Reason for Jesus Death Explained

[Spartan]

His capacity to be tempted is probably what has to be removed in order to make him perfect, and that is probably what Hebrews means when it says he's made perfect upon death. Can't say very specifically the its his ability to be tempted, but I can allude to Paul's discourse about sin in his flesh and the law of sin himself. Paul argues that within himself there is a problem that he must die to. The gospels say Jesus has been tempted, and so does Hebrews. What else could it mean when it says he has to be perfected? I don't what else would fit.

Yes, he was tempted but he didn't sin. Hebrews chapter 4 confirms it: "We have a high priest who was tempted in every point like we are, yet without sin."

Heavy use of undefined or poorly defined words. For example grace, sin, glory, righteousness and even faith. That post is like a bunch of mad libs. The only thing you left out was 'Blood of the lamb'.

It's not poorly defined. Here's a parable by Jesus that explains it all better: The Parable of the Wedding Feast -

"Isaiah 61:10, I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

Note that in Genesis 15:6, this righteousness comes through faith in God: Abram believed (had faith in) the Lord, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Also note Ephesians 2:8-9 in the New Testament.

Believers are covered with God’s garment of righteousness / salvation. When God looks at the repentant sinner He does not see the filthy attire of sin anymore, but the robe of righteousness obtained by faith in Christ’s perfect obedience to the law. There are none righteous apart from this God-given righteousness.

A perfect example that this righteousness is not obtained by man’s own inherent “goodness” is found in Zechariah chapter 3:

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.”

Filthy clothes = sin in the above scripture, while a robe of righteousness = a garment of salvation / righteousness (Isaiah 61:10)."

The Parable of the Wedding Feast

 

[Spartan]

Nice liturgy. Now if we could just get Christians to actually practice that...

Many do. I've seen Christians cleaning up vomit in homeless shelters helping those who could not support themselves.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let us check the transcript of records [the proceedings between Jesus Christ and Pilate]
Did Jesus really claim to be "the King of the Jews"?
Or was it because of something else?

View attachment 29523

John 18:28-37 New International Version (NIV)
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

View attachment 29524

Is Jesus really "King of the Jews" or it was just a false assumption or a false accusation?
Jesus is King alright but is when he walked on the earth, his kingdom is from another place not of this world.
Or Jesus died because it was to fulfill the Scriptures and the reason why he was born is to testify to the truth.

Why did Jesus die and to whom did Jesus die?
Now that is the question.

Selective citations of the NT do not change the fact that Jesus claimed to fulfill the prophecies of the OT and claimed to be the Messiah. The station of the Messiah is the King of the Jews. Your final citation confirms that claim.

This citation makes that clear. t John 11:51-52 "He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them claiming to be King of Jone."

Claiming to be King of all Jew and Gentile would be and was a double threat to Rome as in rebellion against Rome, and resulted in the crucifiction of Jesus regardless of any other issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice liturgy. Now if we could just get Christians to actually practice that...

The problem we face is the very fallible nature of human in all the cultures and religions throughout the history of humanity. The reality is your expectations will always be disappointed, The question remains what is the universal behind the the diverse conflicting beliefs concerning the 'Source' some call God(s) and others deny God(s) exist throughout the history of humanity. The outlook is not good for any one religion that makes the claim to be the true religion in ancient history.

 

[MJFlores]

Selective citations of the NT do not change the fact that Jesus claimed to fulfill the prophecies of the OT and claimed to be the Messiah. The station of the Messiah is the King of the Jews. Your final citation confirms that claim.

This citation makes that clear. t John 11:51-52 "He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them claiming to be King of Jone."

Claiming to be King of all Jew and Gentile would be and was a double threat to Rome as in rebellion against Rome, and resulted in the crucifiction of Jesus regardless of any other issues.

Let us see the whole picture by revealing the whole scene of John 11:51-52
Let us read from 45 to 52, what is this scene?

John 11:45-52 New International Version (NIV)
Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

No mention of Jesus Christ being King of the Jews anywhere in John 11
The scene was the meeting of villains where they discussed about Jesus being a threat to their very existence.

What is mentioned is Jesus would die for the Jewish nation - which doesn't make one a king of the Jews.
It also said Jesus would also die for the scattered children of God - the true Christians, which distinguishes from the Jewish nation.

