Reason for Jesus Death Explained

[sooda]

This is all about the meaning of Jesus death based on the NT. Right or wrong this is the argument, however the law does directly command Jewish males to circumcise their hearts. It is not made up in the NT, merely referred to.

Temple Judaism with its blood sacrifices was already failing by the first century. It was too primitive . It no longer worked.

The crucifixion of Jesus is really too much BS. Our all powerful God can't redeem and forgive without blood?? A Muslim would say, "God does not eat nor is He fed"..

 

[Brickjectivity]

Temple Judaism with its blood sacrifices was already failing by the first century. It was too primitive . It no longer worked.

The crucifixion of Jesus is really too much BS. Our all powerful God can't redeem and forgive without blood?? A Muslim would say, "God does not eat nor is He fed"..

The idea of Judaism was still around, and everybody still wanted it to work. It would have worked again eventually. Historically it went through cycles and always came back.

God is in people, and the sacrifice gets eaten by those people. The idea of the sacrifice is of bringing people together. Anyways modern language doesn't carry the same sense as that used in the NT to describe eucharist. People eat the body of Christ, and God is in them. Its not supposed to be logically constructed. You just do it, and you forgive everyone who is also taking Eucharist.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is all about the meaning of Jesus death based on the NT. Right or wrong this is the argument, however the law does directly command Jewish males to circumcise their hearts. It is not made up in the NT, merely referred to.

" Jesus death based on the NT"

My understanding is that Jesus death did not occur on the Cross. This idea as I understand was imported from Pagan-Christ concepts spread in many nations at that time. There are many many clues in the N itself that that Jesus death did not occur on the Cross. Right, please?

Regards

 

[JJ50]

I am of the opinion Jesus died because he was a pain in the neck where the religious authorities of the time were concerned, and for no other reason.n

 

[paarsurrey]

I am of the opinion Jesus died because he was a pain in the neck where the religious authorities of the time were concerned, and for no other reason.n

Well that is one's opinion and claim, but it didn't happen and could not happen, please. Jesus did not agree to you and he made a lot of supplications to G-d most fervently the whole night in the Gethsemane that his life should be saved and because of his righteousness his supplication were heard by G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Brickjectivity]

My understanding is that Jesus death did not occur on the Cross. This idea as I understand was imported from Pagan-Christ concepts spread in many nations at that time. There are many many clues in the N itself that that Jesus death did not occur on the Cross.

The story appears imported but not the meanings. The resurrection is a miracle story and the birth of Jesus is part of that story and is like the birth, death and resurrection of the son of Isis the Egyptian goddess, however the message of the miracle story changes from the Egyptian lessons. Bible stories are similar to some pagan miracle stories that predate them, but all of those pagan miracle stories, like the pagan flood stories and the pagan creation stories and the pagan resurrections do not have the same meanings. The death and resurrection go along with the baby in the manger as a unit. This is why its difficult to say that Jesus does not die. His birth comes from the same gospels that talk about his death, and all of his life appears to borrow from an older Egyptian story that is also seen in some other ancient cultures, as is the flood and as is the creation story.

 

[sooda]

The idea of Judaism was still around, and everybody still wanted it to work. It would have worked again eventually. Historically it went through cycles and always came back.

God is in people, and the sacrifice gets eaten by those people. The idea of the sacrifice is of bringing people together. Anyways modern language doesn't carry the same sense as that used in the NT to describe eucharist. People eat the body of Christ, and God is in them. Its not supposed to be logically constructed. You just do it, and you forgive everyone who is also taking Eucharist.

They weren't supposed to eat temple sacrifices.

So I'm wrong and its simply a communal meal.


Sacrifice in Ancient Israel

 

[sooda]

I am of the opinion Jesus died because he was a pain in the neck where the religious authorities of the time were concerned, and for no other reason.n

It says they saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.. and that was their reason.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They weren't supposed to eat temple sacrifices.

So I'm wrong and its simply a communal meal.


Sacrifice in Ancient Israel

"and its simply a communal meal."

I think they ate part of the fellowship offerings (Lev 7) One thigh and the breast went to the priest's family. One thigh was not to be eaten which was like Jacob's touched thigh, so that would be burned. The animal had to be completely gone with 3 days, and those eating any of it had to be ceremonially clean, the requirements of which were listed in a different chapter. No one could eat the fat or the blood. With such strict requirements its likely that nobody except the priest was allowed to take any home. Maybe it was like eucharist, with the priest placing the meat into each person's mouth?

I'm a little rough on all of the details, but regardless of whether people may share sacrifices nobody is allowed to drink human blood or eat human flesh. That is against the Noahic covenant and also Moses covenant, but the gospels require drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh. Rather than a clue these are plain indicators that maybe none of this is happening in the same universe as the Torah. If someone trained in the Torah were to visit the eucharist they wouldn't see anyone eat human flesh or drink blood. What they would see would be consistent with the universe where the Torah was observed. A Muslim would see the same thing and would probably say "Hey, this isn't blood. Hey I don't see any human meat here." Maybe it is the meaning that is being eaten at the eucharist?

 

[JJ50]

It says they saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.. and that was their reason.

Yeh and pigs might fly!

 

[sooda]

"and its simply a communal meal."

I think they ate part of the fellowship offerings (Lev 7) One thigh and the breast went to the priest's family. One thigh was not to be eaten which was like Jacob's touched thigh, so that would be burned. The animal had to be completely gone with 3 days, and those eating any of it had to be ceremonially clean, the requirements of which were listed in a different chapter. No one could eat the fat or the blood. With such strict requirements its likely that nobody except the priest was allowed to take any home. Maybe it was like eucharist, with the priest placing the meat into each person's mouth?

