Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Did Jesus Die for our sins?

religion jesus bible

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1    Allterspace

Allterspace

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:41 AM

Forgive me, I dont own a bible or do I have someone to talk to about this question. I was born Luthern and practiced until my late teens. Ive sort of lost contact with practicing my religion.

Didn't Jesus say the night before his crusificion, his deciples would deny knowing him 3 times? and sure enough when asked they denied following him for fear of death?

I asked my Pastor in my teens what it meant "Jesus died for our sins". He could not explian it to me or I was to young to understand. Is dieing for our sins the same as dieing because we sinned?

Can any experts help me understand this, It came to mind the other night and has been on my mind evere since. I dont like unanswered questions Thanks in advance.


#2    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,775 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:14 AM

I would argue that he died for one sin in particulat - Original Sin - and that the whole "sins of the fater" budiness no longer binds us.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#3    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,964 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:24 AM

He gave Himself as a sacrifice to pay a penalty imposed on all of us.  "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"  Not my rule, the Creator's.  I think the whole blood ritual was a way to stress the importance of life and innocence and what breaking the rules leads to.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#4    Allterspace

Allterspace

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:57 PM

So before him there was no sins? If he wasn't crusified and died of old age would it have changed history? I'm still not sure I understand.


#5    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:37 AM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 09 July 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I would argue that he died for one sin in particulat - Original Sin - and that the whole "sins of the fater" budiness no longer binds us.

That's the orthodox answer. Jesus died to atone for original sin, which was the sin created by Adam and Eve. So if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then that negates the need for a redeemer.

Additionally, I am still unsure what that original sin was. The only thing that Adam and Eve were guilty of, so the story goes, was disobeying a direct order.

Edited by redhen, 10 July 2013 - 12:49 AM.


#6    Ogbin

Ogbin

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • "God Bless Israel"

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:42 AM

I would suggest that you read the New Testament. This is where you will find the gospel of Christ.


   Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of god unto salvation to everyone who believeth; to the Jew first and then to the Greek."

Edited by Ogbin, 10 July 2013 - 12:43 AM.


#7    Allterspace

Allterspace

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:35 AM

View PostOgbin, on 10 July 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

I would suggest that you read the New Testament. This is where you will find the gospel of Christ.


   Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of god unto salvation to everyone who believeth; to the Jew first and then to the Greek."

Like I said before I do not own a Bible, I just have a serious question that I do not understand the meaning of. If its too hard for a person to explian it to me in "Lame-man-terms" Than the answer must be too tough for most people to understand. I feel its a legitimate question and if your answer is to read the Bible, thanks anyways your not a true follower or teacher.


#8    Allterspace

Allterspace

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:40 AM

View Postredhen, on 10 July 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

That's the orthodox answer. Jesus died to atone for original sin, which was the sin created by Adam and Eve. So if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then that negates the need for a redeemer.

Additionally, I am still unsure what that original sin was. The only thing that Adam and Eve were guilty of, so the story goes, was disobeying a direct order.

Good point, Sin is defined in the Bible as what?  Not following one of the Ten Commandments? Therfore what commandment did Adam and Eve not follow?


#9    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:02 AM

View PostAllterspace, on 10 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Good point, Sin is defined in the Bible as what?  Not following one of the Ten Commandments? Therfore what commandment did Adam and Eve not follow?

Allter, like all these questions and issues, it is a matter of interpretation.

First of all, it was Peter about whom Jesus predicted "Before the rooster* crows, you will deny me three times." The other disciples denied him, and betrayed him, to varying degrees.

Throughout Christian history there have been theories about original sin, personal guilt, both, neither and others. As a practicing (for want of a better definition) educated Lutheran pastor (there are no 'experts), I can contribute this: A fairly recent development in Christian theology, spearheaded by Rene Girard, purports that Jesus was crucified--sacrificed to human violence--to bring an end to sacrificial violence as a mode of religious expression. This view (as do others) interprets "original sin" as the act of created humans to defy God's sovereignty--for "man to try to be like God." As a consequence of this theoretical overreaching of createdness, humankind lost full fellowship with the Creator. The "next" human sin, almost immediately (not chronologically but thematically) after the 'expulsion' from Eden/Paradise, was homicide-- Cain murdered Abel. That has haunted history ever since.