When Jesus Christ was asked by Pontius Pilate what did he answer?

Mark 15:2 New International Version (NIV)
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

The Jewish Nation is an earthly kingdom
Jesus Christ said his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom
Therefore Jesus Christ is not the king of the Jews

I believe the use of king of Jews on Jesus Christ is a mockery of the Lord

John 19:2-3 New International Version (NIV)
The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, he was tempted but he didn't sin. Hebrews chapter 4 confirms it: "We have a high priest who was tempted in every point like we are, yet without sin."

Its the law of sin within. The ability to be tempted is a weakness. He's born with it.

It's not poorly defined.

The wedding feast parable is another argument for fellowshipping gentiles.

 

[wizanda]

This is explained by several NT writers. It is a mystical concept that argues that the gentile should be granted fellowship as if they were Jews.

The Pharisees John, Paul, and Simon told us jesus died for us.

that is what the death means.

The Tanakh & Synoptic Gospels presents the idea Yeshua was murdered by the Leaders of the people, which caused the nullification of the Abrahamic covenant, and the Sinai covenant, thus Judah & Israel were to be Divorced (Zechariah 11), for 30 pieces of silver put into the Potters-field for the price of their Messiah.

Thus the Pharisees have rewritten the contexts, grafting Gentiles onto a defiled covenant wasn't the plan, and thus why in Revelation the whole Church is condemned with 'the Synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews, yet are not' i.e. the Pharisees.

In my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

Lots of people have this question.

He willingly dies testifying against the sin within himself but in favor of the good within himself. This is explained by several NT writers. It is a mystical concept that argues that the gentile should be granted fellowship as if they were Jews. Whether you agree with that or not, that is what the death means.

Ahm, what's the significance of that? Socrates did something very similar. Anyone could, even me.

So what's all the fuss about?

 

[74x12]

That is the penultimate Passive Aggressiveness.

Maybe it's you that are passive aggressive. Let's stick to the actual topic of the thread and not bog it down with trifling accusations. Thanks.

Some translations reveal this is 'Iniquity' (Hebrew 'avon) that is passed down as opposed to transgression. The Strong's # is H5771, and it translates to punishment. For example Cain says "My punishment (H5771) is more than I can bear." There are two different words, actually several that sometimes translate as sin but are not all the same. Trouble gets passed on to children but evil deeds do not.

Hebrews says he has to be made perfect, and there is a passage that says he has to learn obedience in the gospels (probably in John). I could guess that the spotless lamb mentioned in Revelation could be talking about the Son, which may not refer to the personal Jesus but logos or maybe Jesus after his resurrection. If its logos then its the son in the church, or if its Jesus after resurrection then it would help with resolving the two passages one saying he must be made perfect and the other requiring a spotless lamb.

What is passed on IMO is the propensity or weakness for sin. Yes He has to be made perfect which is the doing away of the flesh but that doesn't mean He was sinful. After all, He was begotten of the holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35) It would be incorrect to assume that the holy Spirit could begat anything sinful. And perfection in that sense implies immortality. Without the problems of mortal flesh. Not necessarily perfect as in "without sin".

As for the spotless lamb. Think about it. What's the point of a spotless Lamb after the sacrifice takes place? Jesus had to be the spotless Lamb before being sacrificed. (John 1:29) So He had to be sinless before He died or else He was not a worthy sacrifice.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

According to Paul here Jesus before had not known any sin. So when did God make Him "sin" as 2 Cor. 5:21 is talking about. Clearly it's when Jesus hung on the cross as Paul points out that He was "made a curse for us" by hanging on the tree. (Galatians 3:13)

So, I submit to you that Jesus was in fact sinless and a spotless Lamb before hanging on the cross. Then He took the curse written in the Law (the curse for hanging on a tree) that transferred all our sins to Him. Because whoever is guilty of one point of the law is guilty of all. (James 2:10) And, secondly the Law is what defines sin and it thereby puts us to death. (Romans 7:9)

This was done in order that Jesus could nail the ordinances against us to the cross. (Colossians 2:14)

So, we are all originally from Adam who sinned. And we're sinners like Adam. But Jesus' Father is God. So then being born the Son of God He was born without sin. However, He still did have His flesh to contend with and so was tempted like as we are; yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

As for learning obedience by the things that He suffered. I don't think that necessarily falls under the "sin" category. At least not in my view. That's just learning.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Lots of people have this question.

