F
Franciscan
Guest
oops. You’re right Valke.
Here it is, “It is the blood , as the seat of life, that makes atonement”(Leviticus 17:11).
- Status
Here it is, “It is the blood , as the seat of life, that makes atonement”(Leviticus 17:11).
V
Valke2
Guest
But now we leave the realm of reason and enter the realm of faith. One can only argue that it was the most fitting means chosen by God because, according to Christians, God chose that particular means. From an unbeliever’s perspective, it seems very odd indeed that such means would be chosen. The relative silence of Jesus regarding his Godhood, the bypassing or ignoring of the Oral Torah, which Jews for centuries viewed as not only being given by God, but as being absoultely necessary to correctly understand God’s Torah, would have left the average 1st century Jew more than a little perplexed.Almighty God could indeed have redeemed us in many number of ways. The Incarnation, passion and death of his Son was the most fitting means chosen by Almighty God. There is no “God law” which obliged him to choose this particular means.
All the talk about fullfilling law, the true meaning of the prophecies that Jews were familar with prior to Jesus, etc., only seems to make sense if you start with the proposition that God appeared in human form as Jesus and that Jesus died for the sins of man. If you look at it from the perspective of how a Jew understood the scriptures, traditions and oral Torah at the time of Jesus, one is left perplexed and unconvinced.
V
Valke2
Guest
Ok. That’s clearly contemplating animal sacrifices. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned t to you for making expiation for your lives upon the alter; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. Therefore I say to the Israelite people: No person among you shall partake of blood, nor shall the stranger who resides among you partkae of blood.
And if any Israelite…hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eateh, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth… You shall not partake of the flood of any flesh, for the life of allflesh is its blood.
The verse is not focusing on the issue of atonement here. And it does not rule out other means of atonement.
Incense also served (Numbers 16:46)
Charity (Ex. 30:15)
And if you look at Numbers 31:50: “So we have brought as an offering to the Lord such articles of gold as each of us came upon: armlets, bracelets, signets rings, earrings and pendants, that expiation may be made for our persons before the Lord.”
Blood sacrfifces were probably the least effective method of attonement, as they were only used for unintentional sins. They did no good for intentional sins.
F
Franciscan
Guest
The Apostle’s didn’t know about the Passiover Lamb?
They didn’t know about Moses’s reatification of the covenant with blood?
They didn’t know that John the Baptist called Jesus “The Lamb of God”.
They didn’t know that Isaac carried the wood for his sacrifice up the same hill hundreds of years before as a prefigurement of Christ?
They didn’t know about the Manna or Melchizedek?
It seems that they would have seen Jesus as a sacrificial Lamb given their history.
V
Valke2
Guest
Now we get into what the apostles actually believed about Jesus. and how much of what was about Jesus was prophecy and how much was history prophecized. Things like location of the hill, etc. are always suspect.
Religions have a tendancy to group sacred sties around what they view as sacred locations in order to give validity to their respective claims. Judaism traditionally teaches that Jacob had his dream at the base of the same mountain, for example.
But I will grant you it is possible all the apostles believed Jesus was God (does Christanity teach that Judas believed this as well?). It doesn’t really change my argument, as I’ll admit there are no absoultes in history. Of course, if they believed He was God, I’m surprised they didn’t make a bigger deal out of it.
H
HailMary
Guest
You need to keep the following principle in mind when dealing with subject; maybe it will help you understand why Jesus Christ “died for our sins”.
When you commit a sin against a person, the severity of the offense if directly related to the dignity of that person. In the case of Adam, the dignity of God is infinite therefore we can atone for our sin (as created, sinful creatures).
The action of Christ’s death is an eternal sacrifice offered to God the Father in atonement for our sins. Since Christ is perfect (and His Mother), His action is an acceptable offering that is pleasing to God the Father ("…this is my Son with Whom I am well pleased") and puts us back into God’s family (before Baptism we are slaves of Satan - not Mary since she never had Original Sin).
So to answer your question, ‘"what is meant by “Christ died for our sins”’, the simple answer is because He loves us very much and wanted us back in the family and He knew (and his Mother knew) that if He didn’t offer a perfect sacrifice to God then we could not sit at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (Divine Liturgy - Mass).
Someone once said that if the Romans did not nail Jesus Christ to the Cross than His Mother would have done so since she knew very well that without that sacrifice we would not have been saved
note: Jesus was not a victim of the Romans barbarism - if you think this you still have work to do
John 10:17-18
In Christ through Mary
V
Valke2
Guest
What exactly is the nature of his sacrifice. What did Jesus give up? Just the physical being? Or is there something holy that is being ascribed to pain here?
M
mtk76
Guest
Besides risking imprisonment, beatings, and horrific deaths to attest to it what more would you have them do?