Hence (in this school of thought) Jesus died for humanity's sin of time immemorial, which has been the constant usurpation of the Creator's life-giving prerogative through sacrificial/religious/military/economic/interpersonal violence.

This sacrifice has been understood, over the centuries, in less than adequate ways. It is conserved in the word "sacrifice" and the words "dying for our sins," as well as Roman Catholic theology which considers each Mass a re-enactment of Jesus' sacrifice. It is understood in wildly variant ways by other Christians traditions and denominations.

It is likely that people of a different theological persuasion will write in opposition to this post. I offer it as a post-modern interpretation of how Jesus both died for our sins and died because of humanity's perpetual sin, ontological violence.

May you have a fruitful spiritual journey.

*PS- Some spellcheck Thought Policeperson refused to print "c#%k" above*, even though it refers to a male chicken. Sheesh.

Edited by szentgyorgy, 10 July 2013 - 03:06 AM.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#10    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:21 AM

View PostAllterspace, on 10 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Good point, Sin is defined in the Bible as what?  Not following one of the Ten Commandments? Therfore what commandment did Adam and Eve not follow?

I think you will have a hard time pinning down a satisfactory answer to the exact nature of original sin. Judaism and Islam do not have such a teaching.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church  403 - 404

"By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state'

This is why baptism is performed; "Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin"

In the end "Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature."

And we still don't know what the sin actually was. Funny that the RC Church stills holds onto The Fall story and original sin (well I suppose they have to), even when they pronounced that the Genesis stories are borrowed from earlier Akkadian myths. There are many direct comparisons to Genesis and Ancient Near East texts like Enki and Ninhursag and the Enuma Elish, right down to being created from a rib.

"Ninhursag then created a new goddess (7 or 8 to heal his 7 or 8 ailing organs, including his rib) named Ninti, (a name composed of "Nin", or "lady", and "ti", and which can be translated as both "Lady of Living" and "Lady of the Rib"), to cure Enki. Neither Ninhursag nor Ninti are exact parallels of Eve, since both differ from the character. However, given that the pun with rib is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient and therefore, a possible narrative influence on the Judeo-Christian story of creation"

Edited by redhen, 10 July 2013 - 03:24 AM.


#11    SpiritWriter

SpiritWriter

  • Member
  • 3,727 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:on the ground

  • The greatest story ever told is Your story.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:20 AM

View PostAllterspace, on 10 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:



Like I said before I do not own a Bible, I just have a serious question that I do not understand the meaning of. If its too hard for a person to explian it to me in "Lame-man-terms" Than the answer must be too tough for most people to understand. I feel its a legitimate question and if your answer is to read the Bible, thanks anyways your not a true follower or teacher.

Through out the old testiment and throughout the history of man really, as you w ill find this in the spiritual and religious customs world wide is that humans made blood sacrifices to god or goddesses. The bible describes this as attoining for sin. One scripture says the penalty for sin is death. So instead of the individual dying an unblemished animal was used in thier place. They would sprinkle the blood of this animal in cleansing rituals and it was the hopes of all involved that this was not done in vain but that through cleansing there was actually a repented heart. There are seversl scriptures in the bible where god says he is sickened by the sacrifices and burnt offerings because the people doing the ceremony, usually religious leaders would continue to sin. God has always been viewed as the redeemer but Jesus as the messiah. The birth of christ was a new era for man. For someone who is accostomed to the blood sacrifice the significance of Jesus claim to die for all the sins of mankind is quite profound. Reading the scriptures for us today helps understand this especially if we have no customs that require any sort of sacrifice much less that of an unblemished animal. Regardless of the impact of what this blood sacrifice stands for the redeemer, messiah, savior, christs function is to reconnect any one who so desires, or whosover is called by god, meaning perhaps that the spirit of god comes upon them, or wakens within them by hearing the word. The fact that he died for our sins simply means we have no guilt on us no matter what our previous state may have been at the time of our conversion/decision to accept christ.

There is spiritual truth in this for any pondering heart to mull over no matter what your denomination or creed a person claims to be in. This is all christian vocabulary but in my opininion this holds a deeper spiritual wisdom that is available to all.

