This is the second topic that BMZ brought up.

BMZ wrote: I find the philosophy of God killing his own son for the mankind very disgusting. A truly Omnipotent God would have simply forgiven the sins. Surely this was ruthless. How can you worship a God who killed his son? I cannot worship such a killer God. If you call that a sacrifice, then it is no sacrifice, for God 'gave' him back his life within three days as told in the story..

You can find all you need to know in this article:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html   It is a response to someone who asked the same question you did.

Summary:  Let me try to summarize some of these points:

1. Sacrifice, in the OT background for the NT understandings of Christ�s death, focused more on the giving element than on the death element.
2. Sacrifice, in the OT, was essentially transfer of property from the offerer to God, with various methods of �delivery�.
3. The victim of the sacrifice became God�s possession, and God could do with it whatever He chose.
4. The nature of sacrifice did not depend in any way on the sacrifice �staying dead��it just had to be transferred to God�s ownership.
5. The offering had to be something of value/cost to the offerer.
6. The offerer could expect some later recompense or blessing from God, to �make up for� the current loss to the offerer, and this expectation was an expression of real faith.
7. People could be offered, and this basically meant a lifetime of dedicated service to God (without a death, obviously).
8. The actual method of delivery (e.g., burning, waving, elevating) was an act, that did not require on-going or continual action.
9. In the NT, Jesus is both the Offerer/Priest and the Offering, and God the Father is the recipient.
10. His death on the Cross is seen as the fulfillment of multiple sacrifices and offerings of the OT.
11. All of these offerings required priestly action AFTER the death of any victim.
12. Since the requirements for the ultimate, non-shadow sacrifice included a Perfect Priest and a Perfect human-plus victim, the constraints of covenant ethics and religious ritual would necessitate that the Victim be resurrected (to avoid the problem of Unrecompensed Righteous Suffering) and the Priest be able to continue the post-death activities.
13. The NT data is very clear that the agonies and terrors of the Cross were significant and horrendous for Jesus, in both anticipation and in the actual experiencing.
14. The NT data also suggests that the emotional pain elements of this experience are present/available to Jesus today, in His function as sympathizer and High Priest.
15. The anticipation of resurrection, although it would be comfort and source of strength for endurance, would not lesson the agonies of death�while the experience was happening.
16. The agonies of this extra-loaded death and the circumstances of that death would likely be significantly more painful, more vivid, more invasive for a pure Hearted and Eternal One, than for us normal humans.
17. The Father�s full experience of His Son�s pain is a corollary of their intense union (not discussed in this paper).
18. These events are constantly in the Father�s memory, and indeed, are actually rehearsed daily in the lives of His people.
19. Even human fathers (parents, loved one generally) experience the phenomena of the never-lost emotional memories of the past, and this re-feeling is not a sign of weakness, but of depth and wholeness.
20. Although discussions of finite-vs-infinite aspects of this question may be on shaky semantic or epistemic grounds, either of the two major approaches to the use of these terms indicate that the Sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross would have been adequate WITHOUT requiring it to be infinite in duration.

What this leads me to conclude is:

• That the death of Christ on the Cross, in the manner and circumstances of that death, was completely consistent with the OT sacrificial framework;
  
  
• That the NT data supports the view that the Cross was a huge personal pain/cost to the Son;
  
  
• That the theological, ethical, and religious constraints that needed to satisfied in effecting the means of His hope-rescuing, life-salvaging, and heart-renewing work, virtually required a resurrection of the only One �fit� to create and manage the forces/influences within history for this redemptive work;
  
  
• That the on-going work of Christ in the lives of His Close Ones evidence the ever-present reality/availability of that pain to Him;
  
  
• That specific experiences of parents everywhere (i.e., vicarious re-suffering of the pain of their children�s pain, through memory recall) witnesses to the ever-present �cost� of the Cross to the Father;
  
  
• And accordingly, that the term �sacrifice� is not only very much to the point, but is also very much an understatement of what happened in that  unfathomable event we call the �Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth��

You asked this question before, BMZ, and I answered it but not as fully as this time.  Perhaps if you read the article you will understand the sacrifice of Jesus with fuller understanding.

BMZ wrote: Abraham was ready to slaughter his own son, knowing that the son would be dead and would be gone for ever from his sight. Had he succeeded in killing his son, that would have been the "Greatest sacrifice for God" in the history of the world.

It would have shown that God went back on His word and promise, which He did not do.  If Abraham had killed his son, Isaac, then the only way God could have kept His promise would have been if God had resurrected or resuscitated Isaac back to life.

