What does Jesus save us from?

Post from Gezza:

What does Jesus save us from?

This a question that has puzzled me from the first time that I began to wonder, whenever I heard the constantly uttered slogan from Believers in Christianity that Jesus is our Saviour. Saviour from what?

Fortunately this is answered, reasonably comprehensively, in my view, in this summary here:

Jesus is the most important figure in all of human history. He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), physically risen from the dead (John 2:19-21), Lord (Luke 24:34), and Savior (Acts 5:30-32). He came to die for sinners (Rom. 5:8) and to deliver people from the righteous wrath of God upon us.

Are you a sinner?

Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted, coveted, or been angry with someone unjustly? If so, then you have broken the Law of God. God has said, “You shall not steal; You shall not lie; You shall have no other gods before Me; You shall not murder, etc.,” (Exodus 20). He has given the standard of righteousness and if you have broken any of God’s commandments then you have fallen short of that standard and are under the inevitable judgment of God. When you die, you will face Him and on the Day of Judgment, He will punish all sinners.

Jesus is the One we all need to be saved. Him alone. Not your works (Rom. 3:10-12; Isaiah 64:6). Not your sincerity. Not your goodness. You have nothing to offer God except your sinfulness. It is only by the love and grace of God found in Jesus and His sacrifice that you can be delivered from the righteous wrath of God upon all who have broken His law. Jesus saves you from God.

God’s wrath on the Day of Judgment is upon sinners

On the Day of Judgment God will judge all people for their sins against Him. He will judge all who have lied, stolen, cheated, lusted, dishonored their parents, etc. He will do this because He is holy and righteous. God must punish the sinner. God cannot and will not ignore the person who has broken His righteous law. The Law is a reflection of the character of God. Therefore, to break God’s law is to offend God and deny the holiness of His character. He will be vindicated. He will judge.

The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). That means that your sins have caused a separation between you and God (Isaiah 59:2) and the result is death (Rom. 6:23) and wrath (Eph. 2:3). The only way to be saved from the wrath of God, is to be saved from it by faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1). You must trust in what Jesus did on the cross to forgive you of your sins and not trust anything else, not even your own sincerity or works. It is Jesus and only Jesus who can turn away the righteous judgment of God upon the sinner.

The Gospel

The gospel is that Jesus died for sinners on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4). His death was a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2). This is the only way to be saved.

Jesus is the one who died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). He is the only way to the God the Father (John 14:6). He alone reveals God (Matt. 11:27). He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). It is only through Him that you can be saved from God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3). He can forgive you of your sin (Luke 5:20; Matt. 9:2). He can remove the guilt that is upon your soul. Jesus can set you free from the bondage of sin that blinds your eyes, weakens your soul, and brings you to despair. He can do this because He bore sin in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) that those who trust in Him would be saved.

If you are not a Christian and want to be delivered from the righteous judgment of God upon you due to your sin against Him, then you must come to the One who died for the sins of the world. Come to the One who died for sinners (Matt. 11:28). Turn from your sins. Believe and trust in Jesus. Receive Jesus, who is God in flesh, who died and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4) as your Lord and Savior. Ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins. Receive Christ (John 1:12). Only He can wash you clean from your sins and only Jesus can deliver you from the righteous judgment of a holy and infinite God. Pray to Jesus. Seek Him. Ask Him to save you.
He will.
… … …
PS: By the way, please note that the writer of this material states that: the Jesus of Mormonism (the brother of the devil), the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (an angel made into a man), the Jesus of the New Age (a man in tune with the divine consciousness), etc., cannot save you from your sins. That Faith is only as good as the person in whom you put it… the Jesus of the Bible. Jesus is God in flesh, the creator. God is a trinity and Jesus is the second person of the trinity.

My considered opinion on all that

I’m sorry but, looked at in the cold, clear light of rationality, modern education, plain common sense, and in the context of the modern world (or any “world” which has never had, or which long ago outgrew the foolish notion in more primitive societies that sacrifices must be made to propitiate vengeful, powerful, human-like gods) in my view, this is a really, obviously, long-out-of-date – understandable – but silly idea.

