Passion of the Christ

[defendor]

I noticed a theological conversation and had to jump in haha

Jesus never went to hell.  Many people like to depict him as "Jesus Christ Superstar" going into the bowels of hell and slaying demons and whatnot.  But as indicated in Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”" He did not say, oh sorry you can't come today, you'll have to wait.  The insinuation was on that day, at the hour of their death, they would ascend into Heaven

The suffering on the Cross is an interesting topic with many deep thoughts.  Even as the Father has forsaken him, that he may experience the separation of God unto death so that whoever believes in him will not have to worry about that.  Some evidence of this is when Stephen the first martyr is about to be stoned, and as he's about to die he sees Jesus, no separation unto death.  So there is also the strange dichotomous relationship, fully god and fully man.  SO as Jesus was in full nature God and was one in essence with the father, how could the father forsake him?  This is due to the nature of being fully man.  Jesus was exersizing his humanity.  Not that the spirit had left him, but that his flesh (humanity) was due punishment but not on his being as God.  This is an interesting concept even the apostle Paul made no evidence of grasping (as far as I'm aware of, I couldn't find the verse I was looking for, please rebuke me).  So the humanity of Jesus experience the separation of God all the way till death. He experienced the torment of a single moment without God so we don't have to.

But what really is an interesting concept is the resurrection.  I'm not going to go into the physical nature of this, but the philosophical.  Jesus did not have to resurrect to be the savior of mankind.  The payment of sin was payable on Christ's death.  So why did he have to rise? a few things 1. To show his power over death 2. to fulfill what he had said 3. To save us to something more.  The last one is the most interesting.  Christ resurrected so that he may, in his death, impart his life to us so that we may live and live victoriously over sin and death as he did, also as indicated above, so that we may never have separation from God. But, I am not saying our beings have changed to not be sinful, for Jesus did not come to make bad people good.  He came to make dead people live.

[karadan]

Well, i ment on offense, animateddirt. Really. And like McQ said we did go off topic. So back to the topic in hand. If Jesus was real and died to pay for our sins, then why do we have to stay sin free? Would'nt his death be in vain if we didn't sin?

This is a good question and one, I think, deserves an answer.

The short answer is we can't even stay sin-free if we wanted to.  

It's much like a son or daughter going out and spending mom and/or dad's money irresponsibly.  Maxing out credit cards, driving irresponsibly, maybe a drunk driving charge...so on.  The parent(s) can and might come and pay everything off for their child and the child should appreciate it and learn.  (making this short as it can drag)  Let's say the child does this again and again the parent(s) come and pay for their child's irresponsibility.  Shouldn't the child have learned their lesson?  If they had truly been sorry for their actions the first time, one might assume it wouldn't happen again.  Ok, so let's give the child the benefit of the doubt.  The parent(s) pay the second time because they love their child.  The child says sorry and repents that what they've done.  Time goes on and guess what, the child does it again only this time the the parent(s) is barely able to cover the debt.  Not only is the child spending money irresponsibly, but the child is falling deeper and deeper into some bad areas.  The parent(s) again pay it all for their child and at the same time, are ruinning their own living by constantly saving this child.  Why?  They must love this child more than the pain, grief, and monetary cost to them.

This cycle keeps going on and on.  What are your thoughts concerning the "sorry-ness" of the child in doing what he/she is doing?  Is there any real repentance on their part?  What is the right thing for the child to do?

The point is, not that the child will never ever slip up again on irresponsible spending or bad decisons in life.  The point is that the trend SHOULD curve away from that which is not right.  If, then, Christ paid a one time fee that pays for every single sin of humanity from beginning to end, past, present and future sins, is it not correct that the recipient of this gift, if truly repentant would at least show a trend to being less sinful?  If you've ever been a Christian, you'll know that we are never free from sin.  It is part of our nature and cannot remove sin at all.  So while we are yet sinners, Christ covers us.  We can only be covered if we take His death as our own and show a trend that we truly believe it.  Will we continue to sin?  Yes.  Will we even continue to sin knowing we are sinning?  Yes.  However, we cannot and should not have the trend show that we sin JUST BECAUSE our sin is paid for.  That would show we are much like the child that continues to bleed their parent(s) of money and peace of mind.

