My daughter wants to know, "why is Jesus my savior"?

The Christian belief is that Jesus’ sacrifice saved humanity from being doomed to hell for their sins. Therefore they believe he is everyone’s savior so long as they believe in him.
There’s always a catch.

Disclaimer, I am not a right wing religious fanatic and I only answer these questions when asked directly. I do not want to use fluther to prosthelytize, nor do I ant to get in a religious debate.

God wants to be in relationship with us. When humans chose to be their own God’s they broke the relationship. God was heart broken. There was now a chasm between him and us. The result of separation from God is death. He loved us so much that he sent his own son, to take the death that was supposed to be ours. Jesus faced death in our place. He saved us from our fate, and gave us a bridge to be in relationship with God again. I can stay on this side of the bridge and be my own god, or I can choose relationship. It’s up to me. That’s why he’s my savior.

To your daughter:

He is your savior because you decided he is. Plain and simple.

Is she wondering why others say Jesus is her savior or wondering why she believes Jesus is her savior?

Because he loved us so much he decided to sacrifice himself in our place.

Good one if you are talking to a youngin.

@Judi While I have significantly different beliefs than you, I greatly respect your answer and your approach to when and where to discuss your views.
Thank you for your answer to this question.

Because it is easier for us to make anything, other than ourselves, responsible for our choices and consequences in life.

Because he is in charge of all the angels, and if he doesn’t save her the angels won’t have anyone to play with. (Makes as much sense as any other Christian claim.)

I think you need more information before we can address this perfectly, good though these answers are given the guesses we have to make about her concerns. Can you be the translator? This is too serious for us to play with.

Unless your daughter is kidding around.

Susanc makes a good point. I am wondering why she is asking.

He voluntarily died to satisfy the blood-lust of his father, who otherwise would have massacred all of humanity. Pretty brave move, and it saved many people from a horrible death.

Jesus is our savior because he was sent by God to be that for us.
He was the only one God sent, so it can only be Jesus.
His salvation is a gift to us. All we need to do is accept Him as our Lord.
We don’t need to be perfect people. We don’t need to do anything but love Him, and accept Him. If we do that, we will want to follow what He asks us to do.

She’s not fooling around, but I’m not sure what her intent was. I think she was curious. I think @Judi‘s answer was the kind she wanted—it sort of gets to what Jesus saves her from. Although in a way, it is so simple that I totally forgot. But of course he saves believers from death, and that is required is that the person believe that.

The part about Jesus taking the death that was to be ours—how did he do that?

And the death—why is that so horrible? Why did he think people needed to be saved from death?

@liminal I think it is more the former—she wonders why other people say this. I doubt if she wonders why she thinks he is her savior since she’s never mentioned any leaning towards Christianity before.

I just don’t think about this much, and I never knew very much, so I couldn’t answer the question, and you know how it kills me when I can’t answer a question—especially one from one of my kids. Actually, they both did that to me today. His was about why steel breaks so much more easily when it is really really cold. But I think I figured that one out.

I think @tinyfaery‘s answer makes the most sense to me. Sorry I can’t be of help, since he is not my savior, I cannot speak to it. But, I am interested in everyone’s answers so I will keep following.

Hmmm. I like how you are attentive to your children.

My response to your daughter:

Your question reminds me of a question Jesus asked some of his followers when they were trying to describe how others saw him: “But who do you say that I am?”

Describing Jesus as savior is one way a person can answer Jesus’ question. There is something in the person’s experience or understanding of Jesus that leads them to believe he has saved them from something. So people can say to us that Jesus is our savior, but ultimately it is up to each individual to decide if he is a savior and what exactly they are being saved from.

Well—Jesus could be anyone’s savior, when you think about how he interacted with the people who were, at that time, considered to be the “lowest of the low”—healing them, listening to them, feeding them, trying to teach others to be kind to them. In that sense, he saves us all. As far as dying for us—I’m not so sure. I am a Christian, and there are other Christian’s would be offended by me saying this, but I don’t think he really died “for us”—in a way, he just died. I do think he lived for us, to teach us by his actions. Maybe in a way, if he was living for us, accepting his death sentance was for us too, but I don’t really believe that, and can’t therefore say that his physical death was “for us” or even in our place, we are going to die anyway at some point. You can read this if you want: Stephen Mitchell wrote what I think is a great book, The Gospels According to Jesus: A New Translation and Guide to his Essential Teachings for Believers and Unbelievers. He tries to convey just what exactly we can know about Jesus based upon what is written describing his actions—boiled down to specifically describing his activities rather using interpretations made by his contemporaries if that makes sense. (It’s now about what Matthew or Mark etc thinks about Jesus, but what is written about his acual activities without the interpretation of that day so that we can decide for ourselves). It’s fine reading for a 13 year old too, not too heavy, not too long, but it sounds like she is inquisitive and thoughtful and might like it. It isn’t conservative in any way so it might also offend someone who is more orthodox. So anyway, my shorter answer is that he is anyone’s saviour, not just the Christian, not just anyone in particular—he totally embodied tolerance to diversity, acceptance and love and reconciliation of all (thus attempting to save us all, your daughter, you, me).

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son. That whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 4:16
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies _John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son. That whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”

If a modern parent did something similar they would be reviled and jailed for life.

@DarkScribe: irrelevant. We aren’t talking about a human parent. We’re talking about
God. Not only are those two entities really quite different, but we’re talking about God as conceptualized by people in the first century A.D. Why would you draw such a strange comparison at all?
God’s message in doing this (and I’m not the interpreter here, just the librarian, kinda) was to let us know that he would give the best part of himself to help us.
Maybe he could have convinced us he cared about us if he’d given up his, hmm, his peach trees or his… electricity…., but I don’t think it would have been as convincing.

@wundayatta – I still think we should hear more from your daughter. I think her questions are excellent.

Quoting the OP:
“The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

@susanc Why would you draw such a strange comparison at all?

