Statement #3: Jesus Christ is God’s solution for sin, making it possible for believers to connect with God and experience his love and plan for their life.
Imagine yourself as a movie-goer, stepping out of The DaVinci Code, wondering whether your should stop by Starbucks, grab some Macho Nachos, or believe that Jesus had consensual relations with Mary Magdalene. As you exit the theater, a college guys with sunglasses on his head asks if he can have a moment of your time. At first you think he's looking to sell you his self-made demo CD or handing out discounts for Fuddruckers, but instead he wants to talk to you about Jesus.
He asks you about the movie, nods at your answers, then starts to pry into your belief system. Soon he's targeting your conscience, trying to get you to see what a terrible person you are. The moment you admit to some weakness, a solution is posed: the death and resurrection of Jesus. He might open a Bible and read something like: "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." He might call you a lost sheep. He might tell you that you need to be washed in the blood of Jesus. He might ask if you want to ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior.
For Christians, these phrases seem harmless and helpful, but for an outsider, they must sound like cultish nonsense. Washed with blood?
The death and resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most important event in human history, but to a skeptic, there are some serious problems with it. I'll mention a few: If I truly love someone that has hurt me, and they come to me with an apology, I don't demand a blood sacrifice to restore that relationship. Why does God, who should be more loving and reasonable that his creation, require a human sacrifice to forgive sin? Besides, Jesus was forgiving sin before He died.
Thanks for the invitation to join God's family, but if God is in the habit of killing his own children, I would prefer to opt out of the adoption process.
Why should we believe the record of the New Testament when there are so many gospels and letters left out of the canon? Besides, after such a long and questionable history, and so much translating and retranslating, can we even trust the Bible?
If Jesus and God are the same person, then the Biblical account of his death and resurrection is insane. God was so angry at man’s sin, that he became a man himself, killed himself, then brought himself back to life. He felt much better after that and forgave everyone who believed. Was Jesus praying to himself in the garden, asking himself to let himself off the hook? While dying on the cross, did he ask himself why he had forsaken himself? Did he commit his own spirit into his own hands? It defies logic.
Would you have a reasonable answer to these questions?
22 comments:
Is that Clint Eastwood? He sure looks convicted!
Ok...At the risk of sounding stupid, I have decided to input my answers to one of your questions.
"If I truly love someone that has hurt me, and they come to me with an apology, I don't demand a blood sacrifice to restore that relationship. Why does God, who should be more loving and reasonable than His creation, require a human sacrifice to forgive sin? Besides, Jesus was forgiving sin before He died."
First, when someone we love hurts us and they offer up an apology, we may accept their apology but it doesn't immediatley mend the relationship. Whatever trust was broken, whatever wound was inflicted, the apology began the healing process but didn't wipe away the offense. It takes time to rebuild a relationship that has been broken no matter how much you love a person. God didn't start out demanding a human sacrifice, but he did demand a blood sacrifice.
For thousands of years, God required offerings from Israel to atone for their sins which happened yearly, bi-yearly, monthly, or more. (Which, by the way is agreed upon by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as they all believe that in the beginning stories up till at least Abraham.)
From the beginning God knew that it wasn't enough, that His son would have to die, but He had to tell the people and offer them a way out of their situation.
God required the human sacrifice of Jesus so that the sins would be erased as if they never existed in the first place. Unlike our human limitations of forgiveness, God's forgiveness does offer us forgetfulness. If I go to your house and you make me a dinner that is terrible, I will definately think twice when invited a second time. If you make God a dinner that is terrible when you invite Him again, His first words will be "What time?"
The last point I want to make is this. Jesus was forgiving SOME people of their sins before His crucifiction - others He healed. I believe that Jesus was acting as the Son of Man before the cross and the Son of God ever since. His death on the cross supplied forgiveness to ALL people if they request it.
Carrie, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wasn't ready to tackle these so you've got guts :) What do you mean when you say that "... Jesus was acting as the Son of Man before the cross and the Son of God ever since."? He did call Himself the Son of Man while on earth, but it never seemed clear to me what He meant by it, really.
It's a hypothetical, true, but it seems weird that our witnessing wonders would tackle someone coming out of Da Vinci Code with an offer of salvation. Why not ask the what they thought of the film? Ask them if they thought it had some foundation of truth? Why? Why not? Why would there be so many competing accounts about Jesus? What is it about this story that so stirs people?
Our culture is constructed is such a way that almost no one is walking down the street reflecting on their relationship with God, even if they just watched Da Vinci Code or Oprah.
Jenn, thanks for the encouragement. What I mean by "Jesus was acting as the Son of Man before the cross and the Son of God ever since" is this. Because the Gospels refer to Jesus as both, I have felt it important to understand why each of the phrases are used (which doesn't mean that I have grasped it yet, but am working on it).
In the case of forgiveness of sins, preists would "forgive" a sin after proper atonement was made. John the Baptist was "forgiving" sins while baptising in the Jordan. All through the Old Testament we see prophets stating that if the sinner repents/atones then his/her/their sins will be forgiven. These are ordinary human men called by God to present His message.