Is it a matter of brownie points, tic marks on a ledger sheet, the good outnumbering the bad....?  No.  Evidence for this?  The thief on the cross.  For his whole life (assuming) he was what he is.  A thief.  Being on the cross means he was guilty and deserved what society sentenced him to.  But he came to his senses.  Saw his own deceit and repented of his sin, putting his faith in Christ.  As long as it is a true repentance, deathbed confessions are worthy of salvation.  It seems unfair.  It might be to the human mind not knowing another's mind.  If God created us, then only He knows the heart's true intentions.  

Would'nt his death be in vain if we didn't sin?

Christ's death would be in vain if we did as the child did.  It means we never really loved and cherished our parent(s) but instead saw them as simply a means to get me out of my own irresponsible actions that I love more than I love them.  This would be proof of where our heart truly is.

The analogy isn't perfect, however I think it gives a good basis for answering your question.

All of that comes with common sense. I don't need a figment of some religious persons imagination to tell me how to live. The difference is, if i fuck up, i feel bad about it. That's my conscience speaking. There doesn't need to be a pre-existing supernatural rule to tell me what i did was bad.

I don't need a religious rule book to tell me how to do what already comes naturally. It's an over-complication of a simple human trait - morality. I'm CERTAINLY not going to live my life with the notion that i'm already bad and that i have to keep notching up brownie points until the day i die. That's just bullshit. Besides, if i needed that to drive the good in me, any of my good deeds would be completely insincere. Therefore, i consider any deeply religious person to have very high ratios of insincerity because any benevolent deed they do is not done for the sake of it, but to score points with god as to gain better seats in heaven. That, to me, is the very definition of asinine.

It's nice to know many religious people aren't able to be good for the sake of it. At least then, i know not to trust most of them. It's quite a time-saver in social situations!

[karadan]

But what really is an interesting concept is the resurrection.  I'm not going to go into the physical nature of this, but the philosophical.  Jesus did not have to resurrect to be the savior of mankind.  The payment of sin was payable on Christ's death.  So why did he have to rise? a few things 1. To show his power over death 2. to fulfill what he had said 3. To save us to something more.  The last one is the most interesting.  Christ resurrected so that he may, in his death, impart his life to us so that we may live and live victoriously over sin and death as he did, also as indicated above, so that we may never have separation from God. But, I am not saying our beings have changed to not be sinful, for Jesus did not come to make bad people good.  He came to make dead people live.

See, the main difference between you and me is:

You have to live your life by a rule book written by the supernatural. Your world is based upon a plethora of complicated rules and regulations you've been told to adhere to.
I live my life based upon the real and observable world. The rule book I live my life upon isn't a book. It's a few simple notions inherited from my parents and friends.

All the mental energy you've wasted trying to reconcile your beliefs with reality is the time I've spent enriching my mind appreciating the beauty of existence.

[AnimatedDirt]

I noticed a theological conversation and had to jump in haha

Jesus never went to hell.  Many people like to depict him as "Jesus Christ Superstar" going into the bowels of hell and slaying demons and whatnot.  But as indicated in Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” " He did not say, oh sorry you can't come today, you'll have to wait.  The insinuation was on that day, at the hour of their death, they would ascend into Heaven

The suffering on the Cross is an interesting topic with many deep thoughts.  Even as the Father has forsaken him, that he may experience the separation of God unto death so that whoever believes in him will not have to worry about that.  Some evidence of this is when Stephen the first martyr is about to be stoned, and as he's about to die he sees Jesus, no separation unto death.  So there is also the strange dichotomous relationship, fully god and fully man.  SO as Jesus was in full nature God and was one in essence with the father, how could the father forsake him?  This is due to the nature of being fully man.  Jesus was exersizing his humanity.  Not that the spirit had left him, but that his flesh (humanity) was due punishment but not on his being as God.  This is an interesting concept even the apostle Paul made no evidence of grasping (as far as I'm aware of, I couldn't find the verse I was looking for, please rebuke me).  So the humanity of Jesus experience the separation of God all the way till death. He experienced the torment of a single moment without God so we don't have to.