He willingly dies testifying against the sin within himself but in favor of the good within himself. This is explained by several NT writers. It is a mystical concept that argues that the gentile should be granted fellowship as if they were Jews. Whether you agree with that or not, that is what the death means.

Biblically, Jesus was sinless, then became sin FOR us, the perfect becoming imperfect, so that we imperfect may be later perfected. THAT is the death and resurrection of Christ IMHO.

 

[Spartan]

The wedding feast parable is another argument for fellowshipping gentiles.

It's an enlightening theological teaching for Messianic Jews and others also.

 

[David T]

Lots of people have this question.

He willingly dies testifying against the sin within himself but in favor of the good within himself. This is explained by several NT writers. It is a mystical concept that argues that the gentile should be granted fellowship as if they were Jews. Whether you agree with that or not, that is what the death means.

I think resurrection is spiritual. Jesus is archetype of human who realized Christ within.

Indeed. What is Easter morning? The church celebrates the resurrection but according to the text it's a birthday. But a birthday of what?

The whole thread reminds me of a neurotic pheonix on a therapist couch completely paranoid about death.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ahm, what's the significance of that? Socrates did something very similar. Anyone could, even me.

So what's all the fuss about?

Socrates did die for his ideals and as such was a kind of martyr. Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth and dies to prove he is moral. Jesus death is politically a mystical argument (not a proof) that Jews should either integrate or accept Rome's government peacefully etc. People may doubt many aspects of Jesus story, but the principles being argued are different from that of Socrates. Jews at the time of Jesus are considering all sorts of reactions to their predicament, and this miracle story is directed to them. It is very different from Socrates death in this respect.

 

[David T]

Makes no sense to me. Jesus was not unpopular.. By all accounts he was well-received by everyone except a small group of Pharisees in Jerusalem.

Sooda, I can write something that I know is clear, and I know exactly why it's clear, and it will appear to some as word salad. In the Bible we have a story, yet the expanations are word salad. The question becomes is the issue with the text or us?

Are the writers aware of what they are writing about or are they confused or are the readers confused? The Thomas narrative is interesting, it's an ancient Greek paradox. Why does a Greek paradox exist in the story at all? Why isn't that even seen as a paradox?

 

[blü 2]

Socrates did die for his ideals and as such was a kind of martyr. Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth and dies to prove he is moral. Jesus death is politically a mystical argument (not a proof) that Jews should either integrate or accept Rome's government peacefully etc. People may doubt many aspects of Jesus story, but the principles being argued are different from that of Socrates. Jews at the time of Jesus are considering all sorts of reactions to their predicament, and this miracle story is directed to them. It is very different from Socrates death in this respect.

Mark's Jesus (the original version, since Paul doesn't have a real one) best fits your argument, I think, and I can appreciate it without being ready, or perhaps ready yet, to accept it. The Jesuses of Matthew, Luke and John are in that order a progression from Mark's dejected Jesus on the cross to John's Master of Ceremonies where the Romans are no longer in charge.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What is passed on IMO is the propensity or weakness for sin. Yes He has to be made perfect which is the doing away of the flesh but that doesn't mean He was sinful. After all, He was begotten of the holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35) It would be incorrect to assume that the holy Spirit could begat anything sinful. And perfection in that sense implies immortality. Without the problems of mortal flesh. Not necessarily perfect as in "without sin".

I don't disagree. Certainly he never does anything wrong, so argues the NT.

As for the spotless lamb. Think about it. What's the point of a spotless Lamb after the sacrifice takes place? Jesus had to be the spotless Lamb before being sacrificed. (John 1:29) So He had to be sinless before He died or else He was not a worthy sacrifice.