Because if there was such a thing as God – as described in the Bible, he would be a despicable person. Jealous, bad tempered, uncaring, demanding, misogynistic, egotistical, bullying, etc.

Love me in the way that I demand or burn in hell forever. Right, that sounds gentle and caring. Luckily there is no such mythical being.

Quoting the OP:
“The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

Please take your views on the matter elsewhere

@wundayatta I can’t help but wonder why is Jesus your savior?

Quoting the OP:
“The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

It’s his assumption, and his question, for his daughter. Please allow him to have it without a distracting debate ensuing in the process

… “why is Jesus my savior”?
I thought Obama was our Lord and Savior…

@DarkScribe Consider the context of this thread; this is a child we’re trying to answer. Clearly the whole concept upsets you, but it’s not about you, dude.

Here we go with another distracting argument.

@susanc

Let sleeping dogs lie

@susanc consider the context of this thread; this is a child we’re trying to answer.

I did answer from the point of view of a child Dude before following the thread as it meandered about. As for upsetting me, not a chance in hell (that’s the other place) I find it entertaining, often amusing. I can’t understand how so many people can pretend so much – I have yet to meet a genuinely pious Christian. Maybe one day.

@DarkScribe “I have yet to meet a genuinely pious Christian.”

A rare find indeed.

It’s not “instead of.” It’s “in addition to.” According to the doctrine, he died for all, and the way he becomes yours is through your acceptance of him as your savior. So as far as you are concerned, it’s a personal matter and has nothing to do with what someone else does or does not do.

Jesus wanted to be a personal savior, whether you consider him a prophet, deity, or other, none could deny this obvious intent. Christians, those who believe he is their personal savior, see him constantly praying, interceding, begging God for their behalf. Because of this effort, Christians are given additional courage to resist the temptation to not fall to sin. God wants this personal relationship with all of his creations, particularly humans, and it is his tireless goal to reunite. In life Jesus knew full well how hard it was to be perfect, but he had to do it, or his sacrifice would achieve nothing. In ancient Jewish tradition a lamb, pure and innocent would take up your sins, and relieve you as part of a ritual. To Christians see the death of Jesus as this sacrifice, and his ascension from the grave as validation, and acceptance of this gift by God.

Don’t judge Jesus by me. I’m pretty lousy christian, and barely one at all, but I understand the tenants.

While Christianity is responsible for the crusades, this is not the same thing as Christ said go beat up Muslims. There are just a lot of bad people in the world, and some of them are Christians.

I just saw a review of Stephen’ Mitchell’s The Gospel According to Jesus that reminded me that many Christians consider Jesus to be their personal saviour (personal). There’s really a couple of things going on here—1. What is the Christian tradition or standard line here (for example the quotes from the bible) 2.What are the varied beliefs of the people (this is the tougher one, really, and maybe this is what your daughter is trying to work out—what is her own belief). I like that you put the question out here for the great variety of answers. At age 13, that is when you can really put aside the literal and explore concepts to find meaning for yourself. Many people do consider Jesus to be a personal saviour, or that Jesus saved us all (or maybe only the Christians sadly, which is a really Un-Christian way of thinking!) from some type of awfulness—I strongly believe in neither! Did God send him? Any more than he sent anyone else? More more than he sent Buddah? I don’t think so. Is he a saviour? More than we are able to save ourselves or save each other? Maybe not, although I think he can probably teach us how to save ourselves or each other, but it’s important to carefully consider these concepts, like your daughter is doing, and to not leave your own brain and heart out of the picture.

If your daughter really wants to know, then she should read the New Testament. That’s where the real answer to her question will be found.

Might be a good father/daughter quest to pursue together

And a common misconception…

Jesus did not come to make bad people turn good. Jesus came so that dead people could live.

The Spiritually Dead are offered Spiritual Life.

If your daughter really wants to know, then she should read the New Testament. That’s where the real answer to her question will be found.

Yep. Don’t let her read the old Testament – that is a real horror story. Full of rape, mutilation torture, incest, infidelity, murder, infanticide, plague, fratricide etc. It would give any kid nightmares to know that heaven is run by an ogre God who endorses these things – in fact demands many of them.

@DarkScribe

That’s a complete misrepresentation of the Old Testament and demonstrates a lacking understanding about the reasons that Christ came to earth.

I know it’s tempting, and you obviously have an opinion on the subject of Biblical validity. But this question is not the place to promote your opinion. Please, if you have something to say about your views on the Old or New Testament, then kindly ask a new question or rekindle one of the many older threads on the topic.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies darkscribe is annoying but in an amusing goat-like sort of way. ; )

I have a goat – T beard just like him. We’re probably much more similar to one another than we believe. I understand how easy it is to be passionate about a particular subject. That passion can be served better elsewhere.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies That’s a complete misrepresentation of the Old Testament and demonstrates a lacking understanding about the reasons that Christ came to earth.

No, it demonstrates a realistic appraisal of the most dangerous book ever printed. No other book has been directly or indirectly responsible for anything close to the incredible amount of pain and suffering caused by that one volume.

Jesus didn’t come to earth – he was born here. His delusions about his mother and the guy who got her pregnant are no more valid than the religious nut spruiking on many a downtown street corner. Subsequent horror stores like Malleus Malificarum are a spin off from the Bible.

You are welcome to your opinion. Have you anything more to say that would distract from the intentions of this question? We’d do well to let you puke it all out and quickly be on your way. So please, get it all out, make yourself feel better, and kindly move along.

@DrMC darkscribe is annoying but in an amusing goat-like sort of way. ; )

Butt, butt, butt, there is nothing at all goat like about me. (Except maybe when I’m feeling… no we won’t go there.) ;)

@DarkScribe have to keep in mind a 13 year old is reading this : )

@DrMC have to keep in mind a 13 year old is reading this : )

That’s why we didn’t go there.

Thank you @DrMC. A voice of reason. I typically am impressed with how we answer questions for younger people. Ugh.

