What was the Death of Jesus about?

[Thief]

Grateful for illumination.

I wear a ring of my own making
a cross engraved into stainless steel

I don't wear it to sign that I might be Christian
I wear it to remind ......me

the cross is condemnation......the end result of Man made law

and THIS world will condemn anyone

even if you CAN walk on water

 

[blü 2]

I wear a ring of my own making
a cross engraved into stainless steel

I don't wear it to sign that I might be Christian
I wear it to remind ......me

the cross is condemnation......the end result of Man made law

and THIS world will condemn anyone

even if you CAN walk on water

Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me why it was necessary for Jesus ─ or anyone else ─ to die.

 

[Thief]

Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me why it was necessary for Jesus ─ or anyone else ─ to die.

I don't believe His death saved anyone
His parables are the light and salvation

His