Did Jesus die in vain?

Perdition,You wrote: The same book and same chapter of the book (Romans) which says Jesus is at the right hand of God also says that Jesus lives in the believers who have received Him.Compare Romans 8:34 with Romans 8:9-11. So Christ is said to be in two places. He is at the right hand of God interceding for the saved. And He is imparted into the inner being of the Christians - [b]"Christ in you"{/b.There are a few titles that Paul uses interchangeably, each of which is said to be within the believers:1.) The Spirit of God2.) The Spirit of Christ which is also the Spirit of God3.) Christ which is also the Spirit of Christ which is also the Spirit of God.4.) The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead. He is also Christ who is the Spirit of Christ who is the Spirit of God.5.) His Spirit Who is interchangeably used with all of the previous.For the Christian experience to work depends upon the indwelling of Christ in His form as the Spirit. This is the indwelling Jesus. This is Jesus having come into those who believe in Him to live within them. This is a crucial fact upon which the Christian faith is built. This of course pre-cludes that Jesus rose from the dead.In His resurrection Jesus also transfigured Himself into a form in which He could actually be imparted into man's innermost being. He became a life giving Spirit:" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)Some of us call this the Pneumatic Christ. This the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Christ which the New Testament says is Christ Himself. Below is a sample of the teaching of Jesus that He and His Father would come to live within His lover: After His resurrection Jesus came and still comes to those who love Him and believe in Him. God the Father is in Him. And when He comes to make an abode with the lover of Himself the Father also comes with Him. This way the Spirit of God who is the Spirit of Christ who is Christ Himself and who is the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead - the life giving Spirit, comes into our innermost being.The Christian Gospel works because of the indwelling of Jesus Christ in His pneumatic form as the life giving Spirit.The Christ Who rose from the dead is also the Christ whom I receive and who comes into the saved believer. Here we see the Apostle Paul reminding the Corinthian Christians that Jesus Christ Himself lives in them: He is at the right hand of God and He is withing those who received Him, manifesting Himself to them from within.The last Adam [ Christ ] became a life giving Spirit. He became in a form in which He can impart Himself to man as the divine and eternal life of God.

No, I did not say that He did not physically rise from the dead. The New Testament record of Him eating fish, asking to be handled, any what Luke called "many infallible proofs" are all supplied to assure us that physically He was raised from the dead.However, I am emphasizing that it is the raised Jesus Who comes into man that is the drive shaft that propels the Gospel. A Christ objectively far away in heaven interceding for us is wonderful. But this is incomplete. The remission of sins is not an end in itself. The remission of sins is for the purpose of making man a vessel to contain the Christ as life.This is why Paul wrote - "the spirit is life because of righteousness".Having believed in Christ as the crucified and resurrected Lord the believer is justified - righteous before God as if he or she had never sinned. The innermost humans spirit is enlivened, is quickened because of righteousness - "the [human] spirit is life because of righteousness."Because the believer is justfied the believer is regenerated - born of the life giving Spirit. I have come across this concept a few times on the web. That is the complaint - "So where's the sacrifice anyway?" I don't know who started to circulate this objection. But it seems a late popular argument - that Jesus did not really sacrifice.Well, I would not argue that He believed that the Father would raise Him from the dead. And he looked forward to that. The analogy He used was that of a woman giving birth.While in labor she has great sorrow. But when the child is born she forgets her pains for the joy that a child has been born.Perhaps you could ask a mother if it was a sacrifice to give birth in any way.Sorry, I have been called away.