John 3:16

D

Dark Virtue

New Member
John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with this verse, you can't go to a sporting event without seeing someone holding up a banner with John 3:16 on it.

The meaning of this verse is obvious, God sacrificed His son for Humanity.

Non-Christians have a problem with this verse. Was it really a sacrifice? The meaning of a sacrifice is something given up or lost. How much of a sacrifice was it if Christ was resurrected three days later? Nothing was given up, lost or sacrificed.

Comments? Suggestions?
 
because, you are only involving yourself in one definition of the term sacrifice.

a sacrifice is anything that is given to God, and could be burnt-offerings, first-fruit offerings, peace-offerings and trespass offerings.

So a quick definition is a sacrifice, is an offering to God.

So, let's look at the definition of offering.  Offering has definitions such as to put up, to make available, to provide, to present as an act of worship.  

So, looking at your verse there:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosever believes on Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.

and of course for good measure, here's v. 17
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."


So, yes, God sacrificed His son.  He offered Christ up as payment for our sins.  He paid a price, through His life's blood (which resurrection or no, He did shed a lot of blood), which we owed. He offers to cover our debt, on Christ's tab.
 
Thanks Kidan.

Before we get into more, why was Christ's death necessary? Who required that of Christ?

God?

If so, if God is omnipotent, then why could He not have required another form of payment? Christ's blood wan't magical. The spilling of it didn't do anything physical. It was all representative. Therefore, something far less painful could have easily been substituted.

Let's look at the definition again, shall we? You said, "a sacrifice is anything that is given to God, and could be burnt-offerings, first-fruit offerings, peace-offerings and trespass offerings." Looking at the dictionary we find, "an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar". Now, what is the point of sacrificing something precious, something dear to you? Secondly, why sacrifice something precious if you know you will get it back three days later? Doesn't that negate the whole point behind a sacrifice? Look up the term Indian Giver. It is defined as, "a person who gives something to another and then takes it back". Isn't that what happened?

Offering, according to you means, "to put up, to make available, to provide, to present as an act of worship." I would like to add that it also is presented in order to satisfy a requirement.

This payment, this offering, was taken back. Again, I must insist that nothing of consequence was lost. Yes, blood was lost. But before Christ had blood and life he was an incorporeal being of ultimate power. And after his death he returned to the same state. HE LOST NOTHING.

How many times have you paid for something, received the goods you purchased and then receieved your payment back?
 
Actually no, it was the blood that was the most important.


Blood is very important in Christian and Jewish theology. Blood is life. A Blood offering is what is required to cleanse sin. All Covenants are sealed in blood (the Noahiac, Mosaic, New, and ideally the marriage).


The resurrection was proof that no more blood sacrifices were required, it was the blood sacrifice that clears our sin.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 07 2004,12:21)]Actually no, it was the blood that was the most important.


Blood is very important in Christian and Jewish theology. Blood is life. A Blood offering is what is required to cleanse sin. All Covenants are sealed in blood (the Noahiac, Mosaic, New, and ideally the marriage).


The resurrection was proof that no more blood sacrifices were required, it was the blood sacrifice that clears our sin.
Click to expand...
That doesn't disprove what I said.

It's symbollic.

The blood itself doesn't mean anything, it doesn't physically DO anything.

It's simply symbolism.

If God hadn't required a blood sacrifice to begin with, then Christ's bloody demise wouldn't have been necessary, would it?

God knew, before Man was created, that Christ would have to die.

BUT, all that is another point entirely. Let's try and stay focused on the "sacrifice".
 
Who says it's symbolic?

A blood offering is required to cleanse sin. Christ's blood offering was not symbolic at all.

The only symbolism involved, is that the blood is being spilt for my sins rather than my own blood being spilt for my sins.
 
Well then there WAS symbollism wasn't there?

You can't have it both ways.

Either it was symbollic or it wasn't.

The fact that Christ's blood wasn't actually USED for anything means it was symbollic.

You said a blood sacrifice was required to cleanse sin. What is the blood used for, anything? Do you bathe in it for cleansing purposes? Of course not, it's SYMBOLLIC.
 
