Another debate that's going round and round and coming up nowhere. One guy says it wasn't a sacrifice because Jesus didn't stay dead, and that 3 days is nothing. I disagree...people consider being dead even half an hour to be a big deal all these times people die and come back (oh but really it's only NEAR death no matter how long they don't show any vitals ). And maybe it's just me, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall anybody saying what DID happen to Jesus for those 3 days that He was dead. The idea is He died for our sins, what if then for those three days He suffered for the sins of anybody who had lived and ever would? 3 days of that, no thank you, I would NOT want to trade places with Him. But this guy disagrees saying 3 days of sleep is nothing, except I reply DEATH IS NOT SLEEP, DEATH IS DEATH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. And then you consider everything before His death when He was tortured and nailed to the cross, who would seriously say 'I'd do that'? Nobody I know, anybody else?

Three days is nothing??? Gee, why do I get the strong hunch that THEY wouldn't think so if they were nailed to a cross with nothing to hold them up but a tiny sloped platform???

Some religions believe Jesus descended into Hell for those three days but I, myself, do not accept that because He had no reason to be there. I'm more inclined to think that he may have ascended into Heaven while lying in a comatose state and was returned for more work to do. And many believe that He journeyed on to spread the word.

And, no, I can't see myself hanging by hands on the cross, although I suppose I might if I believed in something strong enough to not denounce it.

That's probably the more likely explanation for what happened for those 3 days, and He knew what was coming, so He probably knew what to expect, but we don't know and we probably wouldn't know and I personally would not want to take a chance on it either.

Well, it's been taught as to what Jesus was doing while he was dead. I don't think the "being dead" is considered the sacrifice as much as the dying part. All of the suffering and the actual dying. Heck no I'd never wanna trade places with him. He died one of the most painful deaths possible to mankind, and that's only looking at it from a physical standpoint. To try and downplay what Jesus did is really to speak from ignorance.

And BTW, the "he descended into hell" part is typically misunderstood. Nobody teaches that he descended to the hell of the damned. He went to the place where the righteous dead were waiting for the gates of heaven to be re-opened after they were closed due to the sin of A&E.(The couple, not the network. )

Why? I would not have the same ability that jesus is said to have. My death would benefit no one. Is this a debate to determine who amongst us would lay down their life for another?

It's not like the "WOuld you have killed hitler when he was a chld if you went back and knew what he was going to do?" nonsense question.

Some cynical son of a bitch might say that his sacrifice was somewhat tainted. Not because he didn't suffer enough agony on the cross if that's what in fact happened but because he knew that a great heavenly reward awaited him. Not like he was going to die for the sins of the world and then be denied the glory to sit at the right hand of God.

But for 3 days He was abandoned by His Father, I can't even imagine what that must've been like.

After this we can debate how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

no

Nope. I ain't dying for nobody.

No I don't think I would want to suffer such a horrible death.

No. I'd rather just be eternally grateful that he died the way he did for my sins.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Nope. I ain't dying for nobody.

Because you don't have kids yet.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Because you don't have kids yet.

OH, SNAP!!

Alan Smithee wrote:

Because you don't have kids yet.

Spoken like a true parent.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Because you don't have kids yet.

Well, having kids wouldn't make me change my mind. Let me rephrase the answer: I ain't dying for nobody.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Well, having kids wouldn't make me change my mind. Let me rephrase the answer: I ain't dying for nobody.

OK mommy dearest. I'd still like to revisit this question if you ever do become a mother.

Nystyle709 wrote:

People who commits sins that I don't even know are nobodies. I'm not that lovable.

And that is the difference between (wo)man and God.

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL, Mommy Dearest....really? I said I ain't dying for nobody. People who commits sins that I don't even know are nobodies. I'm not that lovable. My family are somebodies.

Sorry but you failed to make that distinction when you wrote, "I ain't dying for nobody" or when you rephrased it to "I ain't dying for nobody."

Supernova wrote:

And that is the difference between (wo)man and God.

For real?! I had no idea! Then why would you even ask the question of who would trade places with Jesus during crucifixion? Any MAN is not God. And who really wants to be?

I'm just saying. Obviously NOBODY would want to trade places, so where some people would come off thinking 'oh ANYBODY would trade places with Him because 3 days is nothing', you have to wonder how people come to a conclusion like that.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Sorry but you failed to make that distinction when you wrote, "I ain't dying for nobody" or when you rephrased it to "I ain't dying for nobody."

I did make the distinction when I rephrased it, I italicized "nobody". If it was unclear then, it should be clear now. And if you ask me the question again if I do become a mother, I assure you I will give you the EXACT same reply. Althoughi don't think either distinction was warranted to peg me as "Mommy Dearest"