Difference between revisions of "Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection.  What made this one so earth shattering.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:56, 2 April 2007


Not at all. In fact the two go together... God's wrath being poured out on Jesus Christ, who was bearing our sin willingly. Then, conquering death, which was the last enemy to conquer, He rose bodily from the dead. If He was not risen, that means basically everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, was a liar. --Ymmotrojam 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If he rose was resurrected from death what was the sacrifice.Rebiu 16:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection. What made this one so earth shattering.Rebiu 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


This has the sound of a "trick" question

Like: Lets see who answers "yes" and jump 'em!

This might sound like Roman Catholic bashing but I do believe this is the actual teaching of the RCC: Christ is sacrificed anew at each Mass. The Liturgy is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass." There are those who disagree with this POV citing Hebrews, (mainly), to repudiate this specific teaching. I'll get you chapter and verse if we actually need it. -- Crackertalk 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)