Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hojimachong (Talk | contribs) at 23:22, 8 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search


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)

The difference is that this one had a message of salvation for humanity that nobody had ever considered before and his death gave the weight of ultimate conviction to that message.Rebiu 21:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


I never understood the whole concept of sin and sacrifice. God creates rules so strict that no human can possibly obey them perfectly. Why? God could have made more reasonable rules. Then, for some reason, the tiniest violation of these rules forbids somsone from entering heaven, and condemns them to hell (Precise nature of hell may vary between denominations). Again, why? What happened to reasonable punishment? Oh, but God will make it all ok by offering to transfer everyone's punishment of eternal torment into another individual - God, dispite being omnipotent, is bound by his own law to punish someone for sin, but it doesn't really matter who. So God, the omnipotent who apparently wrote the rules regarding sin, still had to undergo this elaborate ritual of sacrificing Himself, to Himself, in order to save people from punishments He would otherwise have to administer for violating rules He wrote in such a way they are impossible to obey.

It just makes no sense. - suricou


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)

Looks like you were wrong as someone posted yes and they were not attacked. Perhaps this conspiracy would have played out if you had not spoiled the trap.Rebiu 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

On the contrary, Christ is not sacrificed anew at each Mass, he is sacrificed anew by each sinner when he or she sins. Bearing false witness is a sin. Christ's sacrifice is a single event in eternity, and it is presented to the Church Militant in time with each mass. In other words, the Eucharist is how man in linear time taps into and unites with the Calvary event. Teresita 09:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I see. But wouldn't that mean that Christ did not (in fact) die for the whole world but only those who share in the barbarity of His death? In other words, "Is the linear-time man, who doesn't partake in the mystery of the Mass, nullifying the Great Sacrifice of Jesus Christ." Crackertalk

I believe that the Roman Catholics do believe that Christ is sacrificed at each Mass anew, and that this is connected with the Teaching of the Transubstantiation, which holds that the Body and Blood of Jesus are literally present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. OTOH, before we blanche at this idea, the scholastics then go ahead and say that the Body and Blood are only present in the Substance not the Accidents of the Bread. Which means they is no actual flesh and blood there, but that it is not a figure of speech either. This is the kind of medieval reasoning which frankly has died a well-deserved death in the modern world. Not even conservatives are much given to this kind of metaphysics, just as there is virtually no real interest in questions of whether Original Sin is passed thru the semen of the man or the egg of the woman. Terista's point is well-made, but she is talking figuratively (I think, I hasten to add). Many people would be loath to think, and sad to think, that Jesus re-suffers the whole of the Crucifixion EVERY time a Mass is held, or as noted here, every time a sinner sins. Let's differentiate between poetic metaphor, and ecclesiasticsl literalism.

As to the idea of Christ's Resurrection negating the value of his Sacrifice, first I've heard of it. Where did this strange idea come from, and what is the reasoning behind it? Jesus tasted of death and suffering as all of us taste it, only in its most grievous manifestation such as none of us have to experience it, please God. This completes His mystical union with humanity, His right to fully call Himself "The Son of Man". His Resurrection prefigures and permits our own resurrection. How does this negate or minimise His Sacrifice? I should have thought that this was the triumph of Life over Death.

MylesP April 7, 2007 AD

My knowledge of the christian god concept is pretty limited but it appears to me to be a classic shellgame - Jesus is God isn't he? so what's being sacrificed? nothing as far as I can see. --Cgday 10:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)