How does Christ dying save us?

[ricren]

I am Catholic and have no problem accepting that it does. I’ve entered into a friendly relationship with an ex-Mennonite woman who has no interest in being Christian, but does have a relationship with God that she describes as being most comfortably similar to the spiritual athiests and gnostics that she knows. I honestly don’t completely understand her relationship with God.

I know that she had a painful break with her community because she realized that she could not profess the belief that was required to be an accepted member of her community and family. She has a lot of resentment over that. My understanding is that the main breaking point for her was not being able to find an acceptable answer to the question, “What exactly does a dead body do for us to save us?”

I can give a vague answer about covenents and attonement for sins, which she politely rejects. I posed the question to my dear husband who answered something along the lines of something needing to die and only God coming down and dying himself would satisfy the requirement. Trying to think in my new friend’s mindset I asked, “Why? Why does something need to die?” I was greeted with a blank smile.

Again, I don’t question that it’s true, but can someone walk me through what the explaination to this question is? I’m searching both for my friend and myself. This is probably a question I should have an answer to. Remember just drawing back to scripture probably won’t satisfy my friend because she doesn’t accept Christianity. If it helps she’s actually pursuing a theology degree at a Lutheran seminary right now so she’s probably well-versed in theology (though I’m not and I’m the conduit, so don’t get too deep on me, OK?).

God Bless you and thanks for any help you can provide.

 

[jpusateri]

Hm…I guess I would begin with why the Lord desired sacrifices in the old Covenant. What was the purpose? What made God willing to forgive sins because of slaughtering animals and putting grain, etc. on an altar. Maybe we don’t know exactly why, but he did. He put in place a system of reconciliation.

Answer that question and then draw the connection via typology from the Passover lamb to Jesus the Lamb of God. There are also typological connections between the old covenant “scapegoat” (who yearly bore the sins of the people at Rosh-hashanna) driven into the desert and Jesus.
Jesus’ death was the sacrifice. Jesus is NOT dead now. His resurrection was indicative of God’s acceptance of the sacrifice. His sacrifice is the only perpetually acceptable sacrifice. We apply and reapply that SAME sacrifice at every Mass. We need to do this because we have committed sins since the last Mass we assisted at.

The sacrifice makes atonement. (Jesus did NOT pay the full price for your sins since eternal Hell is the punishment for your sins.) Atonement means that God’s anger is appeased. Appeasement is similar to when you have upset someone else so badly that they won’t take your calls and won’t see you. You can’t get to them to apologize. But suppose a mutual friend went to him and somehow made it right. This friend appeased the offended person’s anger at YOU. He made it possible for the offended party to even LISTEN to your apology. The apology therefore is STILL necessary and you still need to say you’re sorry. The appeasement/sacrifice opened the door to the possibility of being friends again. All because of the atoning sacrifice…

I hope this helps!

Author and theologian Scott Hahn is brilliant in making this stuff clear.

 

[Strider]

I don’t know if this will help, but it’s a post I used in another thread that was originated by an athiest. It contains no Scripture per se, but like the above, a narrative explanation of Catholic theology,.

