Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » He died for our sins.........explain, please!!
bg43214

He died for our sins.........explain, please!!

I have NEVER understood what it means when we're taught that Jesus 'died for our sins'..........it kinda doesn't make sense to me!!!

if he died for our sins, and we keep on sinning, then........?

can someone more 'educated' in this area tell me? 

thanks....

Posted - April 3, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • There's not much use climbing aboard the merry-go-round, Tom. We are indeed looking  from different perspectives and there's zero chance that we'll change each other's minds.
      April 5, 2017 3:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Nor would I want to.

    Pepper and salt are totally different and yet thankfully, either is sufficient to save us from bland food.
      April 5, 2017 3:49 PM MDT
    1

  • 1326
    I think you just started ww1111 hahaha!!! Kidding:)
      April 7, 2017 12:09 AM MDT
    1

  • That would certainly have happened back on Ask. Not so much here. Most of our muggers can discuss without becoming aggro.
      April 7, 2017 1:16 AM MDT
    1

  • 1393

    He died for our sins.........explain, please!!

    I have NEVER understood what it means when we're taught that Jesus 'died for our sins'..........it kinda doesn't make sense to me!!!

     if he died for our sins, and we keep on sinning, then........?

     can someone more 'educated' in this area tell me?

    =================================================================================

     First, I’m not more educated, but I’m a student in this area.

    2- “died for our sins” is a strange phrase. When someone says “I’m dying for a cup of tea” or “I’m prepared to die for her” it means the speaker so desperately wants a cup of tea, or the female he has in mind, that he’s prepared to sacrifice his life for it/her. So to say “Jesus died for our sins” is to say that he so desperately wanted our sins that he sacrificed his life for them. The natural reaction of those who believe that would, or should, be to amass as much sin as possible to make his sacrifice worth it.

    2- Thus, to answer your question, “if he died for our sins, and we keep on sinning, then........?” then we keep on making his sacrifice more worth it. Makes sense. Yes?

      April 4, 2017 5:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Are you serious with this explanation or are you just yanking all our chains?
      April 4, 2017 8:24 PM MDT
    2

  • 1393
    The detailed explanation is there. And I guess it makes sense, otherwise you'd have answered my question in the negative. What do you think?
      April 5, 2017 5:51 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    What serious "student" in the field of scriptural exegesis would apply an example of a modern colloquialism to interpret 1 James:2,2?
      April 5, 2017 2:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    Not sure why you put student in quotes, but it is because I am a student I can tell you the following facts:

    1- Bible verses are not referenced to as, to use your reference, 1 James:2,2 but as 1 James 2:2

    2- the verse you refer to, 1 James 2:2, does not exist as there is only one letter of James included n the Bible

    3- verse 2:2 from that book reads, "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in." That's according to the NI Version

    4- I don't think you meant that verse because i can't see any obvious connection between it and the subject under dscussion

    5- John had three of his letters canonised for inclusion in the Bible

    6- Perhaps you meant 1 John 2:2

    7- Jesus spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language, like Arabic and Hebrew.

    8- according to the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, 1 John 2:2 reads "For He is The Atonement who is for the sake of our sins, and not in our place only, but also in the place of the entire universe."

    9- So there you have it. According to John the whole universe can sin and that sacrifice will suffice in its place.

    10- However, that's John, and he's not quoting God or Jesus.

    11- I am not aware of ANY of the writers of the Bible quoting Jesus or God saying those words or others words having the same meaning. 

    12- To the best of my knowledge no writer of the Bible has quoted God as saying that He sent Jesus on a mission to die for the sins of the world.

    13- To the best of my knowledge no writer of the Bible has quoted Jesus as saying that God sent him on a mission to die for the sins of the world.

      April 5, 2017 6:38 PM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    Matthew 26:27-28 27Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of theb covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

    Jesus Christ talking about His blood being shed for our sins. 
      April 5, 2017 9:05 PM MDT
    2

  • 1393

    TY M2C Please note

    1- My point was that according to my studies of the Bible, "no writer of the Bible has quoted Jesus as saying that God sent him on a mission to die for the sins of the world." I don't think Matthew 26:27-28 is a declaration of mission.

    2- A declaration of a mission to die for the sins of the world would be a public announcement by Jesus before his mission or at the beginning of it stating that God had sent him for that purpose. In Matthew 26:27-28 Jesus is speaking in private with his disciples towards the end of his mission. It is obviously not a declaration of a mission set by God for him to die for the sins of the world.