One last note about Jesus' sacrifice:  you do believe that soldiers sacrifice their lives for others, do you not?  Would it still be a sacrifice if they knew that after they died, they would live again with God?  If you threw yourself in front of a truck barreling down on a group of children and you died and they lived, would you not consider that your death was a sacrifice, even though you thought you would live again?

Peace

BMZ, to me quite understandably, sounds a bit like Pinchas Lapide, whom Hans Kung quotes as having said:  �That God needs a human sacrifice to reconcile his own creation with himself, that he, the ruler of the world, cannot justify anyone without a blood sacrifice, is as incomprehensible to Jews as it is contrary to the Bible.�

Serv

Ref:  Kung, Hans, Judaism between Yesterday and Tomorrow, Continuum Publishing Co., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-8264-0788-9, p. 386 

Servetus wrote: BMZ, to me quite understandably, sounds a bit like Pinchas Lapide, whom Hans Kung quotes as having said:  �That God needs a human sacrifice to reconcile his own creation with himself, that he, the ruler of the world, cannot justify anyone without a blood sacrifice, is as incomprehensible to Jews as it is contrary to the Bible.� Serv Ref:  Kung, Hans, Judaism between Yesterday and Tomorrow, Continuum Publishing Co., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-8264-0788-9, p. 386

Hi Serv,

It doesn't matter what Pinchas Lapide thinks.  It only matters what God thinks.  Did you read the article? 

Peace

Servie,  but for you  again.

Pinchas Lapide, the darling of Christian apologists. He strongly supported something that he never believed and remained a hardcore Jew.  But he got fellow Christian apologists some kind of "conclusive evidence" for resurrection.

That was his off-the-screen performance and doesn't mean that all the Jews believed him. In fact, I would have taken my hat off to Pinchas Lapide if he had found a resurrection storey among his Jewish Prophets of yore.

Thanks & BR

BMZ 

George,

From you: "One last note about Jesus' sacrifice:  you do believe that soldiers sacrifice their lives for others, do you not?  Would it still be a sacrifice if they knew that after they died, they would live again with God?  If you threw yourself in front of a truck barreling down on a group of children and you died and they lived, would you not consider that your death was a sacrifice, even though you thought you would live again?"

Giving one's life to save others, knowing that one would be dead till the Last day, is a great sacrifice in the sight of God Almighty and also in the sight of people. Those people who gave their lives to save others will be rewarded by God Almighty on the Day of Judgment.

Here in Jesus' case, both he and the Father knew that he would be dead only for a maximum period of three days. You have to decide whether only the Father knew or both knew. Even if Jesus were "God" himself, still it cannot be a great sacrifice for Jesus knew that he would get up, anyway.

It is thus no sacrifice at all.It was not even a human sacrifce for a sacrifice has to be slaughtered. John the Baptist, who baptised Jesus, lost his own head, George and nobody feels any pain for him?  

If Jesus were sacrifised and was dead, never to return alive or resurrected, I would have considered that a great Sacrifice.  

George,

Looks like it is BMZ day.  Good Night. I have to go to bed now.

"This is the second topic that BMZ brought up."

God is the Most Merciful so it is impossible for God to order the crucifixion of Jesus. After all the Christians claim falsely that Jesus is the son of God so how can a loving father murder His own son for the sake of the sinners? I wonder what kind of God who claims that He is the All Merciful would murder Jesus who is a great prophet of God for the ignorant people! Is God a terrorist? The All Mercifull God will not conspire with His enemies to kill His own messenger!

Allah the All Mighty and All Merciful God doesn't need any murders to forgive you. If you regret your sins and pray to Allah and beg for His forgiveness and mercy sincerely He will forgive you. Allah will not crucify any person to death for the sins of other persons for Allah is the All Merciful God.

Those that turn (to God) in repentance; that serve Him, and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of God,: that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limit set by God;- (These do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers. (Quran 9:112)

       "And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy. Were He to call them to account for what they had earned then surely He would have hastened on their punishment. But they have their appointed time beyond which they will find no escape." ( Quran 18:58)

Jesus was not crucified for Allah  the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate had saved him. It was Judas who looked like Jesus was crucifed to death : That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-  Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise;-  And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (Quran 4:157-158)

Hi George,

�It doesn't matter what Pinchas Lapide thinks.�

I think that Lapide�s response to the general issue is fairly illustrative of what might very roughly be called the Arab/Hebraic (as opposed to the Hellenic) response to the (proposed) necessity of a (granted, perfect) human sacrifice as propitiation for sin.  Again, that is a difficult sentiment to express and please consider it rough.

At any rate, I, for one, and even though it is unlikely that we could get him to participate here, would not mind hearing Lapide�s response to the above-cited Christian apologist.