Better yet, start with Adam and Eve in the Garden. Time & space does not permit a description how perfect Adam and Eve and all or creation were. God gave them only one commandment. They were tempted and blew it for all of us by violating that one, simple commandment. Not only did The Fall affect all subsequent humans, but creation as well.
“But that’s not fair!” many say. “I didn’t do anything wrong. How come I have to suffer for what Adam did?”
It’s absolutely fair. Adam, the prototypical man, disobeyed the only command God gave him. I refer to the result as a “spiritual mutation.” We are all only shadows of the creatures God created and honored by giving them free will.
Since then, God has been giving us the rules to follow if we want to return to that original state. They’re all written down. They are demanding, but that’s to be expected. We also still have that free will.
“But bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. That’s not fair!”
Blame Adam. In the universe God created, no Tsunami’s or hurricanes occurred. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, creation itself was affected. Besides, we have no idea what happens to those good people after death, or the bad ones, for that matter, though there are hints.
I have noticed that this is the sticking point for many who have questions – the “bad things happen to good people,” observation. And yes, bad things do happen to good people.
And if God had limited or tampered with free will in any way, that would have negated the value of the reward or the severity of the punishmnent. What kind of a test would that have been: “You can do x and y and still go to heaven, but z will send you to hell, so I will not permit you to do z.”
But do you want to talk about unfair? How about if God, because he loves his creation so much and knows there is nothing they can do by themselves to save themselves, humiliates himself by going through the entire life of a man, from conception, development, birth, learning, ect. and then, being ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND SINLESS, takes all the sins of man of all time to himself and voluntarily goes through a sadistic torture and agonizing death to atone for every one of those sins if only those who committed them will ask for forgiveness and absolution in the way he prescribed, or even just as best they can.
That’s unfair – to him. That’s the God I believe in.

Tell your friend it’s not a “dead body,” that saves us. It’s the Passion Jesus Christ, God, willingly took on as punishment for OUR sins.
That’s the best I can do. Good luck.

 

[Della]

So the ultimate sacrifice of a young man’s life for no other reason than he loved us so much he wanted to redeem us from our sins cuts no ice with her? It seems to me she’s either protesting too much or just doesn’t want to face the fact of her own need of a savior. But, that’s only my guess. I’d ask her to explore the question for herself to discover why the life of Jesus had such an impact on the world if his death meant nothing. How many other men in the world who have died for their principles has had such an impact as he? I guess I can’t imagine where she’s coming from or what she can’t accept about the sacrifice of Christ. Maybe she thinks it was unfair to ask one person to die for us all. Doesn’t she believe in the divinity of Christ? If not, maybe that’s her hang-up. Sorry, it’s the end of my day and I’m pooped and sore–that’s the best I have to offer at the moment besides my prayers.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is from another post of mine from Tim Gray’s Mission of the Messiah:

In Jesus' time, Israel was still living under a covenant with God called the Deuteronomic Covenant. In the covenant treaty, which is the entire Book of Deuteronomy, there is a list of blessings for faithfulness and curses for unfaithfulness. The curses describe what will befall Israel when she breaks the covenant. The remaining prophets of the Old Testament simply tell Israel that if they continue to sin, they will suffer these curses, such as disease and illness, famine and plagues, then war and captivity to foreigners, and then after suffering exile at the hands of Gentiles, they would be executed.

To say then that Jesus took Israel’s place is to say that Jesus took upon Himself the curses that were upon Israel, as St. Paul says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Just as Israel was to be handed over to the Gentiles in exile, and then afflicted and finally executed, so too Jesus’ Passion follows the pattern of the Deuteronomy’s curses. This is why Jesus must be handed over to Pilate, the Gentile governor, and thus experiencing a symbolic exile that precedes His execution. Jesus becomes accursed so that Israel will be freed from the curse.

            Here we come to the core of the question of the Cross: **Why must Jesus die in order to save Israel**? The biblical answer is the Covenant. Israel and Yahweh had made a solemn covenant, and covenants - such as marriage - are permanent. Therefore, the oaths that Israel swore as part of the covenant, which included the curses, could not be taken back. According to the curses, Israel had to be exiled and destroyed for her unfaithfulness - unless one of the parties were to die. For just as in a marriage covenant, only death breaks up a covenant ("*Til death do you part*").  Israel's death would hardly solve the problem, and God couldn't die - or could He?

 According to St. Paul, this is exactly what God does through Jesus. God becomes incarnate in Jesus, who then takes upon Himself the curses of the covenant and dies on the Cross. Thus the Old Covenant curses are annulled on the Cross. God has "***forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross***" (Col. 2:13-14)

But what about the Gentiles?