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Here is the passage. I have had to re-think about it a little. Come to think of it, the sorrowing woman in labor is really applied to the disciples. The new born child applies to the Son in resurrection. Well, we know that Jesus also was very sorrowful when He approached His ordeal of the cross. He was almost sorrowful unto death.But because He includes the disciples in this travailing and laboring I think He is saying that collectively, He and His followers are the laboring mother. He is afterall one of us. He is a man now like us. I want to muse a little more on this passageI deeply appreciate the parable of the woman giving birth because it emphasizes that Christ's resurrection was a birth.Many people only think of the resurrection of Jesus as His coming back to life. It is true that in resurrection He came back to life. But the New Testament teaches that His resurrection was the birth of the Firstborn Son of God.He was incarnated as the Onlybegotten Son of God. He rose as the Firstborn Son of God. More than just come back to life He initiated a new humanity of sons of God of which He was the first born in resurrection.You see in eternity past Christ had only the divine nature of God. Then He incarnated, lived, died, and rose and went back to the eternal throne in heaven, as you pointed out. Now when He went back He went back wearing our humanity as well as the divinity of God. He went back as a God-Man. And for eternity He is a God-Man. He will never again put off the human nature that He took upon Himself.But He is not the sole and only God-Man, rather He is the Firstborn among many brothers God-Man. That is He is to be followed by those saved by Him who are also a joining together of divinity and humanity.We often put it this way - God became a man to make man God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead. He rose and was born the Firstborn Son of God possessing the divinity of God and the uplifted and glorified humanity of man. He is the new Head of a new race. He is the second Man as Adam was the first man.Christ brought God into man. Then He brought man into God. We the believers in Christ's redemptive death and victorious resurrection are in the process of being conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God for God's expression and our enjoyment.But tell me what do you think this passage means. This is Jesus speaking to His disciples before the event of His crucifixion and resurrection:Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I find that many people who think this way also have a very loose attitude about thier sins. They do not see its seriousness or that sin is an abomination to God. Consequently, they are unmoved to hear that Christ Who was sinless, was made sin on thier behalf that they might be saved:"Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21)Some are cavalier about their sins and do not perceive the awfulness of their transgressions. Neither do they consider it significant that Christ who did not know sin, became their sins as He was judged by the Father in the sinner's place.They do not consider that it was a great treasure to the man Jesus to have been with without sin, and yet being righteous He carried up your sins in His body unto the tree.The prize was that He could present you holy before God as if you had never sinned. To do that He became sin. He carried up your sins in His body unto the tree, that you could be justified.For Jesus to charge His enemies "Which of you convicts Me of sin", and they were unable to do so, must have been very precious to Jesus. Though righteous and innocent the justice which was due to fall on you He allowed to fall upon Himself instead. And this He did that He could present you justified before God.You are not touched by this at all I suppose. That He bore the divine justice on your behalf so that you might be saved, seems of little significance to you. There was no sacrifice, you say.Does such an attitude make you feel kind of intellectually upright? That's curious to me. Rationalizing that there is no sacrificing involved may be one way of insulating one's heart against being touched by the love of God.I think that this mechanism of intellectually insulating one's heart from being touched with the love of Christ in His death one's behalf is just one more of many ways to reject the Son of God. It seems rather reasonable and logical.Often people like this also can live a year of life and never think to turn around and thank God for anything. Though God has allowed them many days of happiness and has spared them from many things, they find nothing for which they could possibly say "Thankyou God at least for this and that."I think probably you do not want to be thankful to God for anything. And I think you do not realize either the seriousness of your record of sins before a holy and righteous God, nor what it cost a righteous man to be condemned by divine judgement in your place. The things were not done by Him but by you. Yet instead of you suffering the nails and the darkness of separation from the Divine Father, Jesus took that on your behalf.Your reaction today "Where's the sacrifice? I see no sacrifice in what Jesus did for me."I think that I will take to Bible's word for it. I am thankful every day that He who knew no sin became sin on my behalf that I might become the righteousness of God. Even when my heart is rather cold towards God I find it so edifying to thank God based not upon my feelings or but upon the stated facts in the Bible. We are talking here about whether Christ and God sacrificed anything in His plan of salvation. You speak of Him going into Heaven. But I already showed you that He enters into the repentent sinner to be the indwelling Christ.Now maturity in the spiritual walk takes time. It takes a whole lifetime. In the mean time while the Christian is hopefully learning walk by the Spirit and live by the divine life, Christ has identified Himself so completely with that one.This too I feel shows His sacrifice. I bear His name. He dwells within me. Yet I have a long way to go to manifest the righteous living of this indwelling one. He is patient. He is expecting. He is longsuffering. He lives again on the earth but only this time within