    3- In any case, according to the Bible itself the shedding of blood was not necessary for atonement, and Jesus would have been aware of that. Numbers 31:50 is a testimony that Jewellery was accepted for atonement, "So we have brought as an offering to the LORD what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD." Leviticus 5:11 goes further. It says that even flour is accepted “If you cannot afford to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, you may bring two quarts of choice flour for your sin offering. Since it is an offering for sin, you must not moisten it with olive oil or put any frankincense on it”

    4- If the shedding of blood is necessary this could have been easily achieved at the hands of the Romans or the traitor, Judas. People carried swords in those days. Instead, crucifixion was chosen as the method of death. In crucifixion there is no bleeding or death through bleeding.

      April 6, 2017 4:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Yes, don't know where that came from---and when I just now tried to retrieve the quote, I typed in 4 John 2:2.  (I'm on a short term therapy regimen for an ankle twist and an infection and I am obviously not as sharp in my transcription as I usually am.  Yes, I did mean 1 John 2:2.

    In your answer to the original question, you said "2- Thus, to answer your question, “if he died for our sins, and we keep on sinning, then........?” then we keep on making his sacrifice more worth it. Makes sense. Yes?"  That's the balance sheet method for understanding the Redemption and I personally consider it to be quite misleading---sort of an excellent example of "Straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.".

    No, it doesn't.

    Our primary difference (maybe) starts with this assumption---you believe that God revealed everything to mankind by means of the Bible.

    Perhaps, he did, but Christ explained much more to (at least) the 11 apostles (post Judas) for the purpose of fully developing His message, since Gentiles such as myself weren't familiar with the milieu of the times.  So I give equal credence to the accuracy of what John thought on this matter.

    And given the lesson of the tower of Babel, I suspect that God did in fact establish a Church to safeguard the relationship He intended for those who believed in Him---and left the Holy Spirit to guide it.

    But it may turn out from a retrospective evaluation in the future that the amount of "sin committed" will have made no meaningful (to us) difference.

    But I know as an individual that my prospective vision---as I work out my conversion in time---has best be to avoid "sinning" wherever and whenever I can.

    I am inclined to think that we may be much closer to being on the same page than I had originally thought.

    Regards. This post was edited by tom jackson at April 6, 2017 2:15 PM MDT
      April 6, 2017 2:15 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    "I give equal credence to the accuracy of what John thought on this matter." and that's fine considering the position of John. However, common sense tells us that a lower authority cannot override a higher one. In fact Jesus himself lays out this principle in Matthew 10:24 when he said, “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.” This means we need to put god’s commands and statements above those of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus above those of his disciples. If we don't we're saying Jesus was wrong there.

    "I am inclined to think that we may be much closer to being on the same page than I had originally thought." Indeed, the mother of all western Christendom, the Catholic Church, declares Islam a valid path to salvation. CCC 841 (Catechism 841 of the Catholic Church) asserts that "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

     
      April 7, 2017 1:04 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Unless of course Jesus is also God.  

    (I suspect that may involve us adding a page to our current excel workbook.) So he has both a human nature and a divine nature. He parses things for our benefit. But "let him who has ears hear" (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course). 

    I am quite familiar with the Catholic Catechism and the insights from Vatican II that were finally codified.

    Being on the same page is a good thing---but the right answer is still only one of the multiple choices in questions.


      April 7, 2017 1:20 PM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    1- Even the writers of the Bible do not attribute "he has both a human nature and a divine nature" to either God or Jesus.

    2- Reason tells us that one thing cannot be both freezing and boiling, or both in and out of a defined space, at the same time. It is an oxymoron, or nonsensical to say that the two natures, of being mortal and immortal, are present in one person at the same time.

    3- If "the right answer is still only one of the multiple choices in questions" then we need to have a commonly agreed master answer sheet against which the answers are judged right or wrong. In the absence of such a master answer sheet we need to use our sum total of verified human knowledge and reason as judge.
      April 7, 2017 3:11 PM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    God declared that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22), but through the shedding of blood, redemption is provided. The Law of Moses provided a way for the people to be considered “sinless” or “right” in God’s eyes—the offering of animals sacrificed for every sin they committed. These sacrifices were only temporary, though, and were really a foreshadowing of the perfect, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Hebrews 10:10).

    This does not mean we are free to do as we please and be a heathen.