But what really is an interesting concept is the resurrection.  I'm not going to go into the physical nature of this, but the philosophical.  Jesus did not have to resurrect to be the savior of mankind.  The payment of sin was payable on Christ's death.  So why did he have to rise? a few things 1. To show his power over death 2. to fulfill what he had said 3. To save us to something more.  The last one is the most interesting.  Christ resurrected so that he may, in his death, impart his life to us so that we may live and live victoriously over sin and death as he did, also as indicated above, so that we may never have separation from God. But, I am not saying our beings have changed to not be sinful, for Jesus did not come to make bad people good.  He came to make dead people live.

Theologically, this is where we part.  (I feel a bunch of comments coming from the skeptic side...heh) While I figure we are both of the belief in the basics (saved by grace through faith, by Christ alone, not anything of ourselves), which is of most importance, the details are what separate our thinking.

First bold:  Try reading that without commas and by moving the comma around.  (I don't think there was punctuation in the original) I'm not saying dogmatically "I'm right", however one must conclude that there may be a different way of reading and understanding that one sentence. (also in light of other instances of death and heaven) If it is different from your take above, that in itself could change the course of beliefs/interpretation of certain ideas.

Second bold:  I disagree 100%.  Simply if Christ died and wasn't resurrected, we have no hope in resurrection.  Furthermore, if Christ/God can die and isn't able to resurrect Himself or His Son (whichever way you see it) then how can He resurrect a human?  Our Christian faith is based on His death and most importantly, His resurrection.  We don't have a faith in a dead God, but a living God.  What would faith be if it was on the dead if "the dead know nothing" ?  It is my conclusion that Christ HAD to be resurrected to then be able to impart salvation.  Maybe I'm not understanding what you wrote above.  The bolded statement is a stand-alone statement, however.

As I said, If you believe this, doesn't necessarily change the basics since Christ was raised on that Sunday morning.

[father nicetouch]

I noticed a theological conversation and had to jump in haha

Jesus never went to hell.  Many people like to depict him as "Jesus Christ Superstar" going into the bowels of hell and slaying demons and whatnot.  But as indicated in Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” " He did not say, oh sorry you can't come today, you'll have to wait.  The insinuation was on that day, at the hour of their death, they would ascend into Heaven

The suffering on the Cross is an interesting topic with many deep thoughts.  Even as the Father has forsaken him, that he may experience the separation of God unto death so that whoever believes in him will not have to worry about that.  Some evidence of this is when Stephen the first martyr is about to be stoned, and as he's about to die he sees Jesus, no separation unto death.  So there is also the strange dichotomous relationship, fully god and fully man.  SO as Jesus was in full nature God and was one in essence with the father, how could the father forsake him?  This is due to the nature of being fully man.  Jesus was exersizing his humanity.  Not that the spirit had left him, but that his flesh (humanity) was due punishment but not on his being as God.  This is an interesting concept even the apostle Paul made no evidence of grasping (as far as I'm aware of, I couldn't find the verse I was looking for, please rebuke me).  So the humanity of Jesus experience the separation of God all the way till death. He experienced the torment of a single moment without God so we don't have to.

But what really is an interesting concept is the resurrection.  I'm not going to go into the physical nature of this, but the philosophical.  Jesus did not have to resurrect to be the savior of mankind.  The payment of sin was payable on Christ's death.  So why did he have to rise? a few things 1. To show his power over death 2. to fulfill what he had said 3. To save us to something more.  The last one is the most interesting.  Christ resurrected so that he may, in his death, impart his life to us so that we may live and live victoriously over sin and death as he did, also as indicated above, so that we may never have separation from God. But, I am not saying our beings have changed to not be sinful, for Jesus did not come to make bad people good.  He came to make dead people live.

Theologically, this is where we part.  (I feel a bunch of comments coming from the skeptic side...heh) While I figure we are both of the belief in the basics (saved by grace through faith, by Christ alone, not anything of ourselves), which is of most importance, the details are what separate our thinking.