�It only matters what God thinks.�

It is largely that, in most of these exercises and discussions, and at least when our motives are relatively pure, that we are trying to ascertain, is it not?  It seems to me that we are at times necessarily bringing forward quotations from others who are also seriously exploring the issues.  I have done that in this case and have tried to place BMZ�s (and others, including, at times, my own) resistance to this doctrinal concept, the �Vicarious Atonement,� within something of a broader religio-cultural context.

�Did you read the article?�

I think so.  I did read a related article by the same capable author, in its entirety, a couple of years ago.  I also linked it (the related question) in this thread, which I was sorry to see sink into oblivion: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4477&PN=4 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4477& ;PN=4

In the main, as I read it, the argument is cogent and refreshingly free of obfuscation.  I appreciated the author for that reason.   Nevertheless, this is not to say that I reject, out of hand, the �mystery� of the Vicarious Atonement, but neither, for that matter, am I able to easily or convincingly accept it.  Refer, again, and if you will, to the opinions expressed by both BMZ and Pinchas Lapide.

�Peace�

And to you as well, George, even if I don�t always say so.

Best regards,

Serv

DavidC wrote: I always thought the point of Jesus' death and resurrection was to prove that death was not the end.  That fits well with his earthly actions and teachings, anyway.

That, in my opinion, was God's greatest sign.  That we, too, would have life after death.  Otherwise, we have only words in books with no proof.

And in addition, this one sign brought billions of people to believe in the Messiah who the Father sent and; therefore, in God Himself.  The sacrifice would be that it took this event to bring that about--the Father being separated from the Son He loved and the Son going through the physical and very painful death, as well as, being separated from the Father for three days.  This would be an almost unbearable sacrifice by the Father and Jesus for all of us--Jews and Gentiles alike.

Peace

Servetus wrote: BMZ, to me quite understandably, sounds a bit like Pinchas Lapide, whom Hans Kung quotes as having said:  �That God needs a human sacrifice to reconcile his own creation with himself, that he, the ruler of the world, cannot justify anyone without a blood sacrifice, is as incomprehensible to Jews as it is contrary to the Bible.� Serv Ref:  Kung, Hans, Judaism between Yesterday and Tomorrow, Continuum Publishing Co., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-8264-0788-9, p. 386

Serv,

I did not find the quote that you cited from Lapide.

But, I did find this one:

As' Salaamu Alaikum all

I'm sure some of you miss your Philosopher hero Israfil right??? LOL Just kidding.....Allow me to put my two cents in.

Since I have degrees and background in both philosophy and the study of religion allow me to explain a few things. The problem with discussing subjects such as theoreticals is eventually we begin to unconsciously limit God. Like ArRahman said earlier "God is all merciful but it's impossible he crucified his son." That is just one example.

Because we Muslims differ on the crucifixion of Christ obviously we will respond in opposition to the subject heading but I find these discussions very enlightening. Now allow me to respond to the subject matter.

Was Jesus' death a "real" sacrifice.

In the words of the "movie Jesus" in the Passion of Christ Jesus in that movie said "There is no greater love than a man sacrificing himself for his friends." Let me remind others that I'm purely commenting on the question of George not condoning the message of crucifixion so don't bite my head off.

I believe that in the physical sense Jesus did sacrifice himself in accordance to his ideals and what he stood for. Jesus was highly unorthodox in his manner in regards to the Torah and theology. He helped the poor and the sick and attended those who were outcast members in that society.

In one verse in the Bible Jesus was at the temple and when people we giving their charity a poor woman came and gave what we Americans would value this as "one cent" one cent told his disciples that she gave everything she had.

So Jesus stood for a lot of things and eventually he died for them. In the spiritual sense Jesus was also a sacrifice because in accordance to what the Scripture says in the New Testament that Jesus' death is a sacrifical offering to cleanse humanity of the stain of the first sin. Since there was no human on earth that was free of sin (even the prophets) Jesus was used as an offering to God to cleanse the world.

So in answering your question according to your scripture yes Jesus was a physical and spiritual sacrifice. Any sacrifice where one dies for an ideal especially if the ideal challenges what is considered the norm at that time is perhaps the greatest sacrifice. If I get killed tomorrow in the line of duty for trying to save a little girl that is the greatest sacrifice. Any ideal which is noble can be expressed on different levels. As did Jesus he spoke about God's love and how we can redeem ourselves through change.

Muhammad talked about surrendering oneself to God to find peace. To die for such a cause especially when it is positive is the ultimate price one pays for such an expression of an ideal.

(DavidC)  �I always thought the point of Jesus' death and resurrection was to prove that death was not the end.  That fits well with his earthly actions and teachings, anyway.�

At this point, I am focusing on the first part of BMZ�s statement, that which relates more to the issue of the (proposed) efficacy of a human sacrifice.  As I understand, it was said of Jesus� death that it was a propitiatory sacrifice.  Apart from this concept, it seems to me, the death and resurrection can be treated separately.