millions of people who have received Him. He limites Himself to be imprisoned within them as they stumble and make mistakes, learning slowly to deny themselves and allow Christ within them to be spontaneously manifested.Not only do I see His crucifixion as sacrifice. But as much His coming into the vessel of mine to gradually work out His expression and manifestation from within my personality. The Gospel writers would not agree with you. And Matthew, Mark, and Luke faithfully portray the agony of temptation Jesus went through. In His love for you and I on a personal level, He was obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.So I regard the Gospel account to be more informative then your philosophy on this matter.Pharoah hardened his heart against God. Perhaps this is just your way of hardening your heart against God as well. You should be careful for you can become a slave to such an opinion. And your heart will become harder and harder against God though you can talk about God much. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"And I will harden Pharoah's heart and will multiply signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt" (Exd. 7:3)I am aware of God giving Pharoah some help with his already hardened heart. For who could stand up against such judgements?Then we see again "And Pharoah's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said." (v.13)Oh don't kid yourself. Pharoah was plenty hard hearted to begin with. He had no intention to submit to God and let Israel go. But for a testimony of God's deliverence through the mighty signs and wonders I think God made sure he was good and hard. Otherwise I don't think anyone would be able to stand so long against God.The ironic thing is that Christ said that in the final judgement, some who served a special purpose to be a testimony, in a sense they will ask those who rejected Christ "What was it with you guys anyway? If we had Jesus Christ in our midst we would have repented long ago."Though his judgment in this life seemed harsh neither you nor I know what will be Pharoah's judgment in eternity.This is the irony. That Jesus taught His apostles:" I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city. Woe to you CHorazin! Woe to you Berhsaida! For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Yet it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment that for you.

​

He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects ME rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10:12-16)The temporal judgment in this life is not always a sure indication of the eternal judgment. For Jesus to say that it will be more tolerable in that judgment of Sodom than for those who rejected the Gospel of Christ He strongly implies that how one reacts to Jesus merciful death for them and His resurrection hold a greater responsibility.So I would not use Pharoah's experience to absolve myself. Besides, regardless of how or who is responsible for our tough heart I am sure that God hears the prayer -"Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief."As for your accusation of bloodlust on God's part, you are wrong. In the Old Testament it was necessary for God to demonstrate the awfulness of sin and His hatred for it. Otherwise we would not appreciate that Christ bore the judgment God for the sins of the world.Even with this ground work of God's opposition and judment some still are befuddled and seem to be in a stupor. They want to remain unimpressed that the Righteous Son of God bore the terrible penalty on their behalf.God's harsh judgments were not blood lust. They were a testimony of His power to judge His enemies. So though Christ we need reconciliation. For sinners are at enmity with God and in rebellion against God as His enemies.He loved and died on the cross for His enemies."For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we shall be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Rom. 5:10)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is not at all an issue for me. The New Testament says:"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 4:20)This informs me that the Holy Spirit within the believer can be made unhappy. We disciples are to "walk by the Spirit" and not "grieve the Holy Spirit." Grieving envolves going through something you would rather not go through."Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) So I know that this Person Who I can grieve but should not is the very Lord Jesus.However the subject of this thread is whether or not Jesus died in vain. So I am very glad that though I may temporarily grieve the indwelling Spirit, He also knows that the day of maturity will nonetheless come for I am sealed for the day of redemption.My whole being will be conformed to the image of Christ. This is a glorious destiny even though on the way I may grieve Christ by making Him go along with me instead of me going along with Him.So repeating what I said before, I take the Bible to be more informative on this matter than your philosophy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The subject of the discussion is "Did Jesus Die in Vain".The resurrection of Jesus is God's way to demonstrate that He did not die in vain. Of course it requires faith to believe in the resurrection. And if you believe that Jesus is still in the tomb, though His body has never been found there, as far as His teaching is concerned, yes He would have died in vain.But we believers believe that His resurrection is the seal and proof that God says His death was not in vain.Go chooses the way of faith to carry out His purpose to wrought and work the living Jesus into the hearts of men and women:"That Christ might make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:15) For His own reasons God has chosen the way of faith to work out His plan to have the resurrected Jesus make His home in our hearts. He is alive and is the life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life givng Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). And He makes His home, His dwelling place our hearts through faith.Jesus did not die in vain since He is still making His home in the hearts of so many through faith.Living in our hearts is not a matter of sentimentality but of the life giving Spirit strengthening the believer to live in the sphere and realm of the "inner man""That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith."The believer needs to be strengthened more and more into that realm of Christ living within him - the regenerated inner man where he is one spirit with the Lord Jesus:"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

" ... the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Act 11:26)Acts was written by Luke in 67 or 68 AD after he had written the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What I wrote I stand by. Luke informs us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch during the lifetime of Paul. That was written in 67 or 68 AD. If you refuse it I will not bother supplying extra biblical confirmation. You can't be trusted to be free from your anti Christian Gospel bias.If you don't want to take the book of Acts as a historical document and if you automatically hold in skeptical suspect everything that is in the documents of the New Testament on general principle, I have no time to waste with you.I will not exclude the New Testament to gather information about Christ and Christians. If those are the rules you want to set for a discussion with me, forget about it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It was a simple task, exceedingly simple. I'm satisfied and rest my case, period.But to be specific, perhaps the term "Christianity" came over 200 years latter. I don't argue that that is possible. But Christ and Christians?You have no case with those two terms. The epistles of the apostles John and Peter, not to mention Paul, include Christ, Christian, and churches or church.The "anity" added to Christian may well have come much latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The question is Did Jesus Die in Vain?My answer is that if it were possible for Jesus to die in vain the universe would not exist.The only reason anything at all exists is because of the work and Person of Jesus.

Not correct. "He said to them, But you who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ the Son of the living God." (Matt.16:16) Another error.The gospel first went to Europe when Paul and Silas came to south eastern Europe via Paul's prophetic dream, to Phillippi of Macodonia (Acts 16:6-40)Long before that time Peter had preached to the Jews the Jesus was the Messiah - the Christ(Acts 2:36). He as declared Christ to the Gentiles of the house of Cornelius also before this (Acts 10:36).Christ, the Son of the living God, was preached to Jew and Gentile from Pentacost from the new testament church's inception.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : A kinder gentlier debunking.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You may not be questioning my belief but I am questioning yours.I am questioning your blind leap of wishful thinking that Luke wrote a document filled with myths, lies, and fancy imaginative details concocted up and passed on as a quasi historical document.You say you'd be "more impressed" with some extrabiblical writings. Well, I am totally unimpressed with your pretended objectivity.You don't impress me as an objective researcher of historical matters. You come accross to me as the anti-Christian bigot that you are.