Continued…

Notworthy

 

[NotWorthy]

Israel, however, was not alone in suffering under a curse. The rest of the nations were under a curse as well, a curse going all the way back to Adam, the father of all. Jesus’ vicarious suffering atones not only for Israel, but also for Adam and all his children. Luke hinted at this when he traced Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam, unlike Matthew, who only goes back to Abraham. By making several allusions to Adam in his account of Jesus’ Passion, Luke shows how Jesus is taking on the sin and curse, not only of Israel, but of Adam and all humanity.

Jesus, like Adam before, is tested in a garden, the garden of Gethsemane. But where Adam takes the easy way out and eats the apple, Jesus calls on the Lord when he is tempted. When Jesus is praying to the Father for strength to accept the bitter cup of suffering, He prays so intensely that “his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (Lk. 22:44). As one of the curses for his Original Sin, Adam would labor by “the sweat of (his) face” (Gen. 3:19). Luke carefully points out how the beads of Jesus’ blood fall down upon the ground, the ground which was cursed because of Adam. In fact, part of Adam’s curse is that the ground would bring up thorns (Gen. 3:18), and significantly enough Jesus is crowned with thorns (cf. Mt. 27:29; Mk. 15:17). Jesus takes up the agony of Adam through the pain of His Passion. The story of Adam includes the tragic tale of exile from Eden. This exile from paradise, which is part of the curse upon Adam, is overcome by Jesus’ new exodus. Jesus’ dialogue with the criminal on the cross, the "good thief," alludes to this new exodus to the new Eden. The good thief cries out from his cross in faith, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power” (Lk. 23:42). This notion of Jesus’ “coming” into rule echoes the parable of the talents, in which the nobleman is to “come” back from a far country where he received his kingdom.

Knowingly or not, the good thief is the first to articulate the key to the parable of the talents: Jesus is the nobleman, and the journey to the “far country” is Jesus’ ascension to the Father. The reward for the faithful servants in the parable is a share in the nobleman’s kingdom, as on the Cross, Jesus promises the criminal, “***Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” ***(Lk. 23:43). The criminal recognizes the coming of the king, and so he has a share in Christ’s kingdom. The word “paradise” is only used two other times in the New Testament. Paul uses it to describe heaven (2 Cor. 12:3), and it is used in Revelation to describe heaven as the new Garden of Eden that Jesus promises to those who persevere in faithfulness: “To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). Jesus completes on the Cross the return from the ultimate exile, the exile from the Father. With Jesus’ last breath on the Cross, the exile from Eden ends, and heaven is reopened to the descendants of Adam.

The ultimate curse incurred by Adam is death: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Jesus takes this curse upon Himself by dying on the Cross and being buried in the tomb. Paradoxically, Jesus’ death brings life to all of Adam’s descendants. Adam had been banished from the garden and its tree of life, but now Jesus makes the wood of the Cross the new tree of life, the fruit of which is taken up in the Passover cup, the cup of His blood. For those who drink and eat of Jesus’ body and blood, the fruit of the new tree of life, death is defeated and Eden opened. Jesus takes the curses upon Himself, but at a high price.

Jesus’ Passion is not at all what one would expect the redemption and new exodus to look like, but it must be remembered that a lamb must be sacrificed for a Passover to be celebrated. Jesus is the lamb, and He pays the debt of sin owed by both Israel and Adam. This sets in motion the great jubilee, because Jesus’ Passion and death releases both Gentile and Jew from the debt of sin, slavery to the devil, and exile from the heavenly Eden.

Notworthy

 

[NiceFundamental]

ricren:

I am Catholic and have no problem accepting that it does. I’ve entered into a friendly relationship with an ex-Mennonite woman who has no interest in being Christian, but does have a relationship with God that she describes as being most comfortably similar to the spiritual athiests and gnostics that she knows. I honestly don’t completely understand her relationship with God.

I know that she had a painful break with her community because she realized that she could not profess the belief that was required to be an accepted member of her community and family. She has a lot of resentment over that. My understanding is that the main breaking point for her was not being able to find an acceptable answer to the question, “What exactly does a dead body do for us to save us?”