Yes, but even a spotless lamb sacrificed must have the fat separated from the meat. It may have no spots, but it has fat and parts that have to be burned. Perhaps no sacrifice is perfect until it is offered though it be spotless. I am however more interested in what the sacrifices really do. The people gather round and agree to forgive one another and to love, and that is what ought to happen at communion, too. The body of Christ should be treated as a bond of love and fealty. Remember the RC and orthodox have always considered the liturgy to be the central part of worship, and that goes back through Jewish times which also have had the liturgy. The history of worship takes us back to this act of forgiving one another and commitment to each other, with God in us. "...to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." col 1:27

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

According to Paul here Jesus before had not known any sin. So when did God make Him "sin" as 2 Cor. 5:21 is talking about. Clearly it's when Jesus hung on the cross as Paul points out that He was "made a curse for us" by hanging on the tree. (Galatians 3:13)

"To be sin for us" is a figure of speech. Here's a man who does nothing evil, yet he must be killed just for being a human. The law of sin in his flesh is enough to condemn him, but he is resurrected because he is approved of God for his nonviolence. He is no son of Cain. Paul argues this demonstrates all people have the potential to be in the house of faith. There are not good people and bad people but people who want to be good but struggle against evil within themselves. I think the best explanation is the 2nd half of Romans 7.

So, I submit to you that Jesus was in fact sinless and a spotless Lamb before hanging on the cross. Then He took the curse written in the Law (the curse for hanging on a tree) that transferred all our sins to Him. Because whoever is guilty of one point of the law is guilty of all. (James 2:10) And, secondly the Law is what defines sin and it thereby puts us to death. (Romans 7:9)

This was done in order that Jesus could nail the ordinances against us to the cross. (Colossians 2:14)

Sinless, yes. Perfect as possible but still part of him wants to do evil, since he can (in the past not now) be tempted. Thus Paul argues good and evil exist in each human including the gentiles. I feel these forces within myself, too. By the way Paul is not saying anything new. He's perhaps teaching some people in the letter, but he's not creating new material. You will find a lot of this in other Jewish material about the good and evil within people, probably in the Talmud as well.

So, we are all originally from Adam who sinned. And we're sinners like Adam. But Jesus' Father is God. So then being born the Son of God He was born without sin. However, He still did have His flesh to contend with and so was tempted like as we are; yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

As for learning obedience by the things that He suffered. I don't think that necessarily falls under the "sin" category. At least not in my view. That's just learning.

I don't disagree.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Biblically, Jesus was sinless, then became sin FOR us, the perfect becoming imperfect, so that we imperfect may be later perfected. THAT is the death and resurrection of Christ IMHO.

Short and sweet!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Indeed. What is Easter morning? The church celebrates the resurrection but according to the text it's a birthday. But a birthday of what?

The whole thread reminds me of a neurotic pheonix on a therapist couch completely paranoid about death.

Cheer up, David. You could depress a Russian with that stuff.

 

[Spartan]

Sinless, yes. Perfect as possible but still part of him wants to do evil, since he can (in the past not now) be tempted. Thus Paul argues good and evil exist in each human including the gentiles. I feel these forces within myself, too. By the way Paul is not saying anything new. He's perhaps teaching some people in the letter, but he's not creating new material. You will find a lot of this in other Jewish material about the good and evil within people, probably in the Talmud as well.

I don't disagree.

How was Incarnate Jesus different from humans? He didn't have (for lack of a better term) the sin 'gene'. Prior to Jesus, all of mankind descended from Adam. According to scripture (Romans 3) all have sinned. Jesus did not inherit the ability to act on what Judaism calls the "evil inclination." He was tempted, but due to obedience to God and the Holy Spirit, he did not act on ungodly temptations.

Jesus took all thoughts captive to God. He nipped temptation in the bud before it could manifest itself into sinful behavior.

Jesus was different. He was born of God, and God cannot sin.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Pharisees John, Paul, and Simon told us jesus died for us.

One thing I love about Pharisees is they can take a joke, and they also are willing to be the badboys in their own stories. Who kills their own public image, accepting detrimental status for the public good? Most people would not be willing.

The Tanakh & Synoptic Gospels presents the idea Yeshua was murdered by the Leaders of the people, which caused the nullification of the Abrahamic covenant, and the Sinai covenant, thus Judah & Israel were to be Divorced (Zechariah 11), for 30 pieces of silver put into the Potters-field for the price of their Messiah.

Thus the Pharisees have rewritten the contexts, grafting Gentiles onto a defiled covenant wasn't the plan, and thus why in Revelation the whole Church is condemned with 'the Synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews, yet are not' i.e. the Pharisees.

In my opinion.

I feel that you have asked a little too much of the Pharisees for the sake of the one-ness. Also this is very paranoid stuff. These guys do not care what you say, but seriously its unfair.