First bold:  Try reading that without commas and by moving the comma around.  (I don't think there was punctuation in the original) I'm not saying dogmatically "I'm right", however one must conclude that there may be a different way of reading and understanding that one sentence. (also in light of other instances of death and heaven) If it is different from your take above, that in itself could change the course of beliefs/interpretation of certain ideas.

Second bold:  I disagree 100%.  Simply if Christ died and wasn't resurrected, we have no hope in resurrection.  Furthermore, if Christ/God can die and isn't able to resurrect Himself or His Son (whichever way you see it) then how can He resurrect a human?  Our Christian faith is based on His death and most importantly, His resurrection.  We don't have a faith in a dead God, but a living God.  What would faith be if it was on the dead if "the dead know nothing" ?  It is my conclusion that Christ HAD to be resurrected to then be able to impart salvation.  Maybe I'm not understanding what you wrote above.  The bolded statement is a stand-alone statement, however.

As I said, If you believe this, doesn't necessarily change the basics since Christ was raised on that Sunday morning.

   Karadan, I agree with you in everything you said. We do not need some book to tell us we need to be good to be good. A good person will do good things no matter what! But we were talking about what Christ’s death on the cross meant.

Wow! Two Christians going at it! Hell yeah! I haven’t seen this sense Sunday school! JK!

   Well, first I get what you mean with the analogy of the kids being bad and I know that Christ death was a sacrifice for all mankind. Because back in the day they used to sacrifice animals to wash away their sins and Christ’s death on the cross was the last sacrifise. I understand all that. But wouldn’t it be easier if he just came down and said, “Ok, no more animal sacrifices! Just ask for forgiveness and all is forgiven!” instead of actually be crucified? Why did there have to be a human sacrifice? Why does God have to be so blood thirsty? Those are things that make no sense to me at all. If God is all powerful, why does he have to make everything so complicated?

[defendor]

Animated Dirt- I agree with the first bold, but as for the sacrificial atonement and the second bold, you have to look at what scripture says, I'm not sure on the verse, but the sacrificial system was set up that the payment of sin was death, not resurrection.  To my understanding, the payment of sin was fulfilled on the Cross, but the impartation of the spirit came as the resurrection.  I agree with you, it would really not be much of saving as to pull a drowning person to the surface but Christ also pulls us in the boat (proverbially) So I agree with that statement that the resurrection is essential to instilling the hope of the resurrection and eternal life etc.  But the payment of sin was payed 3 days earlier as the wages of sin are death.

You have to live your life by a rule book written by the supernatural. Your world is based upon a plethora of complicated rules and regulations you've been told to adhere to.
I live my life based upon the real and observable world. The rule book I live my life upon isn't a book. It's a few simple notions inherited from my parents and friends.

All the mental energy you've wasted trying to reconcile your beliefs with reality is the time I've spent enriching my mind appreciating the beauty of existence.

Then why even try to justify what you believe by posting it on an internet forum?

[AnimatedDirt]

Karadan, I agree with you in everything you said. We do not need some book to tell us we need to be good to be good. A good person will do good things no matter what! But we were talking about what Christ’s death on the cross meant.

Yes...we digress.  

Wow! Two Christians going at it! Hell yeah! I haven’t seen this sense Sunday school! JK!

While we may disagree on specifics, I think we agree on the basics...which is the most important.

Well, first I get what you mean with the analogy of the kids being bad and I know that Christ death was a sacrifice for all mankind. Because back in the day they used to sacrifice animals to wash away their sins and Christ’s death on the cross was the last sacrifise. I understand all that.

I have a feeling you don't.  Those animal sacrifices did nothing to remove/forgive sin.  They were a teaching "tool" used to teach the ugliness sin causes.
EDIT:  This pointed at the True "Lamb"/Sacrifice and the True Blood required for forgiveness and reconcilliation back to the state of Adam and Eve Pre-fruit.
For there to be forgiveness (meaning a reconciling, to make things right and to fully declare one righteous again) there needs to be payment for sin.  Again, this goes back to God's nature.  He is Righteousness/Rightness embodied.  To be Righteous/Justice, HE MUST Judge correctly and fair.  God cannot forgive and forget without Justice.  Justice means the crime/wrong is paid and MADE right.  So then those old sacrifices were the tool used to teach that to be forgiven requires either;

• 1.  Your own blood/death to pay for sin
• 2.  Innocent blood/death shed for you.