I can give a vague answer about covenents and attonement for sins, which she politely rejects. I posed the question to my dear husband who answered something along the lines of something needing to die and only God coming down and dying himself would satisfy the requirement. Trying to think in my new friend’s mindset I asked, “Why? Why does something need to die?” I was greeted with a blank smile.

Again, I don’t question that it’s true, but can someone walk me through what the explaination to this question is? I’m searching both for my friend and myself. This is probably a question I should have an answer to. Remember just drawing back to scripture probably won’t satisfy my friend because she doesn’t accept Christianity. If it helps she’s actually pursuing a theology degree at a Lutheran seminary right now so she’s probably well-versed in theology (though I’m not and I’m the conduit, so don’t get too deep on me, OK?).

God Bless you and thanks for any help you can provide.

Please do not jump down my throat. But I believe the problem to questions like, “Are Catholics Christian”? lie in this example (her question).

Here you have a catholic who does not know how Christ’s sacrifice saves us. She has religion, but is that enough?

Can someone be a “Christian” with out knowing the answer to that? They may be a “catholic”, but a Christian?

I have been watching threads, please do not jump down my throat. I do not want to attack anyone, just illustrate that perhaps someone could have “a religion” (even if it is the right one) and perhaps not be a “Christian”.

I think this sums up in a nutshell the answer (in layman’s language), “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Sins needed a blood sacrifice. These animal sacrifices only “covered” peoples sin’s but not “take away”. Sins were committed…a sacrifice in which blood was shed needed to be performed.

Jesus is the last and only sacrifice needed for the remission of our sin’s.

 

[NotWorthy]

NiceFundamental:

I think this sums it up, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”.

Hey, NiceFundamental! Yes, all Catholics believe that the Lamb of God, takes away the sins of the world. We say it three times every mass.

**But it does not explain to a Mennonite why Jesus had to die. ** I’ve asked this question to many bible christians, and they come up with just as convoluted an answer.

Take Care and God Bless!

Notworthy

 

[herry]

Dear Ricren,

Read, Read, Read. If you want to understand you must read. For this subject I would suggest reading the book of Exodus, and then Hebrews. Exodus shows you the old sanctuary, and Hebrews shows how Christ fulfilled it.

“Thy way, O God, is in the santuary”. Psalm 77:13

God’s plan of salvation for manking was taught to us in the Old Testament Temple. The Temple in the Old Testament was a replica of God’s sanctuary in heaven.

“Who serve unto the example, and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when He was about to make the tabernacle: for, see, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount” Hebrews 8:5

Moses saw God’s throne in heaven, and His sanctuary, and build a replica on earth.

At the temple there was an outer courtyard.In the courtyard there was an alter for burnt offerings (Exodus 27:1-8), which symbolized the cross of Christ. And there was a bath of laver where the priests washed before entering the temple. The laver represented cleansing from sin (Exodus 30:17-21, 38:8, Titus 3:5).

The temple was a gold overlaid building, with two compartments. The first room was called the holy place. Inside was the table of shewbread (Exodus 25:23-30), which represented Jesus, the bread of life (John chapter 6). There was a seven branch candlestick (Exodus 25:31-40), which represented Jesus --the light of the world (John 1:9, 9:5). The oil in the candlesticks represented the Holy Spirit (Zechariah 4:1-6, Revelation 4:5). And thirdly there was an alter of incencse which represented the prayers of God’s people (Exodus 30:7-8, Revelation 5:8).

Finally there was the second room called the Most holy place, or the Holy of Holies. The only thing inside the holy of holies was the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:10-22). The Ark was a gold overlaid box. Inside it was the Ten Commandments, and a golden pot of manna. On top of the ark was the Mercy seat, and on each side there were two cherubs of gold. The Ten Commandments are the law of God’s kingdom and standard of judgement. The pot of manna was placed inside the ark of the covenant as an eternal reminder that God fed the Israelites with manna in the desert. Also, God tested the Israelites by making manna fall on six days but none on the Sabbath. The manna spoiled if kept overnight so it needed to be gathered anew every day. But, God made the manna on the sixth day keep overnight, so that the Israelites did not rely on themselves for food on the Sabbath. And this pot of manna in the ark was a reminded of this as well. As an eternal mermorial, God told Moses to put a pot of manna in the ark (Read Exodus ch. 16, Hebrews 9:2-5). Finally there was Aarons rod inside the ark as well.

