What was the Death of Jesus about?

[John1.12]

Because you have a flawed, no true Christian view of Christianity that has a sola scriptura doctrine. According to you, unless a person was the exact kind of Christian you are, they weren't a real Christian. What a great way to never engage in a real debate. Just point out that the person to whom you're speaking was never a true Christian, throw in some Protestant nonsense about sola scriptura, and write off 90% of Christians throughout history up to now.

I tired to be cordial with you. I tried to actually engage with you. But you don't want to. All you want to do is tell folks they weren't your brand of Christian and therefore they're wrong. This is a dishonest, pathetic, low-brow debate technique that benefits no-one. We could actually have a meaningful discussion if you want, about Christianity, and I'd be absolutely up for that.

Instead, you just want to lord it over the 'fake ex Christians'.

So do you want a meaningful discussion or not?

//unless a person was the exact kind of Christian//
No, according to the bible . The bible says :
Rom 8
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9¶But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
So as you did not recieve the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian.

 

[Rival]

So as you did not recieve the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian.

Mate did you even read what I wrote or are you a fake, too? Just here to annoy folks and waste our time?

 

[John1.12]

Because you have a flawed, no true Christian view of Christianity that has a sola scriptura doctrine. According to you, unless a person was the exact kind of Christian you are, they weren't a real Christian. What a great way to never engage in a real debate. Just point out that the person to whom you're speaking was never a true Christian, throw in some Protestant nonsense about sola scriptura, and write off 90% of Christians throughout history up to now.

I tired to be cordial with you. I tried to actually engage with you. But you don't want to. All you want to do is tell folks they weren't your brand of Christian and therefore they're wrong. This is a dishonest, pathetic, low-brow debate technique that benefits no-one. We could actually have a meaningful discussion if you want, about Christianity, and I'd be absolutely up for that.

Instead, you just want to lord it over the 'fake ex Christians'.

So do you want a meaningful discussion or not?

The bible. I've said it from the beginning. Your trying to shoe horn me into a denomination. I'm non denomination. I stand on the Bible alone. My Three axioms are . The bible is true . It comes from God and God cannot lie.

 

[John1.12]

Mate did you even read what I wrote or are you a fake, too? Just here to annoy folks and waste our time?

According to the Bible if you recieved the Holy spirit ,then your still a Christian.If you NEVER received then you were NEVER a Christian. Simple ,simple , simple.

 

[1213]

...
But WHY is that the only way to go about it?...

I have no reason to say it would be the only way. Perhaps there would have been other ways also, but for some reason this was the best.

... But Jesus, at least in John, say he's the ONLY way to God. ....

I think that is little different thing than I thought intermediate means. I thought it means person who acts in between men and God.

 

[blü 2]

They did notice Jesus, they noticed enough to follow Jesus around spying on him, heckling him, challenging him and put Jesus through a trumped up trial and had him killed by the Romans. They thought that they got rid of Jesus when their problems with him had only just begun.

Yes, Mark says the trial of Jesus was a big deal, and Matthew and Luke, and more remotely John, use his version as a template.

However, Mark's account of the trial is not, at least of itself, historical. Instead it's devised from Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in The Jewish Wars, VI.5.3. That is, if indeed there was a trial of Jesus, the author of Mark didn't know any details and made up his own account, the only account.

Had the trial of Jesus been the event described, involving the foremost religious leaders of the Jews, the Prefect in person, and mobs that threatened him with demands, it seems probable that some independent report of it would exist. However, like the rest of Mark's account, there's nothing.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Why was his death necessary? If God is omnipotent, God can get any effect [he] wishes without bloodshed. And sacrificing [his] own son to [him]self is an entirely barbaric notion, no?

You sound like a smart guy, you ask great questions.

God is smart too.

If He's doing it this way, it must be for a good reason.

There must be a very good reason for it.

I bet you'll figure it out.

There's some great answers so far in the posts.