Let the angst pass. Give the fire no more fuel

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, @DarkScribe is not distracting from the intentions of the question, you are both answering in your own way. And reading the New Testament would be fine, but Parent and Daughter should probably read some other things along with it, the scary thing is to read that and only that (which is exactly what Jesus did when he came along—tried to get us all to THINK and FEEL and be KIND to each other even when we don’t agree!

LOL

Be a good parent…tell her to make up her own mind and not let a bunch of Jellies tell her what is right for her.

I would like to know that also since no one even knows if he was real or not. Just because a book says he was real doesn’t mean he was.

The priest walked into the second grade class prior to First Communion, and asked “Why is Jesus our Savior?” No one raised their hand, and finally a little girl raised her hand. “Is Jesus our savior because he suffered and died on the cross for our sins?”

“Very good,” said the priest. “What else can you tell us?”

“After three days, he rose from the dead.”

“Excellent,” said the priest. “Continue.”

Encouraged, the little girl replied confidently, “After three days, he rose from the dead, saw his shadow, and we had six more weeks of winter!”

@PandoraBoxx Lurved it!

It’s more personal. Why is Jesus my savior instead of someone else? Why is he a savior? Why is he my savior instead of being someone else’s?
Because Jesus is the only one who could do the job. Sin requires sacrifice to atone for it, but you can only get so much mileage out of an animal (so to speak), human sacrifices won’t work because Man is still sinful (which is the problem in the first place). Jesus was without sin and had enough atonement value to cover pretty much all sin for all time.
Jesus is your savior because you asked Him to be. He could be someone else’s, too, if they asked Him to be.

Yes that’s right @Nullo. Jesus loves the little children. He even loves adults who act like children. He even loves those who would persecute and kill him.

See below

@jamcanfi74 I would like to know that also since no one even knows if he was real or not

Any scholar knows that Jesus was real, what is not known or supported by many is that he was divine. He believed God was real and that God got his mother pregnant (without her knowledge or permission). Somehow he felt that his mother’s supposed statutory rape was a good thing. Then when you look at Biblical misogynism I suppose that he didn’t have any concept of modern values with regard to the proper treatment of women.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Jesus loves the little children.

So do many modern clergy. Have you noticed?

@DarkScribe

Again, you are misrepresent the Bible. Mary did know of the coming pregnancy in advance and did give God permission. Please try and read what you think you know about before blatantly lying about what scripture actually says.

“Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. Having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!”
But when she saw him, she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered what kind of salutation this might be. The angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name ‘Jesus.’ He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom.”
Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?”
The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God. Behold, Elizabeth, your relative, also has conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For everything spoken by God is possible.”
Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word.”
The angel departed from her.”

Luke 1:26–38

You’re showing yourself to be a blatant troll to this subject matter with a specific personal agenda for everyone to choke on. Please stop misrepresenting scripture. It only makes you look foolish.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Mary did know of the coming pregnancy in advance and did give God permission.

No, not so. Don’t assume that I do not know the Bible or accurate history of Biblical times. She was supposedly told about what was to happen. She was not asked for permission, and even if she was, she did not have the right to grant it.

You get your facts right. The only person who could give legal permission in those times was her father. If it was any other women impregnated the magistrates would have regarded it as rape – then and now.

Read what F Bruce and RV Tasker had to say about it with regard to local Biblical law. If you don’t know who they are, do some research – they are two of Oxford’s most prominent Biblical experts of the twentieth century.

You’re showing yourself to be a blatant troll to this subject matter

BTW, I assume that once again a troll is anyone who does not agree with you? If you don’t want dissenting opinions, stop posting.

You said: ”(without her knowledge or permission)”

Luke says:
“Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name ‘Jesus.’”

She receives knowledge in advance. You lie.

“Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word.”

She gives her permission. You lie.

And now you spin your original comment to:
“She was supposedly told about what was to happen.”

You Spin That’s not what you said before

And then you purport that Mary was not allowed to answer to an Angelic Being for herself?
“She was not asked for permission, and even if she was, she did not have the right to grant it.”

Apparently God and Mary disagree with you. Do you honestly think that human laws and customs will override the presence of an Angelic Being communicating with her upon God’s behalf? That is absurd.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

She had no knowledge that it would not be a conception from the man that she was betrothed to – don’t forget her status.

You are nearly a century late with your discussion of intent and law. I’ll stick to Bruce and Wiseman, Professors of Biblical Criticism and Assyriology at Oxford for my understanding of the translation in the context of the times. She was betrothed but still living in under her father’s authority. She had no understanding (like that better than knowledge?) and no ability to grant permission. Read the Bible itself to see what rights a women in her circumstances had.

@DarkScribe said: “She had no knowledge that it would not be a conception from the man that she was betrothed to”

This is really getting funny, your inability to read…

“Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?”
The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

Demonstrates specific knowledge that it would NOT be a conception from the man she was betrothed to.

Go to bed you two.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

Yes, right – Biblcal equivalent of a modern copywriter – meaningless. As previously stated, I’ll defer to Bruse and Wiseman – even Tasker a well published professor of The New Testament supports them. It is an anomaly in ethics regarding the law of the time.

Don’t forget, I don’t for one second believe in any divine being. It is all an amusing pastime for me, not the theology, but the hypocrisy and curious determination of modern supposedly intelligent people to ignore some fact and distort others to support a deity that they don’t actually respect – or at least follow in the manner that such deity demands.

This is only one incidence, there are many more where biblical stories (recounted sometime centuries later) are in breach of the very stringent local laws enforced at the time.

Tell me, do you believe that Joseph was her husband?

I guess I don’t understand why you would make such a claim if you don’t know why yourself.

@DarkScribe

How will your “amusing pastime” contribute to the discussion prompt at hand?

How will debating who Joseph was contribute to the discussion prompt at hand?