[SIGN]Of course, if they believed He was God, I’m surprised they didn’t make a bigger deal out of it[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Of course, if they believed He was God, I’m surprised they didn’t make a bigger deal out of it[/SIGN]
H
HailMary
Guest
Christ saved us with all His adorable humanity. I don’t think the pain is redemptive per se because anyone can experience pain. I believe His suffering was much greater interiorly than physically.
I think anyone who’s been out of a relationship with someone they loved dearly would agree that it hurts very much on the inside.
Also your ability to suffer (interiorly) is proportional to your ability to love another person. And He loved beyond all measure so He could suffer beyond all measure too.
I’m not putting His physical suffering at odds with His other spiritual suffering - I’m sure its both. This is a mystery of the Faith and we meditate it every Mass and every Rosary during the 5 Sorrowful Mysteries.
C
Contarini
Guest
Simple. Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, but my acceptance of that saving work through repentance and faith is not a once-for-all act. Every time I sin, I must turn back to Christ in repentance. Conversion is a continual turning to Christ, not something that happens once when one “goes forward to the altar.”
I repeat–the argument of these Protestants only works if we believe that everyone is saved, whether they repent or not. Once you say that we must do something–even accept Christ by faith–to receive the grace of Christ’s sacrifice, then you can’t go around claiming that Christ’s sacrifice makes repentance unnecessary.
For the record, there are some liberal theologians who do really believe that Christ saved everyone and so repentance is unnecessary.
Edwin
A
Angelos
Guest
Adam & Eve (the first parents of the human race) sinned and were banished from the presence of God. Being human with preternatural gifts, they listened to the serpent and ate of the forbidden fruit so as to become gods. Christ, on the other hand, came to the world of sinful men to save all through His incarnation and humility.
Adam & Eve died as a result of their sin because they wanted to be equal to God. Jesus Christ died as a means of our salvation because He became equal to men in everything except sin. Humans’ wishes to be God brought sin and death, God becoming a mortal man brought salvation and life. If Jesus had not been true God and true man, His death would not have saved us no matter how much suffering He lived through.
Shalom,
ANgelos N.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
I appreciate everyone’s contriubtion to my Catholic education and to resolving this dilema. I’m rather new at this will be my first Catholic Christmas. 
To Tim Staples: I think it would be nice of him to return to the forum and acknowledge that I misunderstood his statement out of confusion as opposed to malice. Currently, I don’t have the fond feelings for him that I once had. He was one of my favorites on CA Radio. I will pray that I’m able to resolve these hard feelings.
Merry Christmas and God bless
To Tim Staples: I think it would be nice of him to return to the forum and acknowledge that I misunderstood his statement out of confusion as opposed to malice. Currently, I don’t have the fond feelings for him that I once had. He was one of my favorites on CA Radio. I will pray that I’m able to resolve these hard feelings.
Merry Christmas and God bless
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
I concur as well.I appreciate everyone’s contriubtion to my Catholic education and to resolving this dilema. I’m rather new at this will be my first Catholic Christmas.
To Tim Staples: I think it would be nice of him to return to the forum and acknowledge that I misunderstood his statement out of confusion as opposed to malice. Currently, I don’t have the fond feelings for him that I once had. He was one of my favorites on CA Radio. I will pray that I’m able to resolve these hard feelings.
Merry Christmas and God bless
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Yes. God is bound by his own word.
That’s not how it works.
He saved us by enduring this for us-- just a bodygaurd saves the life of the one they’re assigned to protect by stepping in between the one they’re assigned to protect and the one who is attacking the one they’re assigned to protect.
Christ, on a spiritual level, took the bullet for us so to speak.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
If he died to give us the ability to attain everlasting life, that would mean he died for ALL our sins because how can we attain everlasting life as sinful human beings without Christ’s salvation on the Cross?
S
SOUNDTRUTH
Guest
Wait a second. I’m confused !
Why MUST we eternally sin ?
What do we gain by sinning for eternity ?
Why MUST we eternally sin ?
What do we gain by sinning for eternity ?
S
Sixtus
Guest
Sinning for all eternity!!!
Man is finite. God is infinite therefore the sin against God is infinite. That is, is goes on for all eternity.
Fortunately for us, God as victim suffered as the guilty in our place. Is simple for me
Man is finite. God is infinite therefore the sin against God is infinite. That is, is goes on for all eternity.
Fortunately for us, God as victim suffered as the guilty in our place. Is simple for me
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
The confusion on contagious here. The topic is not about “eternally sinning”. It’s about ONE sin.
When I started this topic, I was thinking that the “eternal” sin that Christ died for was the “original” sin that we cannot atone for. Through Christ we have baptism which washes away “original” sin. All other sins, we have to confess, repent and atone for.
When I started this topic, I was thinking that the “eternal” sin that Christ died for was the “original” sin that we cannot atone for. Through Christ we have baptism which washes away “original” sin. All other sins, we have to confess, repent and atone for.
H
HailMary
Guest
Actually, Baptism atones for ALL sin up to that point in time, including Original Sin.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
Yes, this is true. Especially in my case since I was older when I was baptized.
- Status