Because it's not just about us. There was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.

There was a time when all the stars of heaven sang as one. And all the sons of God shouted for joy. They were all the best of friends for millions of years. All members of the God family. And now they are not.

God could have snapped His fingers and annihilated the transgressors in an instant, for the penalty of sin is death. But what would the holy angels say? What if God could have done something else? What if God could have gone back in time and forced a positive outcome? Like Einstein asking if God had any choice in creating the world in the way that he did. What if God could have done something to give them all a chance to repair the damage or repent? I don't think God can break His own righteous rules.

All this was baked in the cake. Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world.

It's a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The hard part is over. He was slain, but now He lives.

When we arrive at the culmination of this, what happens durring God's eradication of the problem of sin should not cause any doubt to all involved. Even the angelic host who might have millions of more years of experience than us will understand.

I'm sure it will be clear to us then.

How we all got caught up in the Devil's bargain.

Good thread.

 

[Colt]

Yes, Mark says the trial of Jesus was a big deal, and Matthew and Luke, and more remotely John, use his version as a template.

However, Mark's account of the trial is not, at least of itself, historical. Instead it's devised from Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in The Jewish Wars, VI.5.3. That is, if indeed there was a trial of Jesus, the author of Mark didn't know any details and made up his own account, the only account.

Had the trial of Jesus been the event described, involving the foremost religious leaders of the Jews, the Prefect in person, and mobs that threatened him with demands, it seems probable that some independent report of it would exist. However, like the rest of Mark's account, there's nothing.

The Jews hated Jesus, they certainly didn’t make records about him. What hand written records of daily life in Israel are there in existence concerning the news?

 

[blü 2]

God does not change.

Of course [he] does. In prehistory [he] had a female consort, Asherah. In the bible, [he] starts out as one tribal god among many (Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 82:1, Psalm 86:8, Psalms 95:3, Psalm 135:5 &c.), declared by [his] followers to be the foremost God (henotheism: "you shall have no other gods before me", not "there ain't no other gods"). Then at the time of the Babylonian Captivity or shortly after [he] becomes the only God (monotheism). Then in the 4th century CE the Christian version of this God becomes triune; in the 18th century [he] begins to give up [his] approval of slavery; in the 20th century [his] opposition to divorce; in the 21st century [his] opposition to homosexuality, indeed LGBTQ, and so on. Gods who don't change with their congregations lose their congregations, and to lose your congregation is to lose your god status and pass from relevance.

The same problem of people being evil. Plenty of people would take forgiveness instead of taking the consequences of sin if all it took was a snap of God's fingers. As it is now people have a choice.

When I get to be an omnipotent God, all that will change. Postmortal souls that fall into my hands deeply or lightly stained with sin will be healed, not thrown into everlasting fires.

He did the painful thing for us.

But that's not the question.

The question is, why was any such vile thing necessary at all? A God sacrificing to [him]self? Sheesh!

The tree of life was there but we did not get the chance to get to the stage where A@E ever ate the fruit.
The penalty of sin was death, that implies no death is there was no sin.

I say again, the Garden story in Genesis never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything like that. The Sin idea is first found among the Jews of Alexandria late in the second century BCE, mentioned once by Paul, and made popular by Augustine of Hippo around 400 CE. In other words, it's a latecoming idea wished onto a text that in no way supports it.

 

[blü 2]

I don't say that we shouldn't have these questions. Just that there are questions . I believe the bible answers them .

Then tell me WHY is was necessary for Jesus to set out on a mission to die, and to suffer death by crucifixion, when God is said to be both omnipotent and benevolent ─ and since you say the answer's in the bible, please quote me the explanation, the reason why it had to be like that.

 

[blü 2]

Nope, you are absolutely not wrong. It happens that you have your story, a Jew has his story, a Muslim has his story, a Hindu has his story, a formal Christian has his story and I, naturally, have also my story.
The good news is that everyone is happy with his story.
Isn't it a wonderful happy world?!