(George) �I did not find the quote that you [Servetus] cited from Lapide.�

Sorry.  Hans Kung provides the reference (and translation, apparently) in a footnote to his above-cited book which is provided below.  Please note that Lapide�s objection in this case is to the concept not of resurrection, but to the acceptability, or admissibility of a human sacrifice:

Lapide, Pinchas, Warum kommt er nicht? Judische Evangelienauslegung, Gutersloh 1988, p. 59.

Serv 

If I may, as BMZ states, if Jesus is God, where is the sacrifice? He faced no true death, nor the spectre of eternal damnation. Christian doctrine believes Jesus is God, immortal. Death would mean nothing to Him.

It would be more of a sacrifice if Jesus was believed to be just a man, with no certain knowledge of resurrection within 3 days, and eternal life. Then he would truly have been sacrificing something he could not immediately retrieve.

If Brother Israfil were to knowingly take a bullet for a child and die, that would be a true sacrifice. His life would be over and he would have no guarantee of his place on the Day of Judgement. But if he knew that he would never really die, would be walking around again in three days, and then return to Heaven where he is God, then taking the bullet would be no real sacrifice. Just an inconvenience.

George wrote: This is the second topic that BMZ brought up. BMZ wrote: I find the philosophy of God killing his own son for the mankind very disgusting. A truly Omnipotent God would have simply forgiven the sins. Surely this was ruthless. How can you worship a God who killed his son? I cannot worship such a killer God. If you call that a sacrifice, then it is no sacrifice, for God 'gave' him back his life within three days as told in the story..  You can find all you need to know in this article:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html   It is a response to someone who asked the same question you did. Summary:  Let me try to summarize some of these points: Sacrifice, in the OT background for the NT understandings of Christ�s death, focused more on the giving element than on the death element. Sacrifice, in the OT, was essentially transfer of property from the offerer to God, with various methods of �delivery�. The victim of the sacrifice became God�s possession, and God could do with it whatever He chose. The nature of sacrifice did not depend in any way on the sacrifice �staying dead��it just had to be transferred to God�s ownership. The offering had to be something of value/cost to the offerer. The offerer could expect some later recompense or blessing from God, to �make up for� the current loss to the offerer, and this expectation was an expression of real faith. People could be offered, and this basically meant a lifetime of dedicated service to God (without a death, obviously). The actual method of delivery (e.g., burning, waving, elevating) was an act, that did not require on-going or continual action. In the NT, Jesus is both the Offerer/Priest and the Offering, and God the Father is the recipient. His death on the Cross is seen as the fulfillment of multiple sacrifices and offerings of the OT. All of these offerings required priestly action AFTER the death of any victim. Since the requirements for the ultimate, non-shadow sacrifice included a Perfect Priest and a Perfect human-plus victim, the constraints of covenant ethics and religious ritual would necessitate that the Victim be resurrected (to avoid the problem of Unrecompensed Righteous Suffering) and the Priest be able to continue the post-death activities. The NT data is very clear that the agonies and terrors of the Cross were significant and horrendous for Jesus, in both anticipation and in the actual experiencing. The NT data also suggests that the emotional pain elements of this experience are present/available to Jesus today, in His function as sympathizer and High Priest. The anticipation of resurrection, although it would be comfort and source of strength for endurance, would not lesson the agonies of death�while the experience was happening. The agonies of this extra-loaded death and the circumstances of that death would likely be significantly more painful, more vivid, more invasive for a pure Hearted and Eternal One, than for us normal humans. The Father�s full experience of His Son�s pain is a corollary of their intense union (not discussed in this paper). These events are constantly in the Father�s memory, and indeed, are actually rehearsed daily in the lives of His people. Even human fathers (parents, loved one generally) experience the phenomena of the never-lost emotional memories of the past, and this re-feeling is not a sign of weakness, but of depth and wholeness. Although discussions of finite-vs-infinite aspects of this question may be on shaky semantic or epistemic grounds, either of the two major approaches to the use of these terms indicate that the Sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross would have been adequate WITHOUT requiring it to be infinite in duration.

Thats a nice long pasted list George. The points really went of topic of the real matter: Was a Gdman sacrifice required for the forgiveness of sin?

1) There is no area of "forgiveness" in the Hebrew Scriptures that is lacking. In other words, there are various mechanisms for someone to seek forgiveness of Gd. Nothing is missing. So a Gdman sacrifice would be unecessary and unexpected to anyone who followed the Torah.

2) If Jesus was a literal sacrificem then a literal stone alter would also be required. Why is it that those things that are missing from a blood sacrifice ritual all happen to be non-literal?