    Hebrews 10:26-27 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
      April 4, 2017 7:06 PM MDT
    1

  • But on what grounds should one accept this a true?
      April 4, 2017 8:28 PM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    You either believe the Bible or you don't. This is what the Bible says. 
      April 5, 2017 4:20 AM MDT
    1

  • This is true.  It is also no indication the Bible is true.
      April 5, 2017 8:10 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    There are many prophecies in the Bible that were written centuries before they came to pass. This is enough for me to believe.  Jesus says in the Bible prophecy is given so that when they come to pass many will believe and that those who already believe will have even stronger faith.
    There have been many things people used to point to and see the Bible is wrong there is not evidence of this person or this city but later there was archeological evidence found backing the Bible historically.
      April 5, 2017 11:07 AM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    If I'm not wrong Hebrews 9:22 comes from Paul's letter. I don't think it is Paul's claim that "God declared that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness”" neither was it necessary "in God’s eyes—the offering of animals sacrificed for every sin they committed." How do we know that? Because according to the Bible itself the shedding of blood was not necessary for atonement. Numbers 31:50 is a testimony that Jewellery was accepted for atonement, "So we have brought as an offering to the LORD what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD." Leviticus 5:11 goes further. It says that even flour is accepted “If you cannot afford to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, you may bring two quarts of choice flour for your sin offering. Since it is an offering for sin, you must not moisten it with olive oil or put any frankincense on it” 
      April 7, 2017 1:34 PM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    Lev 11:17 (God the Father) For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. This post was edited by my2cents at May 1, 2017 8:20 AM MDT
      May 1, 2017 7:31 AM MDT
    0

  • 1393
    Atonement WAS accomplished WITHOUT blood sacrifice. The Bible itself says so. My two quotes ARE from the Bible. Check them up for yourself. 
      May 1, 2017 2:56 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Let me give you the broader concept which may (or may not) help you to achieve some insight.

    If Adam represented the whole human race, then when he sinned, the whole human race became separated through disobedience from the God who created us.

    Redemption (the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt) was necessary to regain our relationship to God.

    Because it was God who was offended, the sacrifice to redeem the human race had to be appropriate and fitting---which in this case meant "perfect."

    So the Word, the second person of the Trinity became man in the person of Jesus Christ, and as the "New Adam," offered himself as the perfect sacrifice to restore the relationship of man to God in an even more meaningful fashion.  (Christ did not bring a new morality, He brought a new reality.)

    (When I was in elementary school, the teachers told us that every time we disobeyed our parents, we were making Christ suffer on the cross however many more minutes---Try and wrap your mind around that at 10 years of age.)

    So avoid the accounting approach when trying to understand what happened.  The most "horrendous sin" was washed away by this most "perfect sacrifice that resulted in our redemption.  (Forget trying to match debits and credits when thinking about sin.) 

    To deal with the concept of our "continuing to sin," you have to remember the concept of Christ having ushered in a new reality. Get comfortable with the fact that we are no longer under the "effects" of sin and now live in grace. And then start trying to understand this new reality by reading the New Testament.---but don’t try to do it all in a week.---lol  



    Berean Study Bible

    Dead to Sin, Alive to God
    (2 Corinthians 4:7-18)

    1What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? 3Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4We therefore were buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

    5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be raised to life as He was. 6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

    8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. 10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    12Therefore do not let sin control your mortal body so that you obey its desires. 13Do not present the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and present the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

    The Wages of Sin
    (1 Peter 3:14-22)

    15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you once were slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were committed. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

    http://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/6.htm

      April 4, 2017 7:41 PM MDT
    3

  • 1393
    1- The idea that "when he [Adam] sinned, the whole human race became separated through disobedience from the God who created us" doesn't seem right to reason or sense of justice. How can your disobedience be regarded as the disobedience of your children who may not even be born yet? In fact that idea goes contrary to scripture and against the declaration of God Himself in Ezekiel 18:20 where He promises that no one will die for the sins of another but “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” That is very clearly put, makes perfect sense, and is very fair and just don't you think?

    2- I am a student of the Bible and have yet to see any of the many writers of the Bible attribute to God, or Jesus, the doctrine that "the Word, the second person of the Trinity became man in the person of Jesus Christ, and as the "New Adam," offered himself as the perfect sacrifice to restore the relationship of man to God"

    3- As a side point, if "the second person of the Trinity became man" then by definition of "became" he was not the second person of the Trinity anymore. Surely, if the world's richest person became a pauper he wouldn't be the world's richest person anymore, right?




      April 7, 2017 2:38 PM MDT
    0