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

==No==
Not at all. In fact the two go together... God's wrath being poured out on Jesus Christ, who was bearing our sin willingly. Then, conquering death, which was the last enemy to conquer, He rose bodily from the dead. If He was not risen, that means basically everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, was a liar. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If he rose was resurrected from death what was the sacrifice.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: if one takes the view that Jesus incarnated as a man felt the physical pain as a man would , then his sacrifice was valid. It could be considered that since he knew he was God, and could not truly be killed, that the whole incarnation, death, resurection thing was all a private joke between God or possibly even that God is a sado-masochist and enjoyed both giving and receiving pain. Ultimately its a matter of faith. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 14:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)  

The Bible reveals that God has four cardinal qualities that are kept in perfect balance:  love, strength, wisdom and justice.  All four are exemplified in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

:'''Love''' Romans 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world through one man:  Adam.  The first prophecy in the Bible (Genesis 3:15) and John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He sent his only begotten Son to die in our behalf; to suffer a heel-wound according to Genesis 3:15.  God took the initiative to establish a means of salvation for mankind.  It was Christ reflecting that love that moved him to offer his life on our behalf.

:'''Strength''' The Bible describes death as an enemy, an enemy that has stalked mankind since the fall of Adam and Eve.  1 Corinthians 15:54, 55 shows that the resurrection provides a means of neutering death, rendering it impotent.  God is thus shown to be greater than death.

:'''Wisdom''' The apostle Paul refers to God's plans for the ransom (that Christ's death would buy the release of Adam's descendants from sin/death) as a sacred secret.  This is due to the nature of the government under Christ that would be possible, where humans would be able to join him in joint heavenly rulership.

:'''Justice''' God is perfect in all his qualities.  From the Mosaic Law we see that he is a God of balance, which means that which is paid in exchange for something to be ransomed must be of equivalent worth.  Adam was a perfect human, as was Jesus.  Adam died as a willful sinner, Jesus was without sin.  It would have been unjust for God to allow Jesus to remain dead.  Christ was thus resurrected in a new spiritual body (not the same flesh and blood body with which he walked the earth for over 33 years).  It was with this spiritual body that he was able to access heaven and present the value of his perfect life and ransom mankind from Adamic death.  (Hebrews 7:26-28)  Since Jesus did not have children, God's justice allows him to apply that perfect life potential towards those of mankind willing to avail themselves of the opprotunity. (Romans 5:18, 19)

:What the resurrection does is negate the concept of Jesus Christ as God the Son.  If Jesus is God, the payment of the ransom would be out balance.  It would be like Bill Gates liquidating all of his considerable wealth to buy a single blade of grass.  While nice, it would pervert (not satisfy) justice.  For the same reason that God could not simply overlook Adam's sin, he could not accept overpayment.  Consider too, if Jesus is God ... co-equal, co-eternal.  Who completed the resurrection?  Obviously it was a ''separate'' entity:  God.

:Recognizing Christ as a separate individual from God is not a dishonor to him.  He acknowledged that the Father was greater than he was and that all he wanted to do was his Father's will.  (John 4:34; 14:28)  The apostle Paul described Christ as the ''first-born'' of all creation (Colossians 1:15, 16) through whom all things were created.  (Proverbs 8:22-31)  Paul also wrote that Christ, although existing God's form (i.e., a spirit form vs. flesh) was not inclined to think himself God's equal.  (Philippians 2:6)

:Recognizing Christ's role in the salvation of mankind brings us closer to appreciating that God is a God of love, wisdom, justice and strength.  Qualities that we need to cultivate and demonstrate in balance.

[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 18:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Uh, Adam rejected the apple when it was offered by the snake, but then eve was corrupted and adam, believing eve still to be god's perfect creation along with him, ate the apple.

==Yes==

Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection.  What made this one so earth shattering.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

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

==Huh?==

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

It just makes no sense. - suricou

The law is a reflection of God's character. He is perfect and holy, so anything that is in violation of His character, or anything that is unholy, is "sin". God didn't just arbitrarily come up with laws for people to follow. Lying is wrong because God is incapable of lying. Same goes for stealing, adultery, etc. They are violations of his holy character. God is also just and righteous. So if a sin is committed, the person who committed it must be punished. God wouldn’t be good if He let evil go on without consequence. A good judge condemns and punishes those who commit murder, rape, etc. It’s the bad judge who says, “There’s nothing wrong with this.” It shows how righteous God is. Hell shows just how serious God takes sin. So we must be punished for doing wrong. It’s because He is good that He must punish evil. 

:But incapability of lying mean's he's not omnipotent, therefore not perfect. Because lying is something, and omnipotence is the ability to lie. i think you mean God doesn't lie. Also, the bible says rape is moral

However, God has tremendous love for people. It was obvious that people couldn’t meet that perfect standard, because of they're free will. So God Himself took that punishment for us. The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23). That’s why He died on the cross. God had to take the punishment, death, in order to save us. The crucifixion of Jesus (God in flesh) was both the greatest act of judgment the world has ever seen and the greatest act of mercy the world has ever seen at the same time.

I know it can be complicated, but hopefully that cleared things up a little bit. - Ultimahero March 7, 2008.

==Comments==
====This has the sound of a "trick" question====

Like: Lets see who answers "yes" and jump 'em!

This might sound like Roman Catholic bashing but I do believe this is the actual teaching of the RCC:
Christ is sacrificed anew at each Mass. The Liturgy is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass." There are those who disagree with this POV citing Hebrews, (mainly), to repudiate this specific teaching. I'll get you chapter and verse if we actually need it. --[[User:Rob Pommer|Cracker]]<sub>[[User talk:Rob Pommer|talk]]</sub> 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

:I see. But wouldn't that mean that Christ did not (in fact) die for the whole world but only those who share in the barbarity of His death? In other words, "Is the linear-time man, who doesn't partake in the mystery of the Mass, nullifying the Great Sacrifice of Jesus Christ." [[User:Rob Pommer|Cracker]]<sub>[[User talk:Rob Pommer|talk]]</sub>
I believe that the Roman Catholics do believe that Christ is sacrificed at each Mass anew, and that this is connected with the Teaching of the Transubstantiation, which holds that the Body and Blood of Jesus are literally present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. OTOH, before we blanche at this idea, the scholastics then go ahead and say that the Body and Blood are only present in the Substance not the Accidents of the Bread. Which means they is no actual flesh and blood there, but that it is not a figure of speech either. This is the kind of medieval reasoning which frankly has died a well-deserved death in the modern world. Not even conservatives are much given to this kind of metaphysics, just as there is virtually no real interest in questions of whether Original Sin is passed thru the semen of the man or the egg of the woman. Terista's point is well-made, but she is talking figuratively (I think, I hasten to add). Many people would be loath to think, and sad to think, that Jesus re-suffers the whole of the Crucifixion EVERY time a Mass is held, or as noted here, every time a sinner sins. Let's differentiate between poetic metaphor, and ecclesiasticsl literalism. 

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

[[User:mylesP|MylesP]] April 7, 2007 AD

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

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]