3) There were physical changes in the life of Man due to the "original" sin in Eden (according to Christians). Why is it that the death of a Gd man, required to break us of the punishment of the sin in eden, did not change a single thing, except for the "spiritual" realm that we cannot see or feel or touch (another case where the changes or beneifts are all things spiritual but the physical rammifications are some how unimportant and put off).

4) Since messianic verses tell you that the sacrifical system will be put back in place in some future time, then the death of a Gdman was wasted? Or is your OT wrong?

George wrote: What this leads me to conclude is: That the death of Christ on the Cross, in the manner and circumstances of that death, was completely consistent with the OT sacrificial framework;

 

I am puzzled George. Your long list of points did not directly address the sacrifical system in your bible, but when off on tangents that required one to have various assumptions (another softball piece for the flock). The Christian scheme on atonement is completely off from what is written in your OT. I have brought up numerous points that have remained unchallenged on this forum. His alleged death, interpreted by Christians, is completely inconsistant with the Hebrew Scriptures. One has nothing to do with the other. 

George wrote: That the NT data supports the view that the Cross was a huge personal pain/cost to the Son;

a view is an interpretation, and given that those who chose the gospel accounts wanted this message to be at the center of its faith comes as no suprise..in other words, it proves nothing

George wrote: That the theological, ethical, and religious constraints that needed to satisfied in effecting the means of His hope-rescuing, life-salvaging, and heart-renewing work, virtually required a resurrection of the only One �fit� to create and manage the forces/influences within history for this redemptive work;

 

Theological rubbish. There are so many assumptions buried in this it is not even funny.

George wrote: That the on-going work of Christ in the lives of His Close Ones evidence the ever-present reality/availability of that pain to Him; That specific experiences of parents everywhere (i.e., vicarious re-suffering of the pain of their children�s pain, through memory recall) witnesses to the ever-present �cost� of the Cross to the Father; And accordingly, that the term �sacrifice� is not only very much to the point, but is also very much an understatement of what happened in that  unfathomable event we call the �Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth��

 

George, you explain what you believe well, but your beliefs do not count as fact or evidence concerning this topic.

 

George wrote: You asked this question before, BMZ, and I answered it but not as fully as this time.  Perhaps if you read the article you will understand the sacrifice of Jesus with fuller understanding. BMZ wrote: Abraham was ready to slaughter his own son, knowing that the son would be dead and would be gone for ever from his sight. Had he succeeded in killing his son, that would have been the "Greatest sacrifice for God" in the history of the world. It would have shown that God went back on His word and promise, which He did not do.  If Abraham had killed his son, Isaac, then the only way God could have kept His promise would have been if God had resurrected or resuscitated Isaac back to life. One last note about Jesus' sacrifice:  you do believe that soldiers sacrifice their lives for others, do you not?  Would it still be a sacrifice if they knew that after they died, they would live again with God?  If you threw yourself in front of a truck barreling down on a group of children and you died and they lived, would you not consider that your death was a sacrifice, even though you thought you would live again? Peace

False analogy.

Peace

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

DavidC,

�Yes, Servetus. I know you love long academic explanations.�

Sometimes, yes, it�s true.  In this case, though, Hans Kung�s book, translated from German, tends to seriously ramble and even I, after having finally closed the book after 600(+) pages, thought (quoting Herjihad in Bismarck�s �Zionism� thread):  �I can�t believe I read the whole thing.�  Now it�s time to regurgitate and to share what I read on my summer vacation!

�Beware, though.  When you finally come and visit you will find that I take opportunity -  when presented with a lengthy exegesis - to eat all of the cashews out of the mixed nuts and leave you with the peanuts.�

  .

Serv 

George,

I would just like to comment on the following from you:

"I took exception when BMZ said: "How can you worship a God who killed his son? I cannot worship such a killer God."  What an odd statement.  If we were to look at the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as those in the Qur'an we would find that God "killed" people in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah�women and children too.  We could go a step further with the story of Adam and Eve.  God banished them from the Garden and they no longer had access to the Tree of Life and were sentenced to die outside of the Garden, along with the rest of us."

The destruction of Pharoah and his hosts, Sodom, Gomorrah, the Floods on Noah's people and you might not have heard about the people of Saleh or people of Madian and the people of Sho'aib and some more, were all punishments inflicted by God on the most cruel, corrupt, disbelievers who transgressed to the highest limits. The destructions or "killing", as you call them, was perfectly justified as God Almighty had given them warnings over years to mend. They deserved it.

