Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Allterspace

Did Jesus Die for our sins?

32 posts in this topic

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.

I dont think it makes you holy but it makes you clean. It is up to you to maintain your cleansliness which is as holy as anyone could try for I think. Clean because the animal died in exchange for you, plus is seen as an appeasment.

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i believe jesus never died

but i could argue if jesus died to grant people salvation

would that be fair ?

so all bad and good people alike would be awarded heaven by accepting the fact that jesus died on cross for their sins

so would murderers and all the criminals also sin-free if they believed in jesus as their salvation ?

basically then it doesn't matter if you're good or bad

you'd be treated on same level as sinners mentioned above

or am i wrong ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is up to you to maintain your cleansliness which is as holy as anyone could try for I think.

That sounds reasonable.

Clean because the animal died in exchange for you, plus is seen as an appeasment.

So once again we come down to scapegoats, literally, and appeasing angry gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i could argue if jesus died to grant people salvation

would that be fair ?

if the idea of vicarious salvation sounds appealing.

so all bad and good people alike would be awarded heaven by accepting the fact that jesus died on cross for their sins

so would murderers and all the criminals also sin-free if they believed in jesus as their salvation ?

basically then it doesn't matter if you're good or bad

you'd be treated on same level as sinners mentioned above

or am i wrong ?

It depends on which Christian denomination you are talking about, some require baptism, confirmation and confession along with believing the creed. Other churches are less demanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to thank all of you who have tried to clear this up for me. What I get from all this is, Jesus's death was a sacrifice or payment to appease God to forgive us for the sins humanity has made in the past. Baptism is remove the sins that we made as babies up to the time of baptism. "Original sin" is hereditary or born into you because of the sinfull actions of our ansestors in the past.

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic, I hope I'm not just plain clueless but to a regular person it just seems way to complicated. Maybe it just because I live a very striaght forward life I have trouble with this reasoning. I do beleave more and more people in the world today are using the act of going to church every sunday as a free pass to sin and do wrong throughout the rest of the week (Southern Baptist).

What I have learned from this is :

1. There is many different religious beliefs which contradict one another.

2. Each religion's Bible or Holy Book is an "interpetation" of that religions belief of mankind's creation and basic morals and values.

3. Because every religions Holy Book is a revision or translation of original text, Its hard to say wether one book has been translated better than anothers.

4. Maybe the best way to find truth is to take all of the translations from each religion and compare them to each other and look for simularities.

Or the last final option or lession would be, do unto others, as I would want done to me. And in the end just have faith I have done right in my lifetime.

Thanks again for all of you who have helped me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it makes you holy but it makes you clean. It is up to you to maintain your cleansliness which is as holy as anyone could try for I think. Clean because the animal died in exchange for you, plus is seen as an appeasment.

The idea that killing an innocent animal somehow cleans oneself, and appeases God is pretty barbaric and idiotic in my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he died for the fame

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian so I don't know the Christian way of looking at it but I always thought that 'dying for our sins' just meant that he died after spending his whole [short] life, striving to get people to rise above their 'sinful ways.' Something along those lines. You know, his whole life was about sin and the eradication of sin - for the benefit of all human beings - and he knew he was risking his life for this aim, I assume. And he died for it. I mean, that's a massive sacrifice in anyone's book. Dying for our sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yes. The scapegoat/blood sacrifice mythos is exactly that which Rene Girard (google-able) has written a post-modern refutation over recent decades. Essentially, his view is that Jesus' sacrifice was the sacrifice to end all sacrifice (it's arguable whether or not he makes his case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he died for the fame

And power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.