The Mercy seat represented God’s throne in heaven. The two cherubs of gold were symbolic of the two angels which are on each side of God’s throne (Psalm 80:1)(Exodus 25:17-22). the Mercy seat was above the commandments, which represented that as long as God’s people confessed and forsook their sins, they would be given mercy. The sins of the people were forgiven when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat by the priest (Leviticus 16:15, 16). The priest represented Jesus who would appear in heaven itself before God for us. “For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest…” Hebrews 8:4

The blood of animals was our schoolteacher to show us that Jesus would sacrifice himself for our sins. "…without the shedding of blood there is no remission… Hebrews 9:22. But Jesus said “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” Matthew 26:28

continued…

 

[herry]

The wages of sin is not punishment, or hardship, or anguish, although sin will bring all these things. The wages of sin is death. Plain and simple. Even the smallest sin requires death, because there can exist no sin with God. Neither can we ever come to His presence unles we are purged from sin. (see Romans 6:23). In the old testament, when a person sinned, they had to bring an animal to the priest. The person had to lay their hand on the animal, confess theier sins, and kill it witht hier own hand (Lev. 1:4, 5). This bloody and shocking lesson taught the sinner of the terrible price that had to be paid for sin. Eternal death is the consequence of sin.

Without Jesus we would be lost. We are saved by Jesus’s death because we have accepted it as the subsitute for us. Jesus loves us so much He let our sins crush out His life. He did no sin, but He paid the penalty of sin for all of us (1 Cor 15:3, 2 Cor. 5:21).

Jesus left the comfort and glory of heaven to be sacrificed as our substitute. Just as we are all born sinners through Adam, we are born righteous when we are born again in Christ. Jesus is the new adam, without Jesus we could never be saved.

Now, Jesus is in the true temple -Heaven itself appearing before the true mercy seat -God’s throne to intercede as our mediator and priest.

“Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an High Priest (Jesus) who is set on the right hand of the majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” Hebrews 8:1, 2

Jesus died for us because the wages of sins is death. He washed us from our sins in His own blood. Since God could offer none Higher of a sacrifice, He offered His only begotten Son. All who accept Jesus’s death as the penalty for thier sin, and look to Him with hope for salvation and fogivness, will enter God kingdom innocent by Jesus’s blood.

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this is the judgement, So was Christ offered once to bear the sins of many. And unto those who look for HIm shall he appear the second time without sin, utno salvation” Hebrews 9:27-28

I hope this helps, please read the book of Hebrews. I cannot stress that enough. It is a great testimony of How Jesus fulfills the ministry of the Old Testament.

God bless,

-herry

 

[Sherlock]

NiceFundamental:

Please do not jump down my throat. But I believe the problem to questions like, “Are Catholics Christian”?, lie in this example (her question).

Here you have a catholic who does not know how Christ’s sacrifice saves us. She has religion, but is that enough?

Can someone be a “Christian” with out knowing the answer to that? They may be a “catholic”, but a Christian?

I have been watching threads, please do not jump down my throat. I do not want to attack anyone, just illustrate the difference of “a religion” and perhaps a “Christian”.

I think this sums it up, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”.

The original poster did not say that she did not believe that Jesus died to save us. She said that she does. Her baptism and belief in Christ (with all that that implies—and yes, it does mean DOING) is what makes her a Christian. She may not be a theologian–perhaps you think that disqualifies her? On what basis? A “simple faith” is NOWHERE condemned in Scripture or in the Church. We are, of course, to love God with our whole heart AND mind, but that does not automatically mean that everyone will be on equal footing in that regard and that everyone will understand theological concepts.