The people of Madian Saleh had gone to such a limit of cruelty that they even prevented poor animals from getting access to water, scarce in the desert and disobeyed God's Commands through Saleh. The last warning to them came in the sign of a she-camel and they were warned not to harm her and let the animals drink water. They bore with it for hardly a day or two and chopped her. The entire community was like that. They were destroyed in an earthquake.

I am sure you remember how Abraham pleaded for the people of Lot.

Finally God rescued Lot and a few before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. The entire filthy and cruel disbelievers were giving birth to and breeding people against all good of God.

Billions of people are still worshipping God Almighty, even knowing that. But saying that God created a son and killed him as a sacrifce for us, to avenge his "defeat" by Satan when he tempted Adam and Eve successfully, was a very cruel act. Then by letting him die and giving him life again defeats that sacrifice. Death for everyone is still there, people are still suffering, kingdom has not been established but all the while people knew there was life after death.

I agree it would have been a great sacrifice if Jesus had been dead. But doesn't the thought cross people's mind that how could God abandon Jesus? The answer comes as a great relief from Qur'aan. God saved him.  Shouldn't you be happy and delighted to know that?

Good Night from S'pore.

Serv,

You have your Jew and I have mine.  This is the story of "my" Jew:

Thanks George for the input......

From other responses I've seen here many have posted what God can and cannot do. I have a different opinion on the subject but trying to stay on course here has been proven difficult. I remember in class my professor asked us "Can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?"

The fact that God's impotence residing in the fact that he couldn't lift something he created was meant to prove some philosophical discrepency in God's ability. God is myseterious as he has proven in the Scriptures.

�You [Servetus] have your Jew and I have mine.  This is the story of "my" Jew ...�

That was amusing, George.  I got an image -not necessarily an accurate one, let it be understood- of the two of us as carpetbaggers with a couple of quiescent Jews in our pockets (I get to keep Maimonides!).  

Anyway, I must immediately disown.  Pinchas Lapide is not �my� Jew (he only reminded me a bit of BMZ).   If anything, Lapide is one in a rather sizeable company of Hans Kung�s.  That you can find Jews who become Christians is not surprising to me.  I am all for it!  But, for that matter, neither is it surprising to me (or to Hans Kung) that practically the whole of Judaism (and Islam) seems to reject, as at best unacceptable (and unscriptural), the concept of the efficacy and admissibility of even a �perfect� human sacrifice.

Serv

Servie,

�You [Servetus] have your Jew and I have mine.  This is the story of "my" Jew ...�

That was really amusing for me too. I can accept to be your Jew (A Jew is truly very close to Muslims in being fiercely Monotheistic)but I will never agree to be Geoge's Jew, who is the odd one out and rather a strange Jew, one in twenty million Jews and tried to appease the Christians.

Please allow me to sweep Pinchas Lapide under the carpet. (Even the name doesn't sound like one )

So far, I have read and heard about about some Jews for Jesus but I have seen the Jews for Allah becoming Muslims straightaway.

Best Regards

BMZ

George,

Did you call me a Jew for Serv?  No offence taken.  But I will always remember like an elephant that you called me a Jew. You know well, an elephant never forgets!  

Israfil, Thank you for your most sensible contribution.  I, too, have a problem when someone says, "God would not do this or that."  We as humans should not put limits on what God will do or not do, could do or won't do.  Too often in doing so, we are judging God by our standards.

My response to George: Will God slander and degrade Himself by becoming a terrorist, rapist, liar, hypocrite etc? Will God lie? Will God become weak and powerless? Will God be stupid? Can God create another God that is greater than the present God?

Allah( God) will neither slander nor degrade Himself :

Who is Allah? � He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise� (Quran 59:22-24).

             � There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them, and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth. The preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious� (Quran 2:255).

Serv and BMZ,

Happy to hear that you got some amusement out of "my Jew and your Jew," but I hope that understood the point I was trying to make.

There are thousands of Jews who believe that Jesus was their Messiah, died on the cross and rose from the dead and do not believe that they are worshipping a Idol.

Peace

Your point was well made, George.

One of my problems with �Jews for Jesus� is that a highly intelligent Christian friend of mine went from a Baptist Church to a �Messianic� congregation.  There, he got in touch with his �Jewish� roots and went off to Israel for some years.  Last I knew, he had converted to Orthodox Judaism and had disavowed Christianity altogether.  My older sister, whom I dearly love, respect and admire, is also a convert to Judaism (but retains a respect for the much-vaunted �historical� Jesus as Rabbi).

One thing about it, this prism of Judaism/Christianity/Islam seems omni-directional.  But still, in future, when speaking of the three religions, and especially when comparing and contrasting them, I will continue to quote Jews who represent Judaism (not Christianity, else they are Christians) when I want to understand especially Orthodox Judaism�s response to Christianity and to Islam.