(Blood is simply a metaphor for life.  Without blood in your body, you are dead.)

The blood/innocense of mortal animals for a human is not enough, but taught the lesson and showed sin in its truest sense.

But wouldn’t it be easier if he just came down and said, “Ok, no more animal sacrifices! Just ask for forgiveness and all is forgiven!” instead of actually be crucified? Why did there have to be a human sacrifice?

One human sacrifice who happened to be sinless.  A perfect "Lamb" slaughtered so that you and I can be saved from sin's wage, if we so choose.

Why does God have to be so blood thirsty? Those are things that make no sense to me at all. If God is all powerful, why does he have to make everything so complicated?

It's very simple really, but our minds, even "understanding" it, cannot really understand it as it goes against what we believe to be logical.  God is not "blood" thirsty, Sin is what brings blood/death.  If sin had not entered into humanity, we'd still be living perfect lives in "Eden" all the while STILL with complete freewill.  The concept I see over and over that the skeptic has a difficult time seeing is that God IS something.  Being that something logically defines both that something and the opposite of that something.  One does not "create" the other, it just is.  To then say, "God caused all this and forced man into sin..." is on the surface correct as God does make such declarations in scripture, but the deeper meaning is not that at all.  It's much like BECAUSE we know light, we also know what dark and shadow is.  If there was no light, we wouldn't know what "dark" means, it just would be the way it is.

Edit = Blue text.

[AnimatedDirt]

Animated Dirt- I agree with the first bold,

If you agree, then what are the immediate ramifications of changing the inflections of the sentence?
Instead of you and I derailing this thread further, if you wish to discuss, open a topic.

but as for the sacrificial atonement and the second bold, you have to look at what scripture says, I'm not sure on the verse, but the sacrificial system was set up that the payment of sin was death, not resurrection.  To my understanding, the payment of sin was fulfilled on the Cross, but the impartation of the spirit came as the resurrection.  I agree with you, it would really not be much of saving as to pull a drowning person to the surface but Christ also pulls us in the boat (proverbially) So I agree with that statement that the resurrection is essential to instilling the hope of the resurrection and eternal life etc.  But the payment of sin was payed 3 days earlier as the wages of sin are death.

The short answer to this is; Payment made, but not hope for the gift = Payment useless and God dead.
Again, if you wish to discuss this, open another topic for it.  

[defendor]

Well, first I get what you mean with the analogy of the kids being bad and I know that Christ death was a sacrifice for all mankind. Because back in the day they used to sacrifice animals to wash away their sins and Christ’s death on the cross was the last sacrifise. I understand all that. But wouldn’t it be easier if he just came down and said, “Ok, no more animal sacrifices! Just ask for forgiveness and all is forgiven!” instead of actually be crucified? Why did there have to be a human sacrifice? Why does God have to be so blood thirsty? Those are things that make no sense to me at all. If God is all powerful, why does he have to make everything so complicated?

The nature of sin, is that it has to be washed with a blood sacrifice.  It is a gruesome depiction of what our sin looks like, so we gaze upon the body of Christ on the Cross, see our sin on a sinless being, and thus repent, etc.

Animated Dirt- Ha I would love to, I'm not sure how to start a thread tho, but idk if its worth it.  The apostle paul says do not argue about disputable manners, i think this is very disputable.  I feel that we agree on all of the close handed issues but argue on the open handed, such as the mechanisms of salvation etc.  Which is fine, I just don't know how far it could go.  I'm not an expert in theology so the only thing I can dispute is what I've known from what I've read in the Bible ha.  But regardless I think we would agree on the innate being of Love that combines us, so ya we disagree on the impartation of the righteousness of God, but I mean thats really a small topic, for no only, we have been imparted this righteousness already.

