Resurrection

[defendor]

Did Jesus need to be resurrected from the grave to save us from our sins?

[AnimatedDirt]

Did Jesus need to be resurrected from the grave to save us from our sins?

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.

Further more, Christ is our Advocate...Christ sent us the HS to convict...none of this could happen without Christ resurrecting.

Again, if Christ didn't resurrect, we'd be "worshipping" a dead God, or at least a god that is a liar and not immortal...how then could this god, who himself is mortal, impart immortality?

[defendor]

I agree with that statement as a whole.  But the notion I am looking at is in a very particular sense, the payment of sins.  I hold the understanding that as sins are concerned, Christ's death solely instituted sufficient payment.  I think this is agreeable between us.  I also used the reference that Jesus rose to show power of death and also impart his life to us, which I think you agree with.  So the forgivement of sins was completed at the hour in which Christ died, but the resurrection did more than just provide an opportunity for us to be cleansed of our sins (as all old testament sacrifices were designed to do).  So I agree, we needed the resurrection to live a spirit and christ filled life, but he did not need to resurrect to have sufficient atonement of our sins.  But he did not merely come to just forgive us of our sins.  I used this quote once and I love it ha although I jacked it from Ravi Zacharias its "Jesus did not come to make bad people good, but jesus came to make dead people live.  

So in this understanding, yes he in fact HAD to resurrect himself, but as just for the pure atonement of sins, Christ's work was finished on the Cross thus the phrase uttered "it is finished" But it wasn't finished, for he had to come back, so I hope the disparagement is cleared up a bit ha

If you really wanna get on a theological dispute, start with Armenianism versus Calvinism haha

[AnimatedDirt]

I agree with that statement as a whole.  But the notion I am looking at is in a very particular sense, the payment of sins.  I hold the understanding that as sins are concerned, Christ's death solely instituted sufficient payment.  I think this is agreeable between us.  I also used the reference that Jesus rose to show power of death and also impart his life to us, which I think you agree with.  So the forgivement of sins was completed at the hour in which Christ died, but the resurrection did more than just provide an opportunity for us to be cleansed of our sins (as all old testament sacrifices were designed to do).  So I agree, we needed the resurrection to live a spirit and christ filled life, but he did not need to resurrect to have sufficient atonement of our sins.  But he did not merely come to just forgive us of our sins.  I used this quote once and I love it ha although I jacked it from Ravi Zacharias its "Jesus did not come to make bad people good, but jesus came to make dead people live.  

So in this understanding, yes he in fact HAD to resurrect himself, but as just for the pure atonement of sins, Christ's work was finished on the Cross thus the phrase uttered "it is finished" But it wasn't finished, for he had to come back, so I hope the disparagement is cleared up a bit ha

I'll play along even though I disagree.

Ok.  Christ's death paid for the sin of the world.  Christ is dead and cannot, either resurrect Himself nor be resurrected.

What now?  What is the point of making this "fact"/point?  What is the point of Christ dying?

If you agree as it seems you do, that Christ HAD to resurrect from the dead, what is the point in saying He didn't need to?  Are sinners still saved?  Where does this premise conclude?

[defendor]

I'll play along even though I disagree.

Ok.  Christ's death paid for the sin of the world.  Christ is dead and cannot, either resurrect Himself nor be resurrected.

What now?  What is the point of making this "fact"/point?  What is the point of Christ dying?

If you agree as it seems you do, that Christ HAD to resurrect from the dead, what is the point in saying He didn't need to?  Are sinners still saved?  Where does this premise conclude?

So we would be forgiven of sins but still be wallowing in our own brokenness.  

In the entire ministry of Christ, he needed to resurrect himself.  He didn't come to merely just forgive sins.  That is a big part of it, but as we have agreed, thats not all there is to be a Christian (just being forgiven of sins).  So there seems to be a 2-fold idea: salvation and sanctification.  Dying in our sins with Christ, and being reborn and living in Christ's resurrected life.  

So yes I agree that Christ's sacrifice and resurrection was full atonement and justification.  But to just pay our sins, all he needed to do was die for us.  But he didn't come to just pay our sins, he came to reconcile us with the Most High God.  This involves living in repentance, I think you will agree in principle.  I'm not saying Christ didn't have to resurrect.  But what value of "paying our sins" did Christ fulfill when he resurrected?

[AnimatedDirt]

But what value of "paying our sins" did Christ fulfill when he resurrected?

That's simple.  There is absolutely no value in simply paying for sin if there is no reconcilliation.
So the point is, there is not point to making the point that "Christ didn't have to resurrect to pay for sin."
It's like putting a cast on the broken leg of an already dead person and leaves God dead.

[defendor]

I agree with you wholeheartedly about salvation. I'm just breaking down the exact mechanisms for which Christ has saved us.  Dying would not be full restitution, for it is incomplete in doing what Jesus wanted accomplished, but his death is full payment of our sins or atonement. It does take both the death and then power over death, resurrection.  But simply his death on the cross was payment of our sins in the full.  But Christ did not merely come to pay for our sins.  For paying of our sins without us repenting is worthless, thats why he rose, to impart to us his spirit. The resurrection validated the atonement on the cross because it showed that he has victory over death.  So the resurrection let everyone know that what he did was legit.  In other words, if he would have stayed in the ground, people would have known that he was just another dude that rots in the ground like the rest of us.  But when he came out people realized that he really was who he said he was, the Son of God, who has the authority to wipe away sins by his perfect sacrifice.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâ€"to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I would like to mention this is a pretty meaningless argument, if I am wrong I will probably go to sleep fine tonight knowing that Christ has both died and resurrected in complete fulfillment of the law and atonement and justification.  