Serv

Servetus wrote: Your point was well made, George. One of my problems with �Jews for Jesus� is that a highly intelligent Christian friend of mine went from a Baptist Church to a �Messianic� congregation.  There, he got in touch with his �Jewish� roots and went off to Israel for some years.  Last I knew, he had converted to Orthodox Judaism and had disavowed Christianity altogether.  My older sister, whom I dearly love, respect and admire, is also a convert to Judaism (but retains a respect for the much-vaunted �historical� Jesus as Rabbi). One thing about it, this prism of Judaism/Christianity/Islam seems omni-directional.  But still, in future, when speaking of the three religions, and especially when comparing and contrasting them, I will continue to quote Jews who represent Judaism (not Christianity, else they are Christians) when I want to understand especially Orthodox Judaism�s response to Christianity and to Islam. Serv

I have a Jewish scholar as a private tutor.  He is helping me understand Judaism and has been a great help to me.

I think if I weren't a Trinitarian Christian I would still be a Christian and follow Jesus Christ.  I can think of no better example of someone to follow.

If not a Christian, I would be a Jew.

Peace.

George, you know I've seen that trend among some of these so-called "Messianic" Jewish congregations.  It seems to me that Jesus didn't say He had two flocks, but only one.  Not one that's Messianic Jewish (Jewish) and the other the Gentile congregations.  No, I have a lot of problems with the Judaizing of Christianity, although I do respect Jewish scholarship.

Remember how Paul said that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile - we are all one.

Yankovich wrote: George, you know I've seen that trend among some of these so-called "Messianic" Jewish congregations.  It seems to me that Jesus didn't say He had two flocks, but only one.  Not one that's Messianic Jewish (Jewish) and the other the Gentile congregations.  No, I have a lot of problems with the Judaizing of Christianity, although I do respect Jewish scholarship. Remember how Paul said that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile - we are all one.

Yes, indeed, Yank.  We are only one flock.  The Jews were to be a light unto the Gentiles and Jesus said salvation comes through the Jews, not to the Jews and to the Jews only and that salvation was through the Messiah Jesus.

Yes, we are all one in Christ.

Peace

George,

�I have a Jewish scholar as a private tutor.�

In Yankee-speak, that�s cool!

�I think if I weren't a Trinitarian Christian I would still be a Christian and follow Jesus Christ.  I can think of no better example of someone to follow.�

Same here.  I just at times take vocal issue, or struggle with, most of Christianity�s primary doctrines and dogmas (about Christ) and even with the New Testament books themselves.  That�s all.  Merely that.

�If not a Christian, I would be a Jew.� 

I understand.  Perhaps, given the �lost tribes� theory, you are already either of (southern kingdom) Judah (hence a �Jew�) or of (northern kingdom) Israel?  Without my intending to invite controversy here, it might be worth noting that it was to the �lost sheep� of Israel that, as I recall, Jesus is said to have come.       

I probably wouldn�t be a Jew, though.  To my still largely uneducated view, Judaism, as its very name suggests, seems too  nationally exclusive and, when its temples are left standing, rather preoccupied with rites and rituals involving blood (Essenes excepted).

Thanks, George, it's nice talking to you.

______________________________________________

(BMZ)  "�Did you [George] call me a Jew for Serv?" 

Serv

George,

From you:"I have a Jewish scholar as a private tutor.  He is helping me understand Judaism and has been a great help to me.

I think if I weren't a Trinitarian Christian I would still be a Christian and follow Jesus Christ.  I can think of no better example of someone to follow.

If not a Christian, I would be a Jew."

You are on the original track and the right path. May the Lord God Almighty help the Jewish scholar who is tutoring you!  

Hi Yank,

From you: "Remember how Paul said that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile - we are all one."

Paul beats Jesus here for Jesus did not or could not think of saying above. He was all the time after the Jews.  

DavidC wrote: Mishmish - the pain experienced was surely a sacrifice as was the simple humility in God's experienceing humanity.

DavidC: I thought about this for a while. This is the conclusion I came to:

I am not sure of the exact length of time Jesus was tortured. The accounts vary, but it was hours, not days. If Jesus was God, He could have stopped this torture at any time. He chose not to, as God, He had that choice. I assume this was to fulfill the prophecies.   Now, I ask myself, what of people who suffer excrutiating pain but have no choice? Pain for days, months, even years? Prisoners of war who are captured and tortured for years. People who die of horrible diseases. My brother died of brain cancer. He suffered for almost two years. He had three surgeries to remove tumors. By the third surgery his body was so compromised he could no longer heal. He died with a hole in his head that exposed his brain. By the time he died he was 5' 10' and weighed less than 80 pounds. He couldn't walk or eat or even use the bathroom. That is suffering. He had no choice. I'm sure he would have welcomed a few hours of pain in exchange. My brother is dead. He has no hope of being resurrected after three days in a perfect body. While he lay suffering, knowing he was dying, he was not comforted by the thought that this was just a three day deal.