Quoting the OP… again
“The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

It’s his assumption, and his question, for his daughter. Please allow him to have it without a distracting debate ensuing in the process. You would request no less for your own daughters.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies How will debating who Joseph was contribute to the discussion prompt at hand?

It will illustrate that the story of the virgin birth was at best highly improbable and why the early Church didn’t support it.

“The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

I never got it either…and doubt I ever will… but I’d like to hope that he has saved us ALL in some impossible to understand way…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “The underlying assumption, here, which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus who does some saving.”

Certainly there was a Jesus, and much of his teaching has probably saved many people. I have no problem with Jesus, nor his philosophies other than with his supposed daddy. It is his imaginary daddy who I don’t believe in.

The secondary problem is the indisputable fact that if there was a God as described in the Bible, he would be a total bastard. A really nasty piece of work. Who could respect a being who demanded constant ass kissing on pain of never ending torture? One who would harm the children of people who annoyed him? One who promoted bigotry and racial prejudice? One who allows innocents to suffer?

As for not up for debate, whenever you make a controversial claim it will always be up for debate.

You are incapable of respecting the wishes that a man has for his own daughter. The OP clarified the guidelines for this question. You chose to ignore, disrespect, and go WAY beyond the intentions for this question. You used it as a flagrant opportunity to attack his faith. You are an Opportunist with a specific jilted agenda.

You misrepresented the Bible, and then hid behind the stations of Biblical critics to justify your truancy. You are a troll… of the worst kind.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies _You are incapable of respecting the wishes that a man has for his own daughter. _

I answered him, properly, then responded to you and others and the claims made.

BTW a troll is not someone who discusses their own attitudes or beliefs, it is someone who will say things that they don’t necessarily believe to be true simply for effect. Are you so naive about this medium that you don’t know that? Or are you simply trolling?

Just a quick note. Christianity is not @wundayatta‘s faith. He clarified that he had little experience with Christianity.

@DarkScribe said:
“a troll…is someone who will say things that they don’t necessarily believe to be true simply for effect.”

@DarkScribe said:
“Because he is in charge of all the angels, and if he doesn’t save her the angels won’t have anyone to play with. (Makes as much sense as any other Christian claim.)”

@DarkScribe I have to say that this time I agree that you are not answering the question, and that the OP specifically asked for advice from people who do believe God is their savior. We should respect that.

@JLeslie DarkScribe I have to say that this time I agree that you are not answering the question,

I did answer the question, but this is a thread and like most threads it goes off on tangents. I have responded, and will continue to respond to comments made by people other than the OP. You might find it interesting to know that although I am atheist, my children were schooled in religious schools and I supported all that they were taught until they were old enough to make their own decisions. I did not negatively influence them. When my kids were little there was lots of nonsense about angels and gentle Jesus. The nuns are the ones who taught them that God was supposed to be feared.

@DarkScribe Many threads do go off on tangents, I have been guilty many times of helping them veer off. When we are addressing chidren, although I guess maybe the child will not be reading this, but rather the adult will pull from whatever answers he likes, I think how we answer should be tempered a little. It does not seem that Jesus is a savior, or Christianity in general, is up for discussion on his thread. But, hey, I am not trying to tell you what to do, just giving you my opinion.

I still wonder why Jesus is the OP’s savior, which I asked above. It is confusing to me that he seems sure Jesus died for our sins, but can’t articulate what he believes and why he believes it to his child. But, maybe I am reading too much into that, maybe he was just looking for a clear concise, not too involved way to explain it.

@JLeslie “I still wonder why Jesus is the OP’s savior, which I asked above.”

He’s not. His daughter is interested in Christianity while @wundayatta does not have the experience to explain it to her.

@DarkScribe said:
“my children were schooled in religious schools and I supported all that they were taught until they were old enough to make their own decisions. I did not negatively influence them.”

Courtesy would suggest allowing the same for someone else’s child.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Courtesy would suggest allowing the same for someone else’s child.

I am not addressing someone else’s child, the OP is her parent.

If the child is reading, thirteen is old enough to be forming opinions. I don’t live my life supposing that someone who is not old enough to engage in adult conversation has parents who allow this.

Quoting the OP:
“She’ll tell me who gets GAs.”

@Shuttle128 Oh, somehow I missed that. Thank you. I didn;t get that from teh original question, but now that I reread it I see how that could be inferred. It would seem to me, that the explanation would be about why Christ is a savior. Anyone can be saved if they accept Christ. Christ does not disciminate, and so then we are back to @tinyfaery answer he is your savior because you decide he is.

Well, I have more information about the genesis of the question. She was singing “Oh Holy Night,” and arrived at this line: “It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth,” except in her version in her head, she thought it said “our dear Savior’s birth.” This made her wonder why Jesus was our savior, so she asked me.

As I said in the question, I don’t know the answer to this question, because I don’t know squat about Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter). The reason why I said to assume, for purposes of this question, the Jesus was a savior, was because I didn’t really want to get into a religious debate. That’s not the point. The point is if Jesus was a savior, why was he a savior and who did he save.

As to the answers, she said “they seem pretty cool.” I asked, “even the fight?” She replied, “Well, some people in the fight.” We both laughed hysterically at @PandoraBoxx’ joke. That was interesting because when I read it to myself, I didn’t laugh, but when we read it together, we cracked up. GA there. We also found both @Judi‘s answer and @Nullo‘s answer particularly helpful.

As to me personally, I’m not sure what I need saving from; if there is something to be saved from, such as death, I see no evidence to suggest that anyone has ever been so saved. But that’s neither here nor there. I really just wanted to be able to answer her question, and I really appreciate all the help I got. Jellies have come through once again!

@wundayatta Excellent. Thanks for following up.

@wundayatta

Yes, thanks for the follow up. It was a pleasure to see how this whole thing panned out and the discussions it created.

@wundayatta said: “As to me personally, I’m not sure what I need saving from…”

Not many people are.

Why do you think he is her savior?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

R U speaking 2 me?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies no, to the OP

gottit!