Wall-to-wall giggles from breakfast to bedtime!

 

[blü 2]

It is disappointing that the typical historical approach towards Jesus will leave things frustratingly unanswered and open to different speculations. I have come to consider other (psychic and legendary) sources of information too, but that's for another day.

Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

I believe death was necessary for the resurrection.

But the question is , WHY was it necessary, when you have an omnipotent and benevolent God in charge?

He needs an intermediary [because] most people are not attuned to God's Spirit.

There's nothing to suggest that the Jews were not attuned to God's spirit. If they weren't, why didn't [he] just tell them? WHY was bloodshed necessary?

why a new intermediary

[?] .. the other intermediaries were not as direct as God Himself.

The idea that God needed intermediaries is from Greek gnosticism, not from Jewish theology. My understanding is that anyone of the Jewish faith can pray directly to God in the expectation of being heard, and that has always been the case.

why the first century[?] .. it takes a long time to spread the gospel to every person on earth.

An omnipotent being has no such problem, If [he] wants X, [he] instantly gets X. Or as they sing in Jesus Christ, Superstar, "Why'd you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?"

 

[blü 2]

So he could suffer humiliation in dying, for those of us who suffered the same. He had to suffer everything everyone else did.

That doesn't explain why it was necessary. Are you saying it was gratuitous? It certainly appears to be.

 

[blü 2]

Are you sure?

I could make it all drawn out and boring? Just for you!

No, I couldn't, I wouldn't, impose on your kindness to such a crushing extent.

Go well!

 

[blü 2]

I think that is little different thing than I thought intermediate means. I thought it means person who acts in between men and God.

In John Jesus indeed uses it in that sense. But John is gnostic-flavored, with the idea that God is pure spirit and accordingly infinitely remote, such that it would never cross [his] mind to create the material universe, a job which falls to a being [he] created called the demiurge ('craftsman'), on earth known as Jesus. Paul is of the same school but John is the only gospel holding this view.

 

[blü 2]

God is smart too.

If He's doing it this way, it must be for a good reason.

There must be a very good reason for it.

A very good reason to sacrifice your son to yourself?

In a remote corner of the Roman Empire?

When you're omnipotent and benevolent, and thus able to achieve anything you want, perfectly, and without bloodshed, or indeed harm to anyone?

I bet you'll figure it out.

I figure that when I get to be omnipotent and benevolent, nothing of the kind will be needed.

 

[blü 2]

The Jews hated Jesus, they certainly didn’t make records about him. What hand written records of daily life in Israel are there in existence concerning the news?

Alternatively, it suited the authors of the gospels to exaggerate the impact Jesus actually had as a player in the Jewish religion industry. There's no contemporary mention of him, no NT author ever met an historical Jesus, Paul (writing 20+ years after the traditional date of Jesus' death) gives only a bio that will fit in two or three lines. Mark (writing 45 years or so after) is the first and only substantial bio, and a lot of it is invented by moving Jesus through scenes from the Tanakh that the author of Mark liked to think were messianic prophecies.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That doesn't explain why it was necessary. Are you saying it was gratuitous? It certainly appears to be.

Never mind.

 

[Colt]

Alternatively, it suited the authors of the gospels to exaggerate the impact Jesus actually had as a player in the Jewish religion industry. There's no contemporary mention of him, no NT author ever met an historical Jesus, Paul (writing 20+ years after the traditional date of Jesus' death) gives only a bio that will fit in two or three lines. Mark (writing 45 years or so after) is the first and only substantial bio, and a lot of it is invented by moving Jesus through scenes from the Tanakh that the author of Mark liked to think were messianic prophecies.

I disagree, the gospel writers were understudies and students of apostles and other first hand accounts. John had his understudy write for him. That was common.

As an Atheist you want to discredit what we know about Jesus. That’s obvious.