So, no, it does not illustrate the "difference of “a religion” and perhaps a “Christian”. Faith without religion is simply making God in our own image (very convenient) which is why modern culture is enamoured of it (somehow God never contradicts YOUR particular spin on Scripture, as you can always find support for your particular beliefs).

What it does illustrate is a certain degree of arrogance, and a desire to judge souls. And so despite your screen name, that’s just not nice.

 

[adnauseum]

NiceFundamental:

Here you have a catholic who does not know how Christ’s sacrifice saves us. She has religion, but is that enough?

I didn’t hear the ricren say she didn’t know the answer; what I heard is that the mennonite didn’t accept her answers.

 

[NiceFundamental]

NotWorthy:

Hey, NiceFundamental! Yes, all Catholics believe that the Lamb of God, takes away the sins of the world. We say it three times every mass.

Yes, I am aware, that is why I used that scripture verse. Again, probably why Catholics are attacked. People can say it 3 times at mass but not understand what they are saying. Why is Jesus a “Lamb” and how did he take away the sins of the world?

NotWorthy:

I’ve asked this question to many bible christians, and they come up with just as convoluted an answer.

Take Care and God Bless!

Notworthy

I am not just saying this of Catholics only, just trying to provide insight into why that question is always asked.

I am not judgemental, hence why I am on this Forum.

 

[NiceFundamental]

ricren:

I am Catholic and have no problem accepting that it does. Again, I don’t question that it’s true, but can someone walk me through what the explaination to this question is? I**'m searching** both for my friend and myself. This is probably a question I should have an answer to.

Hey adnauseum, I am not trying to split hairs here, but the above quote would illustrate she is asking for herself as well.

Perhaps this is for another thread, "Can someone believe Jesus died to save us but not understand why he had to and still be a Chrisitan or a Catholic?

 

[Sherlock]

NiceFundamental:

Perhaps this is for another thread, "Can someone believe Jesus died to save us but not understand why he had to and still be a Chrisitan or a Catholic?

Why would the question be asked? Where is your Scriptural (or historical big “T” tradition) basis for this as a measure of one’s being or not being a Christian? Where is simple faith condemned?

 

[NiceFundamental]

Sherlock:

The original poster did not say that she did not believe that Jesus died to save us. She said that she does. Her baptism and belief in Christ (with all that that implies—and yes, it does mean DOING) is what makes her a Christian.

I disagree.

Sherlock:

She may not be a theologian

I am no theologian either.

Sherlock:

perhaps you think that disqualifies her?

I do not think that disqualifies her.

Sherlock:

We are, of course, to love God with our whole heart AND mind, but that does not automatically mean that everyone will be on equal footing in that regard and that everyone will understand theological concepts.

I agree.

Sherlock:

So, no, it does not illustrate the "difference of “a religion” and perhaps a “Christian”.

I believe it does, just my opinion and its worth is of no greater value than anyone elses.

Sherlock:

We are, of course, to love God with our whole heart AND mind, but that does not automatically mean that everyone will be on equal footing in that regard and that everyone will understand theological concepts.

I agree.

Sherlock:

Faith without religion is simply making God in our own image (very convenient) which is why modern culture is enamoured of it (somehow God never contradicts YOUR particular spin on Scripture, as you can always find support for your particular beliefs).

What it does illustrate is a certain degree of arrogance, and a desire to judge souls. And so despite your screen name, that’s just not nice.

Not judging, once again just utilizing her question as an example. You may disagree, that is your prerogative. As for the rest, I am not here to get into anything.

Blessings.

 

[Sherlock]

NiceFundamental:

Yes, I am aware, that is why I used that scripture verse. Again, probably why Catholics are attacked. People can say it 3 times at mass but not understand what they are saying. Why is Jesus a “Lamb” and how did he take away the sins of the world?
.