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Have you been reading this thread? What on earth makes you think that I think Jesus is my daughter’s savior?

@wundayatta when you said the existence of a Jesus that does some saving is not up for debate

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Read @wundayatta longish post about 8 answers up. It explains it.

Because he reminded us that we make ourselves very unhappy when we hate other people. This reminder might save us from living a miserable life.

Okay, I misunderstood the question.

The concept of Jesus, from a Pauline Christian perspective, is a replacement for the failure of Adam. Adam was already in with God, we all live in paradise, and then he supposedly screwed up by accepting noms from Satan and got us all damned to an eternity of agony. Jesus is supposedly the physical representation of forgiveness – to say, this human/God gets a do-over for all your souls, basically. Since Jesus dies in communion with God, without taking the temptations of Satan (unlike Adam) we all get to go to the nice place. Yippee!

I think it’s a bit of bull honky, personally

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I really didn’t want to get people side-tracked on another issue. For purposes of the question, assume the myths about Jesus are true.

It is true that if I were asking about the story of Peter Pan, I wouldn’t have to tell folks not to debate the issue of Peter Pan’s existence. But, as you know, the subject of Jesus is pretty controversial.

@wundayatta well put.

@wundayatta Quite controversial. Without reading your follow-up, the question appears to be asked from the perspective of someone that accepts Jesus as savior but doesn’t know why – so I think the responses renouncing that are warranted.

@JeanPaulSartre What I find strangest about this is that people who have known me for ages would think I accepted Jesus as my savior. I thought I made it clear I didn’t know anything, and what Christian wouldn’t know anything about it? I can’t imagine. I’m coming from a position of virtually complete lack of knowledge and I could not answer the question.

I felt no need to discuss the reality or mythic nature of any of the characters in the story. I needed to understand what the story means to Christians. In fact, it is very interesting what I found out.

It does raise the issue of what are the sins that Jesus died to relieve people of. I guess it’s everything they did to hurt others in their lives? Maybe the sins weighed heavy on their minds? I mean, were/are people really worried about sin?

@wundayatta I’ll speak for myself, because I misinterpreted the original question. Sometimes people identify with a religion, but don’t really know the particulars. I am Jewish, and there are a slew of questions I would not be able to answer about my own religion. So, it did not seem very odd that someone might accept something as part of their belief, but not really know why. I also lose track of who is an atheist, who is Christian, who is Jewish, etc. in the collective, except for a few people that I have directly debated with or identified with several times on several different threads.

@wundayatta I, sadly, wouldn’t be remotely surprised to find someone who claimed to be a Christian that knows nothing about it. I, as a non-Christian who grew up as one have more knowledge than many Christians because I questioned it.

The “sins” that humanity was accused of was our acceptance of the fruit from the forbidden tree, I kid you not. So the whole thing is based back on a myth about creation. Assuming you’re talking about Pauline Christians, which is almost the only kind that still exists today.

@wundayatta said, what Christian wouldn’t know anything about it?
One that hasn’t studied. Some are new enough that you wouldn’t really expect them to know much, and others simply never learned. I rote-learned a lot of what I know, but it wasn’t until I met the Internet that I started putting it all together and finding out more on my own.

Jesus died for all sins. Every time you lied, cheated, stole, were rude, etc, and as @JeanPaulSartre said, for the Original Sin.
More accurately, Adam and Eve’s sin was in disobeying God.
Thank you, Jean, for not getting the nature of the tree wrong; that bugs me to no end.

@JeanPaulSartre ; It wasn’t just the fruit. It was when Satan said, “You will be like God,” and that was the sin. When the created wanted to assume the role of the creator. It was arrogance, not just eating the fruit. Even that could be written off as childish misunderstanding, but the danger in doing so was fatal. If your child eats poison because it looks pretty you do what ever it takes to save your child, even if it means you have to sacrifice your own life.

@Judi but I also don’t assume that my child has the capacity to not eat poison, which is why I don’t leave it laying out. Since they had not eaten from the tree yet, Adam and Eve lacked the ability to comprehend what they were doing. This is probably a side debate, better suited for PM or another question though.

@JeanPaulSartre ; yeah, I don’t really want to get into a debate, but I just couldn’t stand there and see things being over simplified. We could talk about free will vs predestination and all that, but its not appropriate to the question, and I really don’t want to go there today anyway.
Peace.

@Sartre

I’m just curious about one small item I noticed in your posts and I hope you could just briefly clarify.

Several times you have specified “Pauline Christians” so I’m curious as to what other type of Christian you had in mind as a contrast. I can think of several ( such as Messianic, Hebraic, or Eastern Orthodox for example) but I was just curious as to what, specifically, you had in mind. Could you clarify that please ?

@Judi Yeah, it would likely not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. If you ever want to explore it or test your beliefs, let me know.

@Buttonstc Absolutely. Before the Pauline Christians, followers of St. Paul’s teachings, there were the Jewish Christians (which still exist in a very small way in Jerusalem, and as I understand it are fundamentally Jewish, and the movement never really grew… but my knowledge on them is pretty limited) and the Gnostic Christians, which were Gnostics that thought this Jesus guy might be on to something. These were the original 3 splits of Christianity. The Gnostics viewed Jesus as an avatar of One (which is like God, but encompasses all matter in the universe) and believed the God of the Old Testament to be a false splinter God. Virtually anyone that claims to be a Christian today is a Pauline, because of the Albigensian Crusade… the Pope at the time decided the Gnostic Christians were dangerous, and put a bounty on them. If you really want to know about that good ol’ Wikipedia to the rescue.

The Original Sin was not eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Original Sin was the Shame that came from finding themselves naked and exposed, and then passing the blame to others. Eve passed the blame to the Serpent, and Adam passed the blame to Eve.

“For surely you will die” is not depicting a physical death. It depicts a spiritual death. And that is the death that Jesus saves you from.