[karadan]

Then why even try to justify what you believe by posting it on an internet forum?

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I was merely stating fact.

[defendor]

I believe the same thing about my life, the understanding of Christ liberates me to the astounding nature of Truth and frees me from the tyranny of deceit that plagues my life.

I'm sure you're going to disagree.

So if we just are going to disagree about disagreeing, why even bother making a snide remark?

[karadan]

I believe the same thing about my life, the understanding of Christ liberates me to the astounding nature of Truth and frees me from the tyranny of deceit that plagues my life.

I'm sure you're going to disagree.

So if we just are going to disagree about disagreeing, why even bother making a snide remark?

There was nothing snide about what I said, unless you consider all differing opinions to be snide. I was being as truthful as I could, seeing as what I wrote is what I believe, which I think is backed up by logic. To me, it isn't logical to believe in the improvable, especially if your entire life is based upon it.

Whether you believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in the beliefs of religious people. I'm intrigued with the mind states involved and from my personal experience, I've seen religion make people do really weird stuff, which they usually seem completely happy to justify.

By the way, what did you mean by "frees me from the tyranny of deceit that plagues my life"? I usually have a hard time trying to de-cipher many religious justifications. Maybe that's just my inability to grasp simple English, though.

[defendor]

There was nothing snide about what I said, unless you consider all differing opinions to be snide. I was being as truthful as I could, seeing as what I wrote is what I believe, which I think is backed up by logic. To me, it isn't logical to believe in the improvable, especially if your entire life is based upon it.

Whether you believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in the beliefs of religious people. I'm intrigued with the mind states involved and from my personal experience, I've seen religion make people do really weird stuff, which they usually seem completely happy to justify.

By the way, what did you mean by "frees me from the tyranny of deceit that plagues my life"? I usually have a hard time trying to de-cipher many religious justifications. Maybe that's just my inability to grasp simple English, though.

I apologize for jumping to a conclusion, it seemed that tone was demeaning and snooty, like 'oh what idiots, don't you guys know you're bickering about nonsense'.  So I became defensive, I'm sorry.

Well I think whenever you take a look at reality you have to a make a few assertions
1. Truth as a Category exists
2. There are existential questions from which I cannot run (where am I from? what happens when I die? what is the meaning of life?, etc.)

So when you begin to take a look at the Christian narrative, and the biblical schema of the prophetic nature of a messiah, as well as other spiritual truths.  You begin to see claims to a cosmotic entity of truth.  But if this revelation did not agree with the way I perceived reality or was found to be untrue, it could not be a reliable source.  For all intensive purposes, there is not one bit of overwhelming evidence that the Bible is simply "untrue".  Most people like to claim that it is, but there is no real evidence discerning such.  Also, combined with an indifferent perspective of reality, we see the order of the universe, as well as, the magnitudes of information, it screams prior mind.  In accordance with a seemingly universal state of morality, an innate worth placed on man outside the constraints of the physical nature of man.  So in concordance with our perspective of reality, and the nature of the prophetic schema of Christ as laid out in the Bible, it all points to something outside of its own being to an origin and an originator (i.e. Creator God). The bible, among other religious texts, stands alone as authoritative claims, not of revelation or inspiration, but of expiration of God as its author.  As well as the nature of Christianity.  Other religions did not require their originator to still be their respective religion.  Islam didn't need Mohammed, Mormon didn't need Joseph smith, and Buddhism could still be buddhism without buddha.  But when it comes to Christians, if you take Christ out of it, all you have left is ian, and ian made no claims of saving anybody.  So much of Christianity is laid squarely on the person and deity of Jesus Christ.

[tubbyman]

Without wishing to get embroiled in anything massively deep right now - I thought The Passion Of The Christ was a great film. Excellent cinematography, tight script and compelling story.

I also thought Avatar was pretty good but I dont believe the Na'vi are still struggling to rebuild Pandora.

[The Magic Pudding]

I also thought Avatar was pretty good but I dont believe the Na'vi are still struggling to rebuild Pandora.

Praise the lord, I knew those blue guys would get things fixed.