Christ's death did have a physical effect. The curtain (sp?) that seperated the "normal" people from the "holy place" in the church where only the priests were allowed was torn down instantly. This is significant because it symbolized the barrier between us and God being torn down by Jesus. We can now have personal relationships with God.

Why does it matter if His blood was used for anything? Why does it matter if it is a symbole or not? The bread we eat and the wine (or grape juice depending on denomination) SYMBOLIZES Jesus' flesh and blood. I say this to prove that symbols are not bad.

Jesus was THE sacrifice. Before Jesus' coming the Jews and such had to sacrifice their finest livestock (or whatever) for repentence, yes? Jesus was sent down to Earth by God and was killed to symbolize the FINAL sacrifice. God "gave up" Jesus for us.

Humans SACRIFICE things such as time with friends and such. Sometimes this sacrifice is rewarded later with more time. Does that mean their sacrifice was not a sacrifice?
 
Well let's look at your use of the word sacrifice.

In the olden days of the OT, you sacrificed your firstfruits, whether they were animal or vegetable. Did those people get the sacrifices back? Of course they didn't. If you sacrifice your time, money, effort to help friends, do you get your time, money and effort back? No, you don't. If you DID, then it wouldn't be a SACRIFICE. Whatever you sacrifice, you LOSE, never to regain.

THAT is why I disagree that Christ's death wasn't a sacrifice. God got His Son back in exactly the same condition He was in before He died. Right? So what, exactly was lost?
 
I will find the refrence later, but the Bible does say that it pleased God for his son
to suffer and die. I don't think that God is sadistic, it is because he loved the world.
 
his son was taken from him for a number of days and embodied everything he hated. now we say that God got his son back, true. at the same time how do we know that God did not bless his people and return to them their offerings, in Malachi 3:8-12 tells us to bring the tithe to God, and he will rain blessing down upon us. just wanted in interject some food for thought.
 
Well that's the point of sacrificing, right? Giving something up to get something back. But you don't get your sacrifice back, otherwise, it's not a SACRIFICE. But what happened in Christ's case was that he was lost for a gain and then returned. So nothing was given up for this gain.

That's like going to the store, buying a twinkie for $10 and having the clerk give you the twinkie AND the $10.
 
or you buy the twinkie for 10, then you go out and in your worship to the twinkie you sell it to someone else and get 20... bad analogy on your part DV.
 
How was that a bad analogy?

You're making too much out of it, maybe I should have used Ding Dongs instead.
smile.gif


Let me reiterate then.

Christ dies to remove the sins of man, but then come back to life three days later. Christ's "sacrifice" was nullified by His ressurection. It can't even be termed a "payment" since He got back what He gave up.
 
Jesus was God... God suffered for us. thats the sacrifice, not the death... the Fact that God stooped down and Died for US and let us beat him, THATS the sacrifice!
 
EH?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Jesus was God... God suffered for us. thats the sacrifice, not the death... the Fact that God stooped down and Died for US and let us beat him, THATS the sacrifice!
Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say that Christ "was beaten" for our sins? The Bible clearly says Christ "DIED" for our sins.
 
God Died and let us beat him.... If thats not a sacrifice to you then whatever.... God came here as Jesus and Did all he did for our sins. WHy else do you think he came here? The bible is all about that?! I dont have to point it out to you. God came here and Suffered for our sins... Of course he came back to life, He's God!! But comming here and suffering for us was a sacrifice you or I could never match.
 
Suffering is something you and I do every day.

Stop trying to blur the issue, Christ DIED for our sins. THAT was the sacrifice. And as I have shown, it's not much of a sacrifice if you take it back three days later.
 
He didnt take it back..... oh my GOOOODNESSSS!!!!

GOD, the all powerful and perfect being. Came to our sick little planet because he missed us! Thats a sacrifice already, he didnt have to ever smell our sick air... THEN He talked to us!!! GOD came here and talked to us!!! He healed us!!! We didnt deserve that! Not only did he come here and show he was God and that God misses us, but he let us beat and kill him... that is more of a sacrifice then you can ever make, and hey if you can die and come back go ahead and do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top