Again, Jesus did not try to make bad people turn good. That’s what Christians typically attempt to do, and quite often with a tool of judgmental self righteousness. Christ’s goal was to bring dead people back to life. The Spiritually Dead can have Spiritual Life.

Christians have ruined and butchered the original message of Christ. It wasn’t even called Christianity until they turned it into a religion. Before Christianity, it was known as The Way… Just like Buddhism. The Disciples were originally known as followers of The Way… Just like a Buddhist.

There are 12 years missing of Jesus life in the Bible. My theory is that he went to Asia to either learn or teach. Probably teach though, because Buddhism arose about 100 years after Christ’s death. And remember, Christ warned the Disciples to stay away from Asia after commanding them to spread the good news. I have good reason to believe that Christ planted philosophical seeds of The Way into both cultures and wanted them to remain separated as not to taint the development of the other.

Christ never claimed to be God, nor the Son of God. Those things were said about him by other people. But Christ never said it or claimed it. The Christians have it all wrong. They claim to be saved that one must accept that Christ was God, among other things.

The Virgin Birth… Irrelevant

The Resurrection… Irrelevant

The Miracles… Irrelevant

The Prophecies… Irrelevant

The God Man… Irrelevant

They may or may not have happened. I don’t know and I could care less. None of those things has anything to do with the message of Christ whatsoever.

Those are the dogmatic tenants of the Christian butchery. They only serve to lead us astray from the true message of Christ. Christ said one thing about who he was. One thing only…

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

Very simple philosophy. Accept the Way of Truth and Live. Spiritually Live.

The Alcoholic, the Drug Addict, the Child Abuser, the Sexual Deviant, the Liar, the Thief, the Gossiper, the Jealous, the Arrogant… All deprived of Spiritual Life. They are Spiritually Dead. They do not accept the Way of Truth. They have decided upon their own Way. And since their own Way is false, they do not possess Spiritual Life. They have become Spiritually Dead. They put their belief in the purely physical. They believe in a false god of Flesh. They are consumed by their own deceptions. They believe their path lies in their Anger. That somehow Anger will save them, that somehow Addiction will release and justify them. They possess knowledge of Good and Evil. They chose Evil and are mislead by Deception into believing their chosen path is The Way when in fact it is not.

Remember, there was another Tree in the Garden of Eden. It was the Tree of Life. Christ simply wants to lead us back to it. Christ invites us to taste of its fruit.

When Christ said to approach the Father in His name, for what we ask will surely be given, he was not speaking of himself as a Man or a God Man. He was speaking of himself as one who lives by Truth. He spoke of himself as the embodiment of Truth Incarnate. He spoke of himself as one who lives by God’s own Way. For God IS Truth… and to approach God, we must approach in The Way of God. For only then will we find Spiritual Life, by tasting the fruit from the Tree of Life.

Sorry, I must retract my earlier statement that Buddhism arose 100 years after Christ. That is incorrect and cut/paste from an older paper. First inklings of Buddhism are found approximately 500 years before Christ

My position has been revised to Daosim/Taoism and its intertwining with Buddhism, becoming popularized in Chinese culture around the same time of Christ, widely ranging with verifiable versions anywhere from 80BC – 240AD.

It is an ongoing mystery that fascinates me to no end, the similarities of Christianity to Eastern philosophies and religeons.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“Matthew 3:16–17 (New American Standard Bible)

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’ ”
Taken from here. Same page has supporting cross-references.
Mayhaps Christ never claimed to be God, but God claimed Him.
Elsewhere, Satan recognizes Him. These are the big leaguers.

I think that you’ve been too quick about finding your conclusions. I advise a study of the core bits of both Christianity and Taoism, lest you commit the grave error of forcing facts to fit ideas.
At present, I have been able to find no similarities between Christianity and Taoism. None. If you can only get them to look the same by pulling out core elements of Christian doctrine (like a personal God, salvation, etc.) then you’re not actually dealing with Christianity.

The Christian perspective is thus: Satan knew about God’s plan of salvation and his own looming fate aaaaall the way back in Genesis. Being a spiteful jerk, he decided to take as many people with him as possible; thus he and his make counterfeits to lead away those that he can. Every single non-Judeo-Christian religion falls under this heading, including Buddhism and Taoism and a lot of philosophy.

Thanks @Nullo

I certainly appreciate your position and especially your scriptural references. Unfortunately I don’t have much respect for modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. I’ve read and studied 5 different versions of the Bible for the past 30 years. I’ve got a different take on it, and admittedly, one not very palatable to the Christian.

You’ll notice that I’ve taken no position to whether Christ was God or not. As I said before, to me, it is completely irrelevant to the teachings of Christ. I have no desire to debate the issue with anyone. I will not reveal my position on this matter on this thread.

My biggest issue is with what a Christ actually is, and how I feel that title has been misinterpreted, or misused to promote agenda.

_______________________________

I have no desire to convince you of my views. I have no desire to steal yours away from you. What I have found is for me. What you have found is for you. May we both continue to find our way towards the Truth.

May I suggest the Tao Te Ching as a side read when you find it appropriate. It will not look familiar to Christianity whatsoever. But I find it is nearly identical to the teachings of Christ himself. I do not suppose that the teachings of Christ are what Christianity is all about. I feel Christianity has done a disservice to the teachings of Christ.

_______________________________

As well, we have a completely different view about what a Satan is, and I suppose what “God’s plan of salvation” is as well. I’m not denying any of that. I just think it is typically misunderstood and much bigger than the modern Christian gives it credit for.

To sum up my position, I believe the modern day Christian will miss the second coming of Christ every bit as much as they accuse the Jews of missing the first coming. They will not recognize him.

@Nullo

Have you ever considered that this physical realm is the realm of Satan?