Even if you want to believe there’s some sort of supernatural, scientifically undetectable or empirically-unprovable creator – what intelligent, educated person these days can seriously be expected to still believe in this very old idea? That of sacrificing animals, plants, even humans, to placate, thank, or feed imagined gods – which it was quite reasonably thought back then must somehow be responsible for natural phenomena whose causes and mechanisms were otherwise incomprehensible at the time – that seems to have been widespread among ancient, primitive, uneducated societies everywhere ?

Even the Aztecs, who seem to have had some knowledge of astronomy, are reported to have also been in to killing & sacrificing willing or unwilling unfortunates to gods. But, like the ancient Kingdom of Israel, their civilisations eventually crumbled or were eclipsed by other peoples’, with other gods, who just ignored theirs & took over.

And even if it is accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was one of many – usually blokes – who had during their lifetime, observed the behaviour of their fellows & concluded there must be a better way for humans to live to make a kinder, nicer, more generous, more gentle, more tolerant society – thought about it, & began to formulate, teach & preach his ideas – there’s nothing particularly unusual about this.

It’s kind of common sense stuff, once you abandon the idea a primitive imaginary god – that some persuasive person or leader had thought up, & which (or who) they’d convinced others, had given them not just 7 practical common sense “laws” to prevent common causes of disharmony, violence & rage, disruption & vengeance in societies everywhere, but also dozens of other unnecessary rules, customs, & rituals to govern simple tribal peoples living relatively unsophisticated lives in places like the Middle East.

I remember realising one day that it wasn’t just my parents & my Christian upbringing, nor empathy, that had embedded in me notions of fairness, compassion, charity, self-control, patience, good & bad, right & wrong, belief in looking & working always for the triumph of virtue over evil & cruelty. As a young child, I was an avid reader of children’s books. And Many Stories, Fairy Tales, Fables, & Wise Proverbs, from many parts of the world, had done exactly the same thing.

Isn’t it much more likely that this was ALL that a wise man, Jesus of Nazareth, did? Teach his theory of better behaviour? And that the rest of it is just embellishment by his disciples & later converts who never knew him – initially just to help them sell his ideas to folk who still believed in their original imaginary god, Jaweh?

This post has been added to the Your NZ menu for easy access. If there is continued interest in this it may be continued, or there may be further linked posts.

This post and discussion may be confronting for some people – if you don’t like your religious beliefs challenged then it may not be for you.

The usual rules on decent debate and no abuse apply – this is a debate on the concepts of gods and religion, and is not an opportunity for free shots at specific groups of religious followers. Comments that I think are inappropriate may be edited or deleted.

Other guest posts will be considered on this topic, but they need to be aimed at encouraging debate and should not try to preach a particular religious position.

Offensive T-shirt or free speech

If you are sensitive about Christian and nun stuff be wary of what follows (or skip this one).

There’s a controversial T-shirt on display at Canterbury museum. A Catholic bishop, a Cahtolic blogger, Christchurch’s Anglican Bishop and Bob McCoskrie arel complaining about it’s offensiveness with Family First planning laying a complaint with police about the “highly offensive” display.

Should offensiveness be shut up? Shades of Charlie Hebdo.’

Stuff describes the problem in Offensive t-shirt in Canterbury Museum exhibition.

A Canterbury Museum exhibition is sparking outrage ahead of its display of a banned t-shirt depicting a graphic image of a nun and explicit abuse of Jesus.

The image and words are printed on a t-shirt that appears in the T-Shirts Unfolding exhibition, which opens at the museum tomorrow.

Entitled Vestal Masturbation, the shirt is the design of English heavy metal band Cradle of Filth.

On the front it shows an image of a masturbating nun while on the reverse it has the phrase “Jesus is a c***”.

I can understand some people being offended by that but I find it quite interesting, thought provoking and a bit clever when you think it through.

But some just see offence they want to shut down.

Christchurch’s Anglican Bishop Victoria Matthews…

…questioned why the t-shirt needed to be included in the exhibition at all.