Actually, if you completely understood the significance of Jesus as the “Lamb of God”, you would be Catholic.

 

[NiceFundamental]

Sherlock:

Actually, if you completely understood the significance of Jesus as the “Lamb of God”, you would be Catholic.

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for your opinion and position.

 

[Church_Militant]

NiceFundamental:

Please do not jump down my throat. But I believe the problem to questions like, “Are Catholics Christian”? lie in this example (her question).

Excuse me, but does every last soul in the pews of your church know how to effectively share their faith with others? I doubt it. I spent over 34 years in several different non-Catholic churches of which some were fundamentalist too before realizing the errors and coming home. I taught Sunday School and was a Deacon and I was (and still am) one of the most no-fear soul winners you’ll ever meet, but very very few are like me.

Here you have a Catholic who does not know how Christ’s sacrifice saves us. She has eligion, but is that enough?

Your assumptions are showing in what you say here. She says she believes it all but she doesn’t know how to communicate it to the lady. You read into her questions something that is not there, and it’s a habit you’re gonna have to lose if you intend to hang around with us my friend, because it will mess up all effort to communicate.

Can someone be a “Christian” with out knowing the answer to that? They may be a “catholic”, but a Christian?

The answer is Of course! Do you suppose that the apostles understood how to communicate such things even when they set down in writing the New Testament? No way… it takes the entire New Testament for us (some 2,000 years later) to be ablse to fit the whole picture together and that with the benefit of the ECF’s writings as to what they believed it says as well as to be able to codify the truths that we believe and still all “Christians” cannot agree. It’s pretty sad, but fortunately ricren knew where to come to get her answers.

BTW, I think knowlege may be overrated according to St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the 13th chapter 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. and 1st Cor 8:1 “…we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth”. Don’t get me wrong at all. I’m not saying that we should not know our faith and know it well (God Forbid!). I am saying that without great Christ-like love & a life that shows that we live for Him, the presentation of knowlege is about useless. I guess you could call it “empty witrnessing”.

I have been watching threads, please do not jump down my throat. I do not want to attack anyone, just illustrate that perhaps someone could have “a religion” (even if it is the right one) and perhaps not be a “Christian”.

No issues with that. Is everyone in the pews at your church a Christian? Mine aren’t, there may even be some real serious sinners in those pews, but y’know…There but for the grace of God go I. And they hear it every Sunday, and see it in the faithful around them (and even moreso if they should talk to me. ) but all the rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

I think this sums up in a nutshell the answer (in layman’s language), “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Sins needed a blood sacrifice. These animal sacrifices only “covered” peoples sin’s but not “take away”. Sins were committed…a sacrifice in which blood was shed needed to be performed.

Jesus is the last and only sacrifice needed for the remission of our sin’s.

Well don’t fall over in a faint or anything, but we hear that verse (“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. John 1:29 & 36 too] ) EVERY time we participate in the Mass. (Read This) So you see, it’s not that we don’t know or teach this. It’s that some folks don’t listen and some of us are like Moses and not good public speakers.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

NiceFundamental:

Yes, I am aware, that is why I used that scripture verse. Again, probably why Catholics are attacked.

People can say it 3 times at mass but not understand what they are saying. Why is Jesus a “Lamb” and how did he take away the sins of the world?Perhaps people shouldn’t attack?

Is that some form of especially loving “witness”? Sure hasn’t shown much love around this forum and many of the others that I am on. Never worked very well at winning souls on the street when I wasn’t a Catholic, though it seemed like it fed a lot of self-righteous egos. I realized that that is not your fault, but the repeated use of the word “attack/attacked” in your posts sounds like the cocking of a gun.

If you are here to discuss with us, then let’s rock and roll, but I’ve already shown you that you sort of misinterpreted the lady’s question and that knowlege is not the only seed for sowing the kingdom of God. In fact it’s pretty poor with out Christ-like love.

There’s lots of other threads you may find of interest. Pick one and let’s talk.
Pax tecum,