How can God be humiliated by anything one of His creations does to Him? If Jesus were indeed God, nothing any man or creature did could actually humiliate Him. How could it?  God would have known what was going to be done before the men even thought of doing it. He would have been prepared for anything. God knows everything. If Jesus was God, He could have stopped them at any time. There is great power in that knowledge. How could that have been humiliating? To know that you are God and could completely destroy these men that were tormenting you, yet allowing them to continue. So, even during the torture and crucifixion, God still had the power and the control. He is God, He is always in control.

I think you can only suffer true humiliation when you have lost any power and control that you may have had.

So, I look around and I see humans that are suffering through pain everyday. I see people who give up their lives for others, knowing that they will not be alive again in three days, or even what will happen to their eternal soul. That is sacrifice.

I look around and I see humans that are suffering through pain everyday. I see people who give up their lives for others, knowing that they will not be alive again in three days, or even what will happen to their eternal soul. That is sacrifice

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command.

George wrote: [QUOTE=Yankovich] George, you know I've seen that trend among some of these so-called "Messianic" Jewish congregations.  It seems to me that Jesus didn't say He had two flocks, but only one.  Not one that's Messianic Jewish (Jewish) and the other the Gentile congregations.  No, I have a lot of problems with the Judaizing of Christianity, although I do respect Jewish scholarship. Remember how Paul said that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile - we are all one.

Yes, indeed, Yank.  We are only one flock.  The Jews were to be a light unto the Gentiles and Jesus said salvation comes through the Jews, not to the Jews and to the Jews only and that salvation was through the Messiah Jesus.

Yes, we are all one in Christ.

_______________________________________________________

It is an irony that you Christians talk about salvation while the OT and NT contradict to refute each other:

(1)Righteousness alone?

" "But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, HE WILL SURELY LIVE because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."  (From the NIV Bible, Ezekiel 3:19-21)"

OR  (2)Jesus?

"that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.    (From the NIV Bible, John 3:15-17)"

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  (From the NIV Bible, John 14:5-7)" 

Very funny indeed!

Are the non-Jews such as the Christians  etc the dogs?...Read this verse"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.  Jesus did not answer a word.  So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.'  He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.'  The woman came and knelt before him.   'Lord, help me!' she said.  He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Gentiles].' (Matthew 15:22-28)

I am surprised to know that the Gospel of Mathew call the Christians the dogs(Matthew 15:22-28)!

Alright, humility then. Where is the humility when you are God? Even if you are in human form, you are still God. You are still perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and going to be alive again in three days.

Sacrifice is the cornerstone of all faith. But sacrifice that means something. In Islam it is the greatest sacrifice to give up something that you love.

Did Jesus as God love the life of this world? Did he love human existence more than being God? You may say that God loved his only begotten son Jesus, but then you believe that Jesus is God, so He loved Himself. And Jesus gave up his earthly life to be God, so what was he giving up that he loved so much that it could be the ultimate sacrifice?

When you are God, what can you possibly sacrifice that you cannot have again?

Mishmish wrote: Alright, humility then. Where is the humility when you are God? Even if you are in human form, you are still God. You are still perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and going to be alive again in three days. Sacrifice is the cornerstone of all faith. But sacrifice that means something. In Islam it is the greatest sacrifice to give up something that you love. Did Jesus as God love the life of this world? Did he love human existence more than being God? You may say that God loved his only begotten son Jesus, but then you believe that Jesus is God, so He loved Himself. And Jesus gave up his earthly life to be God, so what was he giving up that he loved so much that it could be the ultimate sacrifice? When you are God, what can you possibly sacrifice that you cannot have again?

Your comments indicate that you do not know that Jesus taught that there is the Father, that he was the Son and that there is a Holy Spirit of God.

Peace

DavidC wrote: Hi Mishmish.  God did not need to become human, but he did it so that his chosen people, who had becme distanced and lost, could be reunited with him.  That was a sacrifice, even though God was not diminished in any way.

His chosen people, the Jews? That worked out well, didn't it?

I do know about the trinity. They are three, yet they are one. If they are indeed one, then Jesus is God. God is God and can never not be omnipotent nor omniscient, therefore, if Jesus is God, Jesus could never not be omnipotent nor omniscient. Now, if you're saying that Jesus is not God, I agree. Then the death of Jesus would have been a true sacrifice. Otherwise, you basically having God commiting suicide, then bringing Himself back to life in three days.