Then there is Jesus. He was an ordinary man living in flesh and blood on the earth. I believe he had the ability, as appointed by God, to "forgive" as other prophets before Him. Thus the "Son of Man" analogy. Yet, as he was crucified on the cross and God the Father left Him, He bore ALL the sins of the world and thus became the human sacrifice required. That act moved Him from Human to God and thus the "Son of God" analogy.
One thing I need to make perfectly clear though is this...Jesus was both the Son of Man and the Son of God at the same time. In my limited mind I liken this to the "you are your mother's son" or "you act just like your father" phrases that are commonly used by parents. Depending on the need, He was humanity perfected or God incarnate and thus the Son of God or the Son of Man.
This is just my understanding of the difference of "Son of God" or "Son of Man". Does anyone have a different interpretation? I would love to hear it.
Donna,
You crack me up! I'm so glad you're here.
I hope that you are just reading to much into my overly simplistic answer. I have no idea what any of those "isms" are nor have I ever heard of these councils. I was just trying to put into words what I thought a non-believer would understand to answer the question posed.
The definition of a heretic is: A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. (The American Heritage Dictionary)
I guess I am trying to say that I was just trying to be simplistic in my answer and break it down. I'm not hinting at anything. My words mean exactly what they say with no hidden agenda. Honestly, I'm not smart enough to have thought about hinting at anything.
The beauty of a blogsite is that anyone can show up and throw their ideas and beliefs into the mix like little balls of flubber. Things can be agreed upon or challenged. Either way we get to dialogue.
Carrie started her first comment with "at the risk of sounding stupid, I have decided to imput my answers..." She has been questioned and challenged, but hopefully not scared away.
We need more honest, risk-takers like you, Carrie. Too many people read these questions and just shy away from answering. You posed some intriguing answers to a very hard question. Stick around!
Bernadette, I didn't mean that...John, what did you say "Oh, the expressionless meaning of text"?
Don't *Shut* *up*. I am glad that you mentioned all them "isms" and those councils - I can research them as well. I want my faith to be challenged - "iron sharpens iron". I just didn't want anyone to think I was intentionally trying to lead people astray.
Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead horse by going back to this..was that an inappropriate analogy? yikes. Anyway, I was thinking about the Son of Man name, and it ocurred to me that perhaps Jesus isn't making a statement so much of his humanity as He is identifying Himself with the Son of Man that Daniel spoke about in his prophecies. Like Jesus was saying to people, "Remember that 'Son of Man' Daniel dreamed about--well, I'm that guy." Which I think is as much to say that He was claiming to be the Messiah, but I don't remember Daniel's dream well. SO that is just a thought. We do know though that at all times Jesus walked the earth, He was God and man. God, a spirit, occupying human flesh. He did clearly claim to be God, because He said to some Pharisees who were questioning His authority, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM." Which is basically telling them, "Before you (and the law) were even a twinkle in your great-great-grandaddy's eye, I was there. I am eternal. I am God." (And they tried to stone Him). I think you're right Carrie that Jesus was God's agent on earth, but He had to be more than that or he would only have been a prophet.
Oh my gosh, who ARE you, bernadette?!?! "All was not lost, I learned how to can fresh fruits..." I am dying over here.
Hey Bernadette, maybe you should leave a link to your MySpace with your story in it. Do you have another site?
Hey John,
I'd like to ring in when I can.
First, let me give mad-props to Bernadette (whoever you are) for pulling out the Church history. Good stuff, and I think it's entirely relevant, in light of a misstatement "Frank" made, i.e., that God and Jesus are "the same person."
Well, they're just not (*ding ding* this IS a heresey!) and so that whole objection is thereby nullified.
As Chalcedon established, Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) are the same in substance, but distinct in personhood. This is critical to understand IF you're going to answer some of the tougher skeptical challenges out there.
I know this is where people's eyeballs start to glaze over, but there's a reason we had all these councils: they were responding to the heresies and skepticisms of their day, and it would definitely help today's Church if we tapped back into our historical theology once in awhile so we don't have to reinvent our theological wheels.
Good site, John. I hope it bears much fruit.
BTW: since The DaVinci Code was mentioned, you may want to check out my blog article on it. I blame pop-Christianity for it, to be Frank. ;-)
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."
--John Henry Cardinal Newman
;-)
What in the WORLD does that mean?
Eric, I have a question that I think could get me into trouble, but I want to ask. Please don't mistake me for trying to stir up trouble, because I am not. So what I want to know is, how do we know that these councils were correct? If answering this question about the Trinity is the most essential point, then somehow we need to be certain that those councils were correct. And I just don't know how I can know that. Any thoughts?
Good question, Jenn!
Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He also promised that the Holy Spirit would gradually lead His Church into all truth.
Just for starters, think about it like this. You are stranded on a desert island, and you stumble upon a Bible, and you've never before been acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, nor have you even met a Christian. Do you believe, just by reading the Scriptures alone, that you'd come to faith in such doctrines as the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation, the Dual Nature of Jesus (Jesus is fully God and fully human), etc? And who assembled these Holy Scriptures in the first place? How do you know the books in your Bible are the right ones? The Church existed for centuries without "the Bible," as we know it. The Bible came forth from the Councils of the Church.
Post a Comment