Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

yes i see that now....selective memory loss

thanks.

I remember my first doob...

:cigar:

 

[1robin]

No. He wasn't. It's a difference between eisegesis and exegesis.

I concur with the spiritual death interpretation. I have never heard a Christian scholar interpret it as physical death. A physical implication is obviously incorrect. They didn't physically die.

 

[Thief]

I concur with the spiritual death interpretation. I have never heard a Christian scholar interpret it as physical death. A physical implication is obviously incorrect. They didn't physically die.

And I agree as well.

That a condition will bring death....then death is certain the moment that condition takes hold.

Partake and in that day you die.....is indeed a spiritual statement.

 

[F0uad]

I am confused about this ''teaching'' or idea that Jesus(p) took away our sins.

If that is the case how come people can still sin?

What about the many passage's that say each person should carry hes own burden?

What about the passage's that exclusive deny that someone can take away your sins?

 

[sojourner]

I concur with the spiritual death interpretation. I have never heard a Christian scholar interpret it as physical death. A physical implication is obviously incorrect. They didn't physically die.

I've heard plenty of reputable, published scholars push the physical death interpretation.

That's precisely my point: God lied. Again: This is consistent with other, similar wisdom myths of the time and area.

 

[Thief]

I am confused about this ''teaching'' or idea that Jesus(p) took away our sins.

If that is the case how come people can still sin?

What about the many passage's that say each person should carry hes own burden?

What about the passage's that exclusive deny that someone can take away your sins?

I would say...
If you are shown how to live better...the teaching has taken hold.
If the instruction is never given....how then to improve?

The parables are the teaching.
Abide as the stories indicate.
The sinful life will fade.

 

[sojourner]

And I agree as well.

That a condition will bring death....then death is certain the moment that condition takes hold.

Partake and in that day you die.....is indeed a spiritual statement.

While this POV is certainly consistent with later, Christian thought, it is inconsistent with other, similar, ancient myth.

 

[Thief]

While this POV is certainly consistent with later, Christian thought, it is inconsistent with other, similar, ancient myth.

I do take the story of Chapter Two differently than most people.
I don't see the words of God as incorrect or deceitful.
He wasn't fooling around.

And it was the serpent that lied...that Adam and Eve would not die.

Partake of knowledge and then die.
True then.....true now.

 

[Awoon]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

Isn't it amazing how a few Near Eastern writers could create stories that have people fighting over them for thousands of years?

The Bible is a "Once upon a time" story book to read around the camp fires of the desert Bedouins.

 

[Thief]

Isn't it amazing how a few Near Eastern writers could create stories that have people fighting over them for thousands of years?

The Bible is a "Once upon a time" story book to read around the camp fires of the desert Bedouins.

I find Chapter Two remarkable as it displays science....
at a time when understanding of such things could not take hold.

Take a rib from a man while he sleeps?
And not kill him?
Only in most recent years.

Take that portion and increase it to full stature?
Only in most recent years?

Possibly believe with science on your mind?
Only in most recent years.

Imagine you're sitting at a campfire and some eighty year old guy is telling you such a story.
Would you believe?
Would you follow him?

 

[Awoon]

I find Chapter Two remarkable as it displays science....
at a time when understanding of such things could not take hold.

Take a rib from a man while he sleeps?
And not kill him?
Only in most recent years.

Take that portion and increase it to full stature?
Only in most recent years?

Possibly believe with science on your mind?
Only in most recent years.

Imagine you're sitting at a campfire and some eighty year old guy is telling you such a story.
Would you believe?
Would you follow him?

"In the Begining" means Once upon a time in the old East.

 

[John Boanerges]

No. He wasn't. It's a difference between eisegesis and exegesis.

Yes, He was. And you are showing just how immature in your faith or lacking in your understanding you are by saying otherwise. You are not simply incorrect, you are waaaay off base to think that our God can lie when communicating directly with us*, which He was with Adam and Eve. (*Do you know/understand why I specified that?)

Who do you (Celtic Christians) worship...Zeus???

No, we perceived God as handling things quite differently in the OT. Based on your posts thus far, I'm doubtful you could adequately explain "cold" to an eskimo.

Do you understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants? Apparently not. So...

...it's back to my original questions I asked you: Do you believe in (the Judeo-Christian ) God? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is/was His only begotten Son? Do you understand WHY Jesus came to die? Do you understand how different things would be if Jesus didn't come and do what He did?

This is pretty basic stuff. Where have you been?

 

[ilovetraveler]

Actually, Jesus isn't considered a demi-god. At the Council of Nicea it was decided that Jesus was fully God and fully man. The reason he died is for us. He died so that we would be forgiven. Yes he did have to die. That doesn't mean that he wanted to do it. He was sad but, he knew that it was his purpose. He made the ultimate sacrifice. It proves his devotion and pure, unconditional love for humans. He was resurrected three days later, because his mission wasn't finished.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, He was. And you are showing just how immature in your faith or lacking in your understanding you are by saying otherwise.