The letter kills but The Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one sided and thus unsuited to express the incomprehensible. -Jung

#12    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:05 PM

View PostSpiritWriter, on 10 July 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

So instead of the individual dying an unblemished animal was used in thier place. They would sprinkle the blood of this animal in cleansing rituals and it was the hopes of all involved that this was not done in vain but that through cleansing there was actually a repented heart.

Wouldn't it be possible to repent without killing a scapegoat, an innocent animal? Do you agree with animal sacrifice in the OT?

Quote

There are seversl scriptures in the bible where god says he is sickened by the sacrifices and burnt offerings because the people doing the ceremony, usually religious leaders would continue to sin.

So slaughtering animals by the thousands was the prescribed method of salvation? You don't see a problem with this?

Quote

The fact that he died for our sins simply means we have no guilt on us no matter what our previous state may have been at the time of our conversion/decision to accept christ.
Do you subscribe to the doctrine of original sin? If so, can you tell us what it actually entailed?


#13    SpiritWriter

SpiritWriter

  • Member
  • 3,727 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:on the ground

  • The greatest story ever told is Your story.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:08 PM

View Postredhen, on 10 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:



Wouldn't it be possible to repent without killing a scapegoat, an innocent animal? Do you agree with animal sacrifice in the OT?



So slaughtering animals by the thousands was the prescribed method of salvation? You don't see a problem with this?


Do you subscribe to the doctrine of original sin? If so, can you tell us what it actually entailed?

I believe it is possible as I have never killed an animal. I cant really say I personally have a problem with this I think it was evolitionary for man kind as this practice was not exclusive to the OT. Now that I am a pagan I have recognized the humams inclination for ceremony and I think that is how all religion started, as a natural desire to commune, be of favor to, gain power from the spiritual realms and divine presence. It is my understanding that the animals were also eaten so it is my assumption the rulers of the time mandat ed this practice so the could have feasts after thier ceremony. Yes they were probably geedy but it was two fold and still servicing the common man as he was involved in the ceremony and cleansing/blessing process. Which still happens today at the alter of churches all across the world. I am not saying all church leaders are greedy with that statement im just saying it happens. I am witness to the fact that god does still bless dispite the intentions of the leaders.

Do I ascribe to the doctrine of original sin? What is it? Um I wouldn't particularly say I ascribe to it, I think it is a metaphorical condition of the seperation of man from god...  I do ascribe to being joined back to god. I cannot say the true source of any one persons seperation or if in fact they were truly ever seperated but the definatly is a mental sepetation from man and god and I do believe in the teconection to god and for the most part I have seen this through a person accepting christ. I think this is powerful and has everything to do with the story of his sacrifice. Even though we may not still be familiar with the blood sacrifice it is still part of our primal memory or instincts or understanding and so the reason the name of Jesus is such a powerful name. So it really doesn't matter what I believe or think we are talking about the history of the christian religion and the current and ongoing belief of the function of the blood of jesus.

The letter kills but The Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one sided and thus unsuited to express the incomprehensible. -Jung

#14    SpiritWriter

SpiritWriter

  • Member
  • 3,727 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:on the ground

  • The greatest story ever told is Your story.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:09 PM

Sorry for typos im on my phone and cant edit now.

The letter kills but The Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one sided and thus unsuited to express the incomprehensible. -Jung

#15    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostSpiritWriter, on 10 July 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

I believe it is possible as I have never killed an animal. I cant really say I personally have a problem with this I think it was evolitionary for man kind as this practice was not exclusive to the OT

I agree, this seems to be a common form of appeasing the gods in many ancient religions, but by no means all of them; Buddhism and Jainism come to mind.


Quote

Do I ascribe to the doctrine of original sin? What is it? Um I wouldn't particularly say I ascribe to it, I think it is a metaphorical condition of the seperation of man from god..

I agree again, the story of The Fall is another common concept in many religions, the proverbial separation of humanity with the rest of nature, perhaps it was an ancient attempt at explaining self-awareness.

Quote

Even though we may not still be familiar with the blood sacrifice it is still part of our primal memory or instincts or understanding and so the reason the name of Jesus is such a powerful name.

Indeed, that is why on many Christian alters you will see engraved images of a sacrificial lamb, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.

I still don't understand how the ritual slaughter of a lamb can make oneself holy.






Also tagged with religion, jesus, bible

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users