When Jesus Earned Our Salvation for Us
The notion that we cannot please God and have to let Jesus step in and please him for us instead is an old one. It is an outgrowth of the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Catholicism goes as far as to honour this sacrifice by saying it is perpetuated by the Mass in which bread and wine are taken as food and drink having been hiddenly changed into the real body and real blood of Jesus.
The gospels portray Jesus as being in danger and taking steps to avoid being captured. This is plainly a pack of lies for surely he would have been easily found. Jesus in Matthew 23 and in other places is portrayed as saying things in public that would get him arrested and nothing happens. Even the gospel has Jesus remarking that he was in the Temple day after day and nobody arrested him. Anyway eventually Jesus takes steps to make sure he would get taken. He would have seen the army coming to take him the the garden yet he stayed put.
From The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History
Considered by Evan D. Murray, M.D., Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D., and
Bruce H. Price, M.D.
https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214
we learn:
Suicide-by-proxy is described as “any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person.” There is a potential parallel of Jesus’ beliefs and behavior leading up to his death to that of one who premeditates a form of suicide-by-proxy.
End of quote. Jesus allegedly said that his death
is a ransom for sinners so that God might save them from sin so that they
can die to themselves. The implications are shocking for psychiatry
tells us he wanted to use others to kill himself. It amounts to Jesus
saying he saved us by his suicide. The same source from Murray,
Cunningham and Price has Jesus acting like he had "delusions, referential
thinking, paranoid-type (PS subtype) thought content, and hyperreligiosity".
For him to claim to be the saviour and the way is asking us to develop such
disorders as well!
The Church despite saying it does, DOES NOT want anybody to be as confrontational as Jesus was and to be tackling desks in the finance departments of temples. It clearly acts as something that knows he was not fully well. And it will not take responsibility if its converts do act like Jesus and go insane. It will not take responsibility if a person feels better about taking their own life if they read that Jesus as good as did it and did it in a way that can only be described as perverse.
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: Jesus was the only sinless human being ever. He came to pay the price for our sins by suffering and enduring abandonment by God on the cross. We deserve Hell so he went through Hell on the cross to save us. He took the punishment from God that we deserve. God says that Jesus became sin for us on the cross so that we might holy. God cursed Jesus for our breaking the Law of Moses as Paul says in Galatians.
REPLY: Jesus was not God then.
You may ask why didn't God become man and atone himself? It is logically impossible for a man to be fully man and also full God. God is happy in himself. Even if Jesus were God, only the human nature would suffer and the divinity would be untouched. God and Jesus would be the one being. Jesus would be fully God and fully man. Two natures in one person. But because there are two natures, experientially it would be as if they were not one person. Experience is probably what counts. God and Jesus were separate beings but the same result happens whether Jesus is God or not. You still have a human nature having a human experience of suffering and a divine nature that cannot suffer. Even if Jesus were God, the Bible says he did not know all things as man. The doctrine of separate experience for Jesus and God is definitely in the Bible.
God cannot be man anyway. The religion disguises this as a mystery and says we are wrong. It is incoherent nonsense and there is no analogy that works to explain it.
Did God send Jesus to do the dirty work?
Christian doctrine is that he would do it himself. But was it dirty work or a necessity?
Anyway the doctrine goes,
Jesus atoned for our
sins
We are sure that we
cannot save ourselves. Sin is so
malicious that God cannot simply forgive it. He needs to be paid for it. Jesus pays for our
sin and then he forgives us. This is real forgiveness for we haven't paid
ourselves.
The atonement is a noble doctrine for:
It tells us we cannot save ourselves by doing good. If we do good, we must do it because it is good and not to get saved. It humbles us.
It offers us freedom from our sins.
It admits that our repentance for sin is always inadequate. We simply cannot love God as he deserves and as Jesus commanded, even for a moment. Would you suffer forever torment so that others could go free if God asked you? If you would not then you value yourself more than good. You value yourself more than others and more than God and so are guilty of the greatest sin which is failure to keep the commandment to love God with all your heart. Jesus proclaimed that this was the greatest commandment of all. He proclaimed it the most basic one. We cannot keep the basics. God would never accept our repentance as justification for forgiving us. Its a shabby insult. If we are saved, we are not saved because we repent. We are saved because Jesus has done it all for us.
My comment on this is that it is a form of antinomianism where the evil you do is ignored by God. It is blasphemous. The deductions are so insane and immoral that they clearly can only arise from there being something wrong with the doctrine of salvation by the blood of Jesus in the first place. The Catholic Church thinks it connects to and perpetuates the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in the Mass. This is shameful.