This says exactly what I said immediately after I wrote "I question your belief". That was I question your belief that the book of Acts is not a historical document. That is all.At best you would have to point out your reasons why Luke is lying here and there. You may question his interpretation of events that happened. You may say that he imagined an incorrect interpretation of the events he recorded.But I question your belief that Acts should be dismissed as a historical reference to the spread and growth of the Christian church. There you go again. You LOVE to bring up Islam when I am talking about the New Testament.Islam does believe that there is one God. Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians also believe that there is one God.So in THAT respect, at least, they are all believers. We share a common monothiestic belief that there is one God.Islam and Judaism do not believe in the incarnation of God to be the man Jesus. In that respect Islam and Orthodox Judaism are unbelievers in Christ the Son of God. This should not be new information to you. I have tried to take away the clouds.As to the belief in one God all three faiths are BELIEVERS. From my Christian perspective only, as to the Son of God, Islam and the Jewish Orthodox faith are unbelievers.And they themselves would be all to eager to confirm that in that repect of God having a Son they certainly ARE unbelievers.Now from the standpoint of Islaml, Christians and Jews are unbelievers as to the Moslem concept that Mohammed was the last prophet. Am I right?So they call me "infidel". Why? Because I am an unbeliever in their belief that the last prophet of God was Mohammed. They are quite right. In fact I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet of God period. From you point of view that's what you think. I wuold say that my belief in the Son of God is based upon the fact that I met the Son of God. I believe that He came to me and into my heart and I know Him.When I compare my experience with His teaching I am mightily confirmed that I am on the right track. I read the New Testament and I can say "I understand that. I know what he is talking about there. I have experienced that. That is just what happened to me."For example when I read this from Jesus:Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) I now respond with "I understand that. That explains what happened to me when I called out 'Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus'. That explain the changes that occured in my life from the day I called out to the Lord Jesus."Yes I have a faith. But I have the New Testament which signals that I am on the right track. When I read Paul's, John's and Peter's letters, I can identify with what they are writing. I am confirmed that they experience they are speaking of I too am having.So I think I am on the right track to be a Christian. But I was not always so. And perhaps like you I was perplexed as to who is telling the truth. Maybe you give up in dispair that everyone knows nothing.Somehow by the mercy of God I did not give up in dispair assuming that all "believers" in something are delusional.I think that if you read the New Testament with a willingness to be changed by God, faith will be put into you. I don't even have a sword.Go find some Crusader to debate with on this point.And, I don't "villify" person just because she or he cannot believe the Gospel.I may villify you if I see that you strenuously oppose and fight against the Gospel. Then I may villify you a little. But just to say "Hey, I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead." NO I do not villify a person just because he cannot yet believe. I think I see much more of a big picture than you do.I even think that I can prove from the Bible that some people who are ignorant of who Jesus is will be granted everlasting life.I think I have had that discussion before on this Forum. This belief comes from a truly biblical big picture. And not all my Christian brothers would agree with it. But I think I have a very strong case from Scripture to show that some people not born again will have their names written in the book of life.However I don't think this applies to anyone who is today able to read this discussion.Christ offers a very big picture. I don't need to step outside the faith to obtain a big picture. Besides, once Jesus gets into your heart it is so difficult to think of any life without Him inside.I mean how do you become UNBORN again once you are BORN AGAIN. It is impossible to reverse a BIRTH.IT is a matter of receiving another Life in addition to the life I received when I was naturally born. This is your favorite subject. This is not a statement on the unreality of Jesus Christ. This is a statement on the corrupted nature of the religious fallen man.Religious wars and religious persecutions are not proof of the unreality of the Son of God.There is a last judgment. And God will sort it all out. I say again, religious wars and religious persecutions are not the hallmarks of the unreality of the Gospel of Christ. It is a tragedy that they occured. It was PREDICTED by Jesus that they would occur. So why should I be shocked and throw up my hands and say:"Oh well, Because of the Crusades and the Spanish Enquisition and the Holocost, THEREFORE, Jesus must not be the Son of God." I DO NOT MAKE THAT CONNECTION.You go ahead and make that connecton if it makes you happy. You go ahead and say "Well, so many people did such evil things in the name of God and in the name of Christ, THEREFORE, Christ is not the Son of God that he said he was, and the New Testament must not be true. Because if it were true there would have been no religious persecution and no religious wars!"You go ahead and make that logical connection. I won't be doing that.Neither would I say Yahwah does not exist because Rueben and Simeon slaughtered some local boys who disrespected their sister.Neither will I deny Yahwah exists because the tribe of Dan practiced idolatry or the tribe of another tribe of Israel fought a war over a gang rape.Nor will I say. "Well the Old Testament must not be true" because David the king of Israel had a man murdered and stole his wife.Bad things that happened in connection with people who claim to know God or seemed that they should know better do NOT cause me to doubt the truthfulness of God or the Son of God.So PLEASE use the persecution and religious war card on someone else. It doesn't work on me.I intend to follow the Lord Jesus. I don't care if every other disciple takes up arms and wages war and has Inquisitions and persecutes Christians and Jews. I intend to follow Jesus."You ... follow Me." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.