why was there Jesus

[seashale76]

my question is simple. Why was Jesus necessary?

perhaps the question needs more explanation than that...

i always heard, when i was a christian, that Jesus basically took the place of yearly animal sacrifices done by the jews. because Jesus died for humanity, now we dont have to sacrifice animals for our sins.

if that is the case why did God use Jesus? why didnt he just say "no more animal sacs. just ask forgiveness and your good".

Man was created to experience communion with God (attain theosis). When Adam and Even sinned, death entered the world and that is a consequence we all inherit (Ancestral Sin). Sin is "missing the mark." It is anything that keeps us from God. Adam and Eve were guilty of the sin of pride. We don't inherit the guilt for their sin though (the Augustinian concept known as Original Sin along with total depravity). This is removed at one's baptism.

I've read somewhere that even if sin and death had not been introduced into the world, that Christ still would have come in the flesh. Mainly because people were created with the intent to eventually attain theosis. They weren't at that point before the fall. Only through Christ can we know the unknowable God. His Church is the ark of our salvation.

The problem of our life is union with God, and sin completely prevents this; therefore flee from sin as from a terrible enemy, as from the destroyer of the soul, because to be without God is death and not life. Let us therefore understand our destination; let us always remember that our common Master calls us to union with Himself. -St. John of Kronstadt (My Life in Christ, Part 1; Holy Trinity Monastery pg. 20)

 

[kidsagainstkows]

your response doesnt tell me why God couldnt have just forgiven us without going through the huge workaround that was Jesus.

also if you think that this sin is removed at baptism, i have been baptized (at 16), i however am now an atheist. what is my fate?

 

[Jazmyn]

Just God's plan before the world began.

-------------------

First and foremost, it should be noted that the Bible does not commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of slavery. In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic Law thus stipulated stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Lev. 25:40). In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. In America, many are beginning to wake up to the liberating biblical truth that all people are created innately equal (see Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26–28; see also Gal. 3:28).

Furthermore, slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could, thus, use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exod. 23:3).

Finally, we should note that far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible denounces slavery as sin. The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Tim.1:9-10). Indeed, slavery is so abhorrent to God that in the final book of the Bible, He condemns the evil systems that perpetuate it.

-------------------

The list in the Muratorian Fragment, written in about 170AD, is the earliest known list of New Testament books, it also describes how John wrote the fourth Gospel:

"(9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvellous deeds of the Lord, in their order."

 

[seashale76]

your response doesnt tell me why God couldnt have just forgiven us without going through the huge workaround that was Jesus.

also if you think that this sin is removed at baptism, i have been baptized (at 16), i however am now an atheist. what is my fate?

It sounds like you're delving into Penal Substitutionary Atonement here- and the Orthodox don't believe that. We believe the Church is the ark of our salvation and a hospital for sinners. The Eucharist is our medicine of immortality. Christ is part of the Godhead. People were created to be in communion with God. Its not a huge workaround. Christ defeated death. The goal is theosis which is best described as union with God. Through Christ we can attain theosis.

It means that you can still sin, do what you like in this life, deny your baptism into Christ, and not endure to the end. Your fate is entirely dependent upon you. That is ultimately between you and the God you don't believe in. Will you experience the love of God as heaven or hell? Same thing- different perception- God doesn't change.

 

[rahmiyn]

your response doesnt tell me why God couldnt have just forgiven us without going through the huge workaround that was Jesus.

also if you think that this sin is removed at baptism, i have been baptized (at 16), i however am now an atheist. what is my fate?

I would like to ask you a question. When you day you are an atheist, can you describe what it is you don't believe. Do disbelieve in God (creator of the universe), or is there some aspect of God you were taught that you disbelieve? Or is it the Christian God, or maybe even Jesus himself?

 

[Christos Anesti]

your response doesn't tell me why God couldn't have just forgiven us without going through the huge workaround that was Jesus.

The life , death, and resurrection of Christ brought about more then simple forgiveness.

 

[kidsagainstkows]

I would like to ask you a question. When you day you are an atheist, can you describe what it is you don't believe. Do disbelieve in God (creator of the universe), or is there some aspect of God you were taught that you disbelieve? Or is it the Christian God, or maybe even Jesus himself?