I'm a little rough on all of the details, but regardless of whether people may share sacrifices nobody is allowed to drink human blood or eat human flesh. That is against the Noahic covenant and also Moses covenant, but the gospels require drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh. Rather than a clue these are plain indicators that maybe none of this is happening in the same universe as the Torah. If someone trained in the Torah were to visit the eucharist they wouldn't see anyone eat human flesh or drink blood. What they would see would be consistent with the universe where the Torah was observed. A Muslim would see the same thing and would probably say "Hey, this isn't blood. Hey I don't see any human meat here." Maybe it is the meaning that is being eaten at the eucharist?

Muslims reject blood sacrifice based on the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Muslims reject blood sacrifice based on the story of Abraham and Isaac.

They don't reject what Abraham did, and do they not eat meat?

 

[paarsurrey]

The story appears imported but not the meanings. The resurrection is a miracle story and the birth of Jesus is part of that story and is like the birth, death and resurrection of the son of Isis the Egyptian goddess, however the message of the miracle story changes from the Egyptian lessons. Bible stories are similar to some pagan miracle stories that predate them, but all of those pagan miracle stories, like the pagan flood stories and the pagan creation stories and the pagan resurrections do not have the same meanings. The death and resurrection go along with the baby in the manger as a unit. This is why its difficult to say that Jesus does not die. His birth comes from the same gospels that talk about his death, and all of his life appears to borrow from an older Egyptian story that is also seen in some other ancient cultures, as is the flood and as is the creation story.

My understanding is that all these are Pagan-Christian wishful thinkings, none of them make one G-d. One who couldn't' save himself from a cursed death on Cross, how could the save the mankind? Right, please?

Regards

 

[sooda]

They don't reject what Abraham did, and do they not eat meat?

I wasn't very clear. When God stopped the sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) they see that as forbidding blood sacrifice forever. They don't believe innocent blood can atone for sin. They think each person is accountable to God.

Of course they eat meat...

 

[Brickjectivity]

My understanding is that all these are Pagan-Christian wishful thinkings, none of them make one G-d. One who couldn't' save himself from a cursed death on Cross, how could the save the mankind?

They are stories adapted to carry a message of peace and hope completely different from the pagan stories. One NT writer says plainly Jesus prays to God to be delivered from death. The gospel of John explains best that the Logos of God dwells in many, Jesus being the first. Its similar to saying we can share as a group God's traits.

The trinity is a restatement of these things having derived them separately through a Greek philosophical path. You have the Father (that from which we inherit our traits), then you have the Son (that which we have received from the Father), then the Holy Spirit (scripture, wisdom etc).

Why the trinity? There are pagan trinities, but this is different. When Christians speak of the Father it ought to be a kind of admission that we have not yet gotten to the inheritance. Its hard to pick up on this perhaps, and a lot of Christians acts as if we'd already arrived. Jesus would say Christians are storing up treasure in heaven, perhaps alluding to this scripture: "You heavens above, rain down my righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness flourish with it; I, the LORD, have created it." (Isaiah 45:8)

So things in the NT writers are not always as clear as people would claim. Often they are futuristic or mystical. If you look at any building its the same way. First come the plans, then come the long years of construction during which no one lives in the building, but when its done it looks as if its always been there.

 

[Audie]

I am of the opinion Jesus died because he was a pain in the neck where the religious authorities of the time were concerned, and for no other reason.n

Nothing about the Romans, who were not into
rabble rousers?

 

[sooda]

Nothing about the Romans, who were not into
rabble rousers?

Hard to say.. Palestine was crawling with prophets and Messiahs. At one point they called King Cyrus the Messiah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wasn't very clear. When God stopped the sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) they see that as forbidding blood sacrifice forever. They don't believe innocent blood can atone for sin. They think each person is accountable to God.

Of course they eat meat...

Technically speaking Jews and Christians also reject the blood sacrifice. We don't think God eats blood. Pagans might think the gods eat blood. We don't. 1. Jews believe man is made in the image of God. 2. Shedding of man's blood is forbidden. 3. Christians don't believe in killing, either. 4. Jews aren't allowed to eat any blood. 5. Christians are not supposed to eat blood either. I don't see what objection Muslims need to have. They may inspect any communion service and will find no blood sacrifice. They will find wine and bread.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nothing about the Romans, who were not into
rabble rousers?

I watched a documentary that said 30,000 Jewish men were crucified by the Romans. The roads were lined with them. This method was most cruel as it gradually suffocated a man stripped naked who was either bound or nailed up. The death could take a very long time.

 

[paarsurrey]

I watched a documentary that said 30,000 Jewish men were crucified by the Romans. The roads were lined with them. This method was most cruel as it gradually suffocated a man stripped naked who was either bound or nailed up. The death could take a very long time.

And Jesus was only for a few hours on the Cross, he was of a strong physique* , it was impossible to die by Jesus in 2/3 hours. Right, please?

Regards

_____________
*Martin Carr, PhD MRSC: Materials Science: Chem and Phys Teacher
"Jesus of Nazareth and that shroud was his actual (temporary) burial cloth. If this is so (and the image has a remarkable correspondence to the injuries suffered by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels) then the man had a lean, reasonably muscular, well toned physique which may be expected for someone of his age, working in a physical career who walked long distances and at least occasionally fasted. A “carpenter” of the time could well have been what we call a construction engineer today"
https://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-Christ-have-a-muscular-physique