I would also like to mention we're really just splitting hairs with this one.

[AnimatedDirt]

I agree with you wholeheartedly about salvation. I'm just breaking down the exact mechanisms for which Christ has saved us.  Dying would not be full restitution, for it is incomplete in doing what Jesus wanted accomplished, but his death is full payment of our sins or atonement. It does take both the death and then power over death, resurrection.  But simply his death on the cross was payment of our sins in the full.

I disagree.  See the previous post and the cast analogy.

But Christ did not merely come to pay for our sins.  For paying of our sins without us repenting is worthless, thats why he rose, to impart to us his spirit. The resurrection validated the atonement on the cross because it showed that he has victory over death.  So the resurrection let everyone know that what he did was legit.  In other words, if he would have stayed in the ground, people would have known that he was just another dude that rots in the ground like the rest of us.  But when he came out people realized that he really was who he said he was, the Son of God, who has the authority to wipe away sins by his perfect sacrifice.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâ€"to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I would like to mention this is a pretty meaningless argument, if I am wrong I will probably go to sleep fine tonight knowing that Christ has both died and resurrected in complete fulfillment of the law and atonement and justification.  

I would also like to mention we're really just splitting hairs with this one.

I have no idea why you're making this point.  If in fact it is a meaningless argument (which I believe it is 100% so) then all I did was +4 my post count here.  Nothing else.

[defendor]

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

The question I have for you is 'do you believe in predestination?'

[Stevil]

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

Well this is as futile as two atheists having a discussion from an atheist perspective but hoping a theist will overhear, unless communication is tailored to include the language and understanding of the intended audience I doubt the intended audience will properly understand or ever agree with the conclusions.

From my perspective
1. It is highly likely that there are no gods
2. Even if there are gods, it is highly unlikely that they match the description of any of the scriptures, or fables, or myths that people know of
3. There doesn't seem to be any way to observe any of the gods in today's time
4. There doesn't seem to be any way to know that any of the gods were observable at any time in the past
5. Everything in our universe seems to adhere quite consistently with laws of physics and laws of probability
6. There doesn't seem to be any way to validate that any worshippers, choosen few are any better off, statistically or laws of physics wise than any other people
7. By an understanding of the Christian god as described in the bible and as per described by its worshippers it seems that this god is all powerful and has no limitations whatsoever, is all loving and all forgiving.
8. By 7, it appears to me from an atheist perspective that the theory is that the Christian god has no constraints, no limitations, which would mean the Christian god has no requirement for blood sacrifices.
9.  There seems to be no connection between myself and the death of Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago. This symbolic self sacrifice had no impact on myself and could never have had one. It is totally isolated from myself and hence did not save my soul or attone for my "sins" made over 2,000 years later.
10. It is highly unlikely that Jesus Christ came back from the dead in flesh and blood.
11. A sacrifice of a God (assuming JC and the Christian god are one in the same) seems pointless, given that Christians beleive that God and/or Jesus Christ continue to exist.

So my simple answer would be that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for me was a pointless and nonsensical event within the bible. However I understand that Christians hold this to be one of the most meaningful events for them, for whatever reason. Historically it seems lots of people were into blood sacrifices, they thought there was some powerful mystical aspect to killing animals (humans included)

[Tom62]

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.'

I don't think that any atheist is interested in this type of theological discussions. Like AD already said "the argument is meaningless".

[AnimatedDirt]

The question I have for you is 'do you believe in predestination?'

Define Predestination.

[defendor]

Ha it is not by any means lack of free will.

I believe we all have free will but all choose hell.

But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rel ... estination

I think this is a very interesting concept, check it out

[hackenslash]

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that atheists don't understand faith. You'd be entirely wrong in that, of course. Indeed, atheists understand faith far better than believers, because they actually understand its true value.

More importantly, though, you are overlooking the fact that the vast majority of atheists weren't always atheists. You might want to think about that.

As for the topic, this fallacy is known as the fallacy of the complex question. Embedded in the question are the implicit assumptions that a) Jesus was resurrected and b) that we need to be 'saved' (whatever the holy fuck that means). I categorically reject both assumptions as unfounded wibble, and the question as fallacious in the extreme.

[defendor]

I think this a good place to debate any theological ideas. If all else, it will give atheists insight to a truer understanding of faith, that its not just believing what we don't understand.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that atheists don't understand faith. You'd be entirely wrong in that, of course. Indeed, atheists understand faith far better than believers, because they actually understand its true value.

More importantly, though, you are overlooking the fact that the vast majority of atheists weren't always atheists. You might want to think about that.

As for the topic, this fallacy is known as the fallacy of the complex question. Embedded in the question are the implicit assumptions that a) Jesus was resurrected and b) that we need to be 'saved' (whatever the holy fuck that means). I categorically reject both assumptions as unfounded wibble, and the question as fallacious in the extreme.

If you weren't ever a Christian  then you could never really understand what a Christian believes or how they believe.  Or, if you were a Christian and then turned away, then you never really understood faith or Christian community or the nature and character of God, or else you wouldn't have turned away.  You may have heard all the rules to be good, (see pharisees) but rules just reveal your sinful nature.  You never got taught Christ.  Maybe you never experienced depravity so you never fully comprehended the grace made abound to you.  So you don't see what the hubbub is all about cuz you never thought you were bad enough needing of saving.  So god is letting you stray away like the prodigal son, soon to return. (just maybe)

So in this discussion of revealing the nature of God and topics of Faith and other various theological assertions, either way you would benefit whichever side of the spectrum you fall on.