I am a naturalist, that is to say, that i do not believe in anything that is supernatural. i am willing to grant that Jesus existed, or that he was based off of a person that actually existed. i however, do not believe that this person preformed any miracles, had a normal birth, and a normal death.

that is actually a very good question as atheists do not fall into a specific category. my ex for instance is also an atheist, but she believes in ghosts and things of that nature which i reject. Buddhists are also atheists and i dont follow on their supernatural (or their principle) suppositions either. i hope i was able to clear that up for you

Could you inform me as to what the point of Jesus was then? people tell me he was an example, but there are others so what makes Jesus so special.

For my random question in the middle of a topic... Is Mahatma Gandhi in hell?

 

[Jazmyn]

For my random question in the middle of a topic... Is Mahatma Gandhi in hell?

"But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:6-9)

Could you inform me as to what the point of Jesus was then? people tell me he was an example, but there are others so what makes Jesus so special.

He is the Son of God.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17)

"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." (1 John 4:6)

 

[kidsagainstkows]

so, short answer is no?

also, the only reason you (or anyone else) believes he is the son of god is becuase the bible says so. i do not find any authority within the bible. this leaves me wanting extrabiblical evidence for your reasoning that Jesus is son of God.

 

[Jazmyn]

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

The Holy Spirit and God the Father are my extra-biblical evidence.

 

[kidsagainstkows]

extrabiblical evidence for those guys please, and i wont accept personal experience because that is not evidence for anything except for the person who experiences.

 

[aiki]

i wont accept personal experience because that is not evidence for anything except for the person who experiences.

Oh, really? Well, then, one cannot assert anything objectively; for everything is ultimately personally, subjectively experienced - even "objective" fact. Under the restriction you have given above, you cannot say, "Naturalism is the truth about reality," because this statement is processed subjectively, through you. If personal experience is ruled out as a source of evidence for objective truth, then nothing can be known, for everything is known subjectively (that is, taken in, processed, and understood by a person's own mental, emotional and physical faculties).

Peace.

 

[kidsagainstkows]

Oh, really? Well, then, one cannot assert anything objectively; for everything is ultimately personally, subjectively experienced - even "objective" fact. Under the restriction you have given above, you cannot say, "Naturalism is the truth about reality," because this statement is processed subjectively, through you. If personal experience is ruled out as a source of evidence for objective truth, then nothing can be known, for everything is known subjectively (that is, taken in, processed, and understood by a person's own mental, emotional and physical faculties).

Peace.

certainly we can prove things objectively. we do not have to experience things personally in order to know it to be true. i am 99.99% sure that China exists, even if i havnt been there. we can prove objectively that fossils exist, we can prove any number of things objectively. just because we have to examine the evidence, and decide that if such evidence is good or bad, does not mean that it cant be proven objectively.

 

[aiki]

certainly we can prove things objectively. we do not have to experience things personally in order to know it to be true. i am 99.99% sure that China exists, even if i havnt been there. we can prove objectively that fossils exist, we can prove any number of things objectively. just because we have to examine the evidence, and decide that if such evidence is good or bad, does not mean that it cant be proven objectively.

I don't think you understand what I was pointing out to you. Let me see if I can rephrase.

Everything you know, everything you perceive, becomes, to some degree, subjective the moment you come to know or perceive it. It is impossible for you to experience anything in a truly objective way. Someone may say to you, "China exists," and the moment that fact is taken in by your mind it is in some measure experienced. Oh, you may not actually see China, but your mind conjures up all sorts of ideas and images, and perhaps even emotions, that you associate with the word, or idea, of China. And so, even if you haven't experienced the physical reality known as China, at least you have some experience of it as an idea. In this way all objective fact becomes an experience for the individual and thus, in some measure, subjective. Consequently, to say flatly that one's personal experience "is not evidence for anything" rules out everything people assimilate and experience as fact.

I don't believe that personal experience can be sidelined the way you would like it to be - especially in view of the fact that millions of Christians claim a personal experience of God. However, if you insist on dismissing their experience then, to be consistent, you must also dismiss your own, which is devoid of a sense of God, as being indicative of anything real. You also run into the problem of where to draw the line between what is personal experience and what is objective fact. As I've explained above, in some way every objective fact we take in is experienced and thus may be excluded under your rule against using personal experience as evidence of what is real and true.

I am not saying there are no objective facts, just that your rule of evidence excluding personal experience is unreasonable, and problematic, and erodes your own position.

Peace.

 

[spidergains]

Jesus Gives Peace :: Campus Crusade for Christ International