group.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
But not every man is an omnipotent being. A regular human giving up his life permanently is a great sacrifice. An alleged omnipotent, eternal being giving up his life for a couple days is trivial.

The eternal, holy, omnipotent one leaving the splendour of Heaven and suffering utter humiliation on a Roman cross (the cruellest possible death) at the hands of mere human beings and giving up every last drop of his divine blood, and suffering the worst pain you can imagine (being innocent), carrying all the filth and sin that mankind ever did/would commit (being sinless himself), so that you can be forgiven of your sins, and you say that is no sacrifice?

You are a hard little man.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The eternal, holy, omnipotent one leaving the splendour of Heaven and suffering utter humiliation on a Roman cross (the cruellest possible death) at the hands of mere human beings and giving up every last drop of his divine blood, and suffering the worst pain you can imagine (being innocent), carrying all the filth and sin that mankind ever did/would commi ...[text shortened]... ou can be forgiven of your sins, and you say that is no sacrifice?

You are a hard little man.

You try to win your argument through emotional response garnered by exageration, vaguarity, and your own imagination, and I'm sure that for some, you succeed. However, on an intellectual level all you do is create more linguistic conflict.

"utter humiliation": Being God in the form of Man and being without sin, humiliation shouldn't even be an issue, related as it is to pride.

"cruelest possible death": certainly a matter of opinion, especially if you ask my friend who is dying of cancer everywhere including her upper pallette and has two teenage sons who refuse to go to school and will probably join the failed throngs of my poor city, one of whom already has a child.

"every last drop of his divine blood": quite an obvious overstatement meant to confuse and mystify, not a very honest way to proselytize or communicate outside of poetry.

"worst pain you can imagine (being innocent)": innocent yes, but he has complete knowledge of the past, pressent, and future, sure this counteracts the pain caused within innocent torture, most of which is caused by ignorance of the reason for the pain. Also, he is a man on a mission, not a true innocent as we normally think of it.

"You are a hard little man": calling me hard and little may be insulting, but it only serves to belittle you as a man who thinks insults are a way to sway opinion.

Yes, I still say there was no sacrifice in the modern sense of the word and as it is used in church services several times a week. Christ lost nothing by dying on the cross--if anything, he gained, going by the biblical account.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The eternal, holy, omnipotent one leaving the splendour of Heaven and suffering utter humiliation on a Roman cross (the cruellest possible death) at the hands of mere human beings and giving up every last drop of his divine blood, and suffering the worst pain you can imagine (being innocent), carrying all the filth and sin that mankind ever did/would commi ...[text shortened]... ou can be forgiven of your sins, and you say that is no sacrifice?

You are a hard little man.

Your emotions are getting the better of you. It's clear you're quite enthralled with this fairy tale.

No, I don't feel sympathy for the character of Jesus. All the stuff that you claim that he gave up, he got back within a couple days. Sorry, but that's not 'giving up' anything. He merely set aside his divinity for a short time, knowing full well he'd get it back. That's like losing a few hands of poker, yet knowing that the game is rigged in your favor. Not exactly a sacrifice.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Your emotions are getting the better of you. It's clear you're quite enthralled with this fairy tale.

No, I don't feel sympathy for the character of Jesus. All the stuff that you claim that he gave up, he got back within a couple days. Sorry, but that's not 'giving up' anything. He merely set aside his divinity for a short time, knowing full well h ...[text shortened]... ds of poker, yet knowing that the game is rigged in your favor. Not exactly a sacrifice.

Greetings all,

There's nothing wrong with engaging our emotions as long as we don't give in to emotionalism. Let us engage the whole being and not be unkind to those who feel passionately about a cherished belief that gives meaning to their hearts and minds. We are whole people, not merely intellect. Whether we be theists or no, let us not trample on the human heart, my friends.

Also, it has not been established that the story of the Cross is untrue. Besides, I think you would agree that that is not germane to the topic at hand and deserves another thread.

As to giving up and getting back: please keep in mind that the God of the Bible is "in eternity" which is to say "ungoverned by time." Unlike humans, who experience reality successively, He does not. Instead all time is "present" to him. Thus there is no point at which God can say "thank goodness that Cross episode is over." He experiences it in a present now and forevermore (forgive the use of a time reference, but that goes with living in time). 🙂 The Cross is always and forever a part of His nature and His experience. In a sense He can never "get back" what He has given. It is a consequence of being omnipresent.

Also, I think it worth noting that it was not merely the weight of sin which Christ experienced in His humanity, but also the incredible experience of God the Father "turning His face away" as it were. True, in human terms, He would be restored, but remember that the Bible presents God as the fount of all joy and lovliness. To be seperated from that even partially and temporally is far worse than any withdrawal a drug addict could go through. What loneliness! Imagine a child who cries because he cannot find his parents and then his joy when he is reunited with them. What glory!

It is hard to imagine, I admit, and that is why it is such a powerful image. It boggles the mind and touches the heart, especially when we consider the longing we all have for "something more."

Fond regards,
R

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Explain, please, how you see the technical aspect of the sacrifice.

It was technically a sacrifice because Jesus gave up divine comfort for 33 years or so (blink of an eye for him). That said I don't think his sacrifice was "ultimate" in any sense. In fact, I've argued in the past that Judas' sacrifice was far greater.

Originally posted by telerion
It was technically a sacrifice because Jesus gave up divine comfort for 33 years or so (blink of an eye for him). That said I don't think his sacrifice was "ultimate" in any sense. In fact, I've argued in the past that Judas' sacrifice was far greater.

Hi again,

Please forgive me if this distracts, but what exactly is meant by "ultimate" within the context of this thread? Is it ultimate in the sense of being "final," by being "the greatest possible," or some other way?

Originally posted by Ristar
Hi again,

Please forgive me if this distracts, but what exactly is meant by "ultimate" within the context of this thread? Is it ultimate in the sense of being "final," by being "the greatest possible," or some other way?

I'm taking it to mean something like "the greatest possible."

Originally posted by telerion
I'm taking it to mean something like "the greatest possible."

Okay, that's fair. May I ask what everyone thinks God's ultimate sacrifice would be then?