No, he wasn't. Is the difference between exegetical interpretation and theological mayhem even on your radar? Do you understand the origin of the myth, or are you stuck in "God-Said-It-I-Believe-It-That-Settles-It Land?" Do you understand how to extrapolate textual meaning based upon textual, literary and historic criticism? Do you understand the difference between "what the text actually says" and "the meaning we assign to it?" I don't think so, because "faith" has nothing to do with "exegesis." Interpretation, doctrine, and theological construction are based in disinterested exegesis, not impassioned hope.
Just as a good doctor maintains a proper objectivity with his patients, so a good exegete maintains a proper objectivity with the texts. This is why I suggest that you not play at theologian. You apparently don't understand the process well enough to not be dangerous at it.

Who do you (Celtic Christians) worship...Zeus???

This is a red-herring. It's entirely unrelated to the argument, and entirely uncalled for. But it's interesting because it's a glaring example of your limited knowledge and maturity.

Do you understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants? Apparently not.

Of course I do, which is why I said what I said. The ancient Hebrews had a particular understanding of God, so they portrayed their relationship with God in terms of several covenantal relationships, most of which were based upon proliferation.

The ancient xtians had a different particular understanding of God, so they portrayed their relationship with God in terms of a particular covenantal relationship based upon reconciliation.

It's apparent, however, that you don't understand the difference between the ancient pre-Hebraic mind set and the ancient Xtian mind set, if you're trying to superimpose a purely Xtian understanding upon a purely pre-Hebraic myth.

...it's back to my original questions I asked you: Do you believe in (the Judeo-Christian ) God? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is/was His only begotten Son? Do you understand WHY Jesus came to die? Do you understand how different things would be if Jesus didn't come and do what He did?

It's possible for one to believe in God, be a professing Xtian, and hold a theological construction of soteriology and eschatology that differs widely from your narrow and fundamental stance. So if you're trying to infer that I'm not really a Xtian, you can save yourself the embarrassment.

This is pretty basic stuff.

But it requires at least a nod toward scholarship and a basic standard of truth.

Where have you been?

Doing actual theological and exegetical work, rather than undisciplined wishing. You?

 

[waitasec]

I remember my first doob...

:cigar:

i don't...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I concur with the spiritual death interpretation. I have never heard a Christian scholar interpret it as physical death. A physical implication is obviously incorrect. They didn't physically die.

The actual implication is that the statement was a lie.

The Hebrew text, quoted by Sojourner, shows that no spiritual death was ever proposed.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually, Jesus isn't considered a demi-god. At the Council of Nicea it was decided that Jesus was fully God and fully man. The reason he died is for us. He died so that we would be forgiven. Yes he did have to die. That doesn't mean that he wanted to do it. He was sad but, he knew that it was his purpose. He made the ultimate sacrifice. It proves his devotion and pure, unconditional love for humans. He was resurrected three days later, because his mission wasn't finished.

If he was resurrected, technically it wasn't a sacrifice.

 

[Thief]

"In the Begining" means Once upon a time in the old East.

And this defeats the content of my post?......how?

 

[waitasec]

The actual implication is that the statement was a lie.

The Hebrew text, quoted by Sojourner, shows that no spiritual death was ever proposed.

doesn't matter...
the "christian" interpretation, whatever that is, has the license to edit the original proposition...how convenient...

 

[John Boanerges]

It's possible for one to believe in God, be a professing Xtian, and hold a theological construction of soteriology and eschatology that differs widely from your narrow and fundamental stance. So if you're trying to infer that I'm not really a Xtian, you can save yourself the embarrassment.

Still dodging the basic questions. Just wondering: Is it possible for someone to be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Has your soteriological journey led you believe that there is more than one way to the Father than through Jesus Christ? Did Jesus lie when He said that He was way and that no man comes to the Father but through Him? (Note: I am not saying that everyone must believe in Jesus to be saved. That is another matter altogether. But Jesus is the judge and everyone will kneel before Him.)

This is a red-herring. It's entirely unrelated to the argument, and entirely uncalled for. But it's interesting because it's a glaring example of your limited knowledge and maturity.

I thought it was a fair rhetorical question based on your concept of a lying god/God. Maybe I should have used Woden instead.

Of course I do, which is why I said what I said. The ancient Hebrews had a particular understanding of God, so they portrayed their relationship with God in terms of several covenantal relationships, most of which were based upon proliferation.

The ancient xtians had a different particular understanding of God, so they portrayed their relationship with God in terms of a particular covenantal relationship based upon reconciliation.

So...the Hebrews portrayed their relationship with God rather than having a well-defined one set forth by God Himself through direct communication with His prophets? Hmmm... Maybe that's why they missed Jesus, the Messiah, when He came...just like Isaiah and Daniel said He would: They didn't believe in God directly communicating with His people anymore than you (apparently) do.

It's apparent, however, that you don't understand the difference between the ancient pre-Hebraic mind set and the ancient Xtian mind set, if you're trying to superimpose a purely Xtian understanding upon a purely pre-Hebraic myth.

Your disbelief has been made perfectly clear. We are done here. Enjoyed it.