If God is an immaterial being, dwelling in an immaterial realm, with a desire to keep and protect that realm as pure quintessence of Truth (The Way), then he must have needed a separate realm to cast Satan and his minions into. I truly believe that realm was created as what we call “The Big Bang”. God created a realm of physicality, separate from the immaterial realm. God can enter the physical realm, but Satan cannot enter the immaterial realm of heaven.

I believe that not only does God reside in the immaterial realm, but that God IS the immaterial realm of spirituality. The realm of Truth.

God is Truth.

I believe that not only does Satan reside in the material realm, but that Satan IS the material realm of flesh. The realm of Deception.

Satan is Deception

A basic tenant of Christianity is, “Greater is He that is in me than He that is in the World”.

Man is a hybrid being. Consisting of Flesh and Spirit. We are free to express ourselves to whatever realm we choose. We may move towards Truth of Spirit, or Deception of Flesh. It is our choice. That is a basic tenant of Taoism as well.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies views are irrelevant

That’s why I trust the words of Christ rather than the views of Religion.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies _RealEyesRealizeRealLies’s avatar

That’s why I trust the words of Christ rather than the views of Religion.

The words of Christ – brought to you by religion. (How did you think they got here?)

@DarkScribe

I’m sure you are familiar with the origins of biblical translation. I’m not getting into that with you. We’ll go tit for tat forever and I’m just not down with that, fully aware of the many holes that can be shot all along the way. Shall I defend my research to anyone?

As any ancient story is told, one must compare the most ancient manuscripts against the most stringent linguistically accurate translations available from numerous sources, while not allowing any single one of them to rule the day. Still flawed, comparative study is an accepted and valid mechanism for allowing the truest essence of meaning to survive.

Though an imperfect process, it is no less imperfect than any other method that would choose to discredit my studies, be it from university textbook, biblical critic, or the dogma taught from any particular pulpit.

The teachings of the Christ that I acknowledge are further supported in their adhering to numerous other universal truths taught by many other spiritual teachers from different nations. Sans the dogma of any one religious interpretation, consistent cross cultural universal truths are to be considered with great veracity.

What was the question again? @DarkScribe, you’re having one of those annoying little brother moments :-)

If you don’t know anything about “Christian theology or practice or philosophy” how is it at all possible that your “underlying assumption… which is not up for debate, is that there is a Jesus *who does some saving?” ???????

pssst… hi lilly. He’s explained that above. Because the story was told of how his daughter brought his question to him. He wanted specifically a Christian perspective, giving them the benefit of the doubt to answer for their own beliefs. But not to necessarily start a debate of whether that belief was valid or not.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies one must compare the most ancient manuscripts against the most stringent linguistically accurate translations available

The issue in not and has never been one of disputed translations – too many scholars over too many years have concurred for such an issue to exist. Any argument is over trivia.

The problem is the original authors. They all had an agenda. We see now what religious zealots with an agenda are like. Do you seriously that it was any better then when there was less oversight?

And what do you suppose the agenda of the original authors was? What original authors do you refer to?

I’m not sure why @filmfann said that views are irrelevant up there, but I find @RealEyesRealizeRealLies comments to be useful and illuminating. In fact, the comparison of his views with @Nullo‘s and @JeanPaulSartre‘s are particularly interesting, and right on target for my question.

I mean, I’m sold on the idea that this is about original sin, and an appropriate response to it. (I am not endorsing this idea, just saying that, given certain assumptions, it makes sense.)

Anyway, don’t let me stop you, but I do want to express my gratitude to you all for getting back on track.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The agenda of the authors of the Old Testament is to portray Israel as being favoured by God, much in the same way as the Greeks wrote about their battles saying that Athene or Zeus gave them victory. To have a God that appears powerful was important in the ancient world, because a powerful god would deter other nations from attacking them. That is why Ahab made Baal worship the official religion – Baal was perceived to be a more powerful god at the time.

The agenda of the authors of the New Testament is to portray Jesus as God. Obviously he must have been a remarkable man to gain so many zealous followers, but it is highly unlikely that he was anything as amazing as what the New Testament attempts to show. The Gospel of Philip (I think) paints a picture of the young Jesus performing miracles rather recklessly, in a way not befitting a god. This conflicts with the gospels that were included in the Bible, so obviously some stories were invented about the man. I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that all the supernatural stories are invented or misinterpretations. The Bible feels distinctly like a book that has had interpretations jammed into the story rather than letting the reader draw their own conclusions.

And what do you suppose the agenda of the original authors was? What original authors do you refer to?

Nobody is sure. Even now many Biblical scholars claim that several Bible books are attributed to the wrong disciples. That is based on scientific analysis of writing style as in the Shakespeare/Bacon controversy.

As for agenda, look at you and me, we can’t agree on very much, if we both wrote about the same religious tenets, how would our views be regarded in a couple of thousand years? Of course they had an agenda, we wouldn’t have any record of their claims if they didn’t.

@FireMadeFlesh

As much as I respect your comments, I view your summation of Old and New Testament authorship agenda as a commonly shallow perspective.

First, I believe @DarkScribe was referring to a “secret” agenda behind the New Testament Authors. One that would benefit them at the expense of deceiving others. If I’ve misunderstood, then please forgive me.

Portraying Jesus as God is not a secret agenda at all. Nor did it have any ability to benefit the authors beyond the claim. In fact, it brought them great harm. All of the Apostles were brutally tortured for their faith. And all but one met with a horrible death because of it. What secret agenda would allow them to be butchered so terribly? It is odd to think they would not confess their deception to save their very own lives. One man, perhaps two, could be considered insane. But 12 (and more) would seem to validate their position in spades. Would they all cling to a lie when the knife is at their throat?

I see no agenda here. Perhaps mass psychosis, but nothing deviant.

As I’ve already stated, my personal position is left unrevealed. I’ve previously noted that the Resurrection is Irrelevant to the actual message of Christ. That alone would classify me as heretic in the Christian faith. Basing a world view or faith upon the supposed Resurrection of Jesus is but one of many dogmas that will only divert us from the true message of Christ. It does not matter, and Jesus NEVER said it did. In fact he warned against having faith in such things… see below.