Cartoons and ridicule of the prophet Mohammed had led to violence and outrage in Islamic countries, and the public needed to consider whether what happened here could “have repercussions across the globe”.

“At a time when we are seeking ways to reconcile extreme views in the international community, this exhibit could feed the accusation that the West is morally bankrupt,” she said.

“The inclusion of this t-shirt as art in an exhibition is a conversation for the wider community with issues of mutual respect, common decency and what the public wants and does not want.”

I’d be surprised if this sparks repercussions around the globe. It would be more eyebrow raising if religious groups get it banned.

And it’s ironic the Bishop sidesd with Muslims wanting to shut down anything critical of their religion.

Catholic blogger Brendan Malone…

…said in a blog post that a museum should bring a community together, but Canterbury Museum’s decision to hold this exhibition was “irresponsible” and would “result in unnecessary harm” to the public.

“Canterbury Museum has chosen to make itself a place that fosters intolerance and division – and what’s worse; as a ratepayer I am being forced to fund this intolerant and divisive behaviour.”

He questioned whether the museum would display a t-shirt that “attacked and ridiculed Islam” in the same way.

Malone also launched an online petition on Change.org asking for Canterbury Museum to “remove the hateful t-shirt” and “stop dividing the community”.

The petition said the museum should act with more community responsibility and respect for its local funders by removing the t-shirt from its exhibition.

Clainming the display fosters “intolerance and division” is a tad ironic given the intoelrance of expression tha Malone displays.

Catholic Bishop Barry Jones…

…also criticised the controversial t-shirt. “Anglican and Roman Catholic nuns enjoy wide respect and the misogynistic message on the t-shirt is appalling,” he said.


Family First…

…planned to lay a complaint with police about the “highly offensive” display.

“The museum should show some respect to the many families who will be horrified and offended by this and remove the offensive material,” national director Bob McCoskrie said.

“Sinking to these low levels is an insult to many families.”

I’ve been insulted by Christians but I haven’t thought of complaining to the police.

Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright…

…said the shirt was a small part of a large exhibition examining the garment’s place in popular culture.

“When you do a show like this you deal with the edges of our culture and society. There are inevitably going to be some items and themes that are going to be offensive to some.

“It’s there because it is a valid part of an overall story about a whole cultural movement. We want to tell the whole story without unduly censoring things.”

So is it ok in that context?

Or should anything that could be found offensive by religious people be banned?

I wouldn’t go to see it but I wouldn’t try and stop others from seeing it.


Colin loves me, this I know

Jesus loves me, this I know,
For the beating tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong;
They are weak, but He is strong

I posted that verse in a Kiwiblog discussion about Colin Craig and smacking, with one word changed from the song.

It was deliberately provocative but I followed it saying “Apologies to the majority of Christians who are good parents and who don’t like hurting their children.”

Further down the thread graham obliged with a response.

Funny; one story I recall about Jesus was how he STOPPED a bunch of people from stoning a woman caught in adultery. And once they all slunk away, he told the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.”

No beating. No scolding. Just a plea with the woman to mend her ways.

But, if it makes you feel better, continue making stuff up out of your warped imagination.

Funny, the stories I recall about Jesus depict him as a non-violent, caring person. No beating. No scolding.

So why do some Christians still insist on the Old Testament approach of beating and scolding their children?

Colin Craig has chosen smacking as his opening campaign strategy for the year – Provocative remarks central to Craig’s plan.

Newly media-trained and backed by a fresh team of spin doctors, Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says he will continue to offer provocative views to the media and public this year, but only where it advances his cause at the ballot box.

His comment comes after his admission this week that he smacks his daughter.

He said he did not prepare an answer on the specific question about whether he physically disciplined his daughter with his advisers.

Nevertheless, “we have thought about how we present on this and I think I just need to be the typical New Zealand parent on this which I pretty much am”.

He is not “the typical New Zealand parent” on this. I very much doubt very much whether he is the typical New Zealand Christian on this.

Would Christ have kept smacking his child as it grew up?