Did Jesus die in vain?

The problem with your analogy is that once said prosecutor gets Guido, and grants Luigi his pardon, or whatever, they don't torture Guido for a day or so, then send him to New Zealand to play in a paradise for eternity.

You are a real funny guy!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57224,00.html

Well, it supports my point. We only send people to New Zealand when they are not guilty of anything more than living in a country illegally, and they're naturalized citizens of New Zealand.Now, if you find a news story about us capturing bin Laden and sentencing him to the beach in New Zealand, I will retract my comment.

I'm just saying, the way you tell the story, it's, very funny!Anyway no, he's definitely dead. Eternally dead. The fact that he also seems to be still alive is because he had Eternal life. But it's just an illusion, like the CMB. He's really truly dead.The trinity can help with this part too. He's wanted, hes dead, he's alive. That makes 3! Coincidence, or fact?

Jesus is dead, but for Christianity to work, he rose form the dead and went to sit on the right hand of God in Heaven. From what I understand, Heaven is supposed to be a pretty good place. And not only did Jesus get to go there, he knew he was going to.So for your analogy, not only did we send our mob boss to New Zealand, we told him before hand that all he had to do was make it through one really bad day, and he'd be sent off to Paradise.

Anyway no I got nothing, you win. It's the free-for-all thing, so you pretty much win by default anyway if you care.Oh well, there's this.Lucky Luciano - WikipediaHey, he helped us against Hitler!

Interesting. It's amazing the things we did to win WWII.But, he got sent back to Sicily. That's no where near as nice as New Zealand (in my opinion), it's more like being put into Purgatory than Heaven.

quote:

---

How could a person forgive sins that were against someone else other than him?

---

Agreed, one must first get forgiveness from the wronged, before approaching God for forgiveness. This is not a Jesus law, but enshrined in the OT laws.

quote:

---

He would have to be the creator to do that, because sin is primarily an offense against God.

---

Disagree. Even the creator cannot violate his own laws - because the creator represents truth. Thus we find that a curse can be negated [by approriate recitification], but a promise of a gift cannot be negated even by the Creator. The guarantee of firgiveness of sins, mercy, loving kindness and long suffering are contained in the OT laws - these are not negated or transferred to someone else. What you subscribe to Jesus here, is quite superfluous and appears more a political enterprise. But I can see the belief is genuine - so it is fine. i wonder if christians were the stiff necked, and demanded proof from the Creator, rather than an agent!'God is not like man that he will change his mind' [Samuel]

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.

I don't think this conflicts with my post. I was replying to Iblis who said:

quote:

---

Anyway no, he's definitely dead. Eternally dead. The fact that he also seems to be still alive is because he had Eternal life. But it's just an illusion, like the CMB. He's really truly dead.

---

You seem to argue that he didn't return to physical life, but is "living" in a dual spiritual form, both on the right-hand side of God and in people who have accepted him.If this is true, I don't think it changes the fact that its not much of a sacrifice for someone to put themselves through an incredibly terrible day, knowing they'll be fine 3 days later, able to help people accept God, and talking to God in Heaven.

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.

I'm male, so obviously, I can't comment on how a mother would describe the process of giving birth, but I would agree that it is an apt analogy.If there are any mothers currently posting on the forum, would you consider birth to be a sacrifice?

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.

Assuming you're right, that still doesn't sound like a sacrifice to me. Sacrifice, to me, implies deciding to give up something you would rather keep. Deciding to do it only because you see the benefit to others as being more important than that which you are giving up.God, being omniscient, knew before he incarnated as a man exactly how it would play out, so in the grand scale, the outcome isn't God giving anything up that he would have rather had.During the course of Jesus' life, it could be argued that he didn't have the omniscience of God any more, being made man. But again, by the time he was crucified, it seems that Jesus had internalized the fact that he was the son of God, and expected to be taken into Heaven. Again, he didn't give up anything he would have rather kept.So, while it may be that Jesus death is profound, and is, indeed, the basis of the Christian religions, it isn't a sacrifice.

The difference between quoting from Peter and the OT is that only the Creator can say this, and note the reverse order of the verse:'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' [OT]And this is not a virtual statement: no one else can make such a claim. Before claiming any resurrection, let one show us they can create life - in a non-virtual mode. Tuff act to follow, and the OT correctly capsulises the only criteria applicable!Now if you made any improvised responsa to the OT, you would be aptly retorted with another tuff act none can emulate:'I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [OT]And a resurrection clearly is a change, and whatever changes you is transcendent of what is changed. You will see the power of the OT here, with subtle, deceptively simple and modest speech it deals an irrovokable and irrecoverable death blow: who or what can claim not to change?BTW, 'changeability' is also the factor which renders all as finite; while non-changeability is the only definition of INFINITE. Deceptively simple ultimate science here!