@FireMadeFlesh said: “The Gospel of Philip (I think) paints a picture of the young Jesus performing miracles rather recklessly, in a way not befitting a god. This conflicts with the gospels that were included in the Bible, so obviously some stories were invented about the man.”

Agreed… though I see no evidence of that in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip. Again, as I have said, the miracles of Jesus are irrelevant. He actually warned of this many times. They may or may not have happened. I don’t know and I don’t really care. Using Signs and Miracles as a justification for faith is a very very dangerous thing. And it has the effect of putting the cart before the horse.

Any magician can produce an apparent miracle. Jesus warns:
“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.”
Matthew 24:24

Jesus often warned those he healed and the Disciples NOT TO TELL anyone about his miracles. He didn’t want miracles to interfere with his actual message.

Remember his warning after healing the deaf man…
“Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.”
Mark 7:36

He warns that faith based in miracles is a false faith.
38“One day some teachers of religious law and Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we want you to show us a miraculous sign to prove your authority.” 39 But Jesus replied, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Matthew 12:38–39

This is a warning to not let faith be based upon signs and miracles. The actual message of Christ is exactly the opposite. Signs and Miracles are based upon faith, not the other way around. In this way, having faith allows anyone to perform miraculous wonders, and not just the miracles performed by the Apostles after Christ’s death. Christ suggests that you and I may also have this power over nature for ourselves, if we have faith.

“Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen.”
Matthew 21:21

@FireMadeFlesh said:
“The agenda of the authors of the Old Testament is to portray Israel as being favoured by God, much in the same way as the Greeks wrote about their battles saying that Athene or Zeus gave them victory.”

Boy I was hoping not to get drawn into an Old Testament debate. I didn’t want to debate the New Testament either. But when scripture is misrepresented, I must offer an apologetic to answer for it. What you say may very well be true. I’m not here to argue with you about it. I would however, like to offer one caveat to your analysis.

The Jewish God also caused the Jews themselves to suffer greatly. Baal didn’t, and I don’t think the Greek Gods made an entire nation fall into slavery and occupation by other nations over and over and over again. They were given warnings, which they did not heed, and then made to suffer horrible treachery at the hands of other nations. There is a difference, and I shall leave it at that.

Please please please don’t drag me into a Biblical debate. I have no time or interest in doing so.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies First, I believe DarkScribe was referring to a “secret” agenda behind the New Testament Authors. One that would benefit them at the expense of deceiving others. If I’ve misunderstood, then please forgive me.

I have no idea why you would assume that. There is no posible way that all the authors could have ever been in the same place at the same time – how could they have created a “secret” agenda?

(You referred to “ancient” MSS- that is not New Testament”.) The NT is in a relatively modern language, not ancient Hebrew or Aramaic etc. There are no problems with NT translation – I can translate it – the problems are just interpretation.

@DarkScribe

Then what type of “agenda” were you referring to, if not a ”“secret” agenda behind the New Testament Authors. One that would benefit them at the expense of deceiving others.”?

My words yes, my false assumption yes. Please clarify.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Then what type of “agenda” were you referring to,

Not a “blanket” agenda, just that each author is trying to promote his religious beliefs, and like modern day evangelists, will “Gild the Lilly” whenever it suits them. Also these were word of mouth before being documented. Haven’t you ever played that party game “Whispers”? Not a chance in hell of them being a true historical representation. They can’t do that now, they sure couldn’t do it then.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I jumped head first into an argument that I didn’t have the time to familiarise myself with properly. To be honest I have better things to do than read all of this. I just jumped in and gave my interpretation of the agendas of the Biblical authors, and a possible explanation of how they could have got it so wrong while still being coherent.
I think Hanlon’s razor applies here – the authors were merely mislead and deluded by the superstitions of their cultural heritage. They were not intentionally misleading people, they weren’t looking for personal gain, and they weren’t clinically insane. My references to miracles were not intended as a proof of faith, but as an example of trying to show a human as a god. It just happens that the modern educated person finds some of the miracles excluded from the Bible, and some of us included ones too, to be fantastic and not historical.
“The Jewish God also caused the Jews themselves to suffer greatly.”
True, but he also gave them great victories, and they only suffered when they did not agree with the authors. The Greeks were often punished by their gods when they forgot sacrifices.

I’ve offered my explanation, possibly out of context of the discussion at hand, so that is all I have to offer on this thread.

@FireMadeFlesh

Thanks for your comments. It’s always good to read your words.

@DarkScribe said: “Haven’t you ever played that party game “Whispers”? Not a chance in hell of them being a true historical representation.”

That’s why there are four separate accounts from four separate perspectives. Multiple accounts reduce the risk of error in the “Whispers” party game.

Without me going on and on about the historical accuracy of those accounts, please contrast your opinions with the research presented here.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Without me going on and on about the historical accuracy of those accounts, please contrast your opinions with the research presented here.

Do you know the difference between research and an opinion?

Yes, that’s why I suggest you contrast your opinion against the research provided by that author. You may not agree with his research (backed with claimed evidence) but it is research. You may have your own research and you are welcome to it, and welcome to present it. But thus far I’ve only heard your opinion and attacks. And I’m still waiting on you to clarify the “agenda” behind the original biblical author’s intentions.

I will not defend against your research (if ever presented). As I said, “I have no desire to convince you of my views. I have no desire to steal yours away from you. What I have found is for me. What you have found is for you.”

I will not get into a link war over this. We could both heap mountains of “evidence” to support our views. Have yours please, if it suits you. I’m probably quite aware of it, but others here may not be, so please present it and let the chips fall where they may. My link only scratches the surface and is intended to provide the reader further cause to explore deeper if they so desire. You may give us the same. You may have the last word.

You’ve already misrepresented the Bible, so I’m quite interested actually in what your research has to say, and how it has affected you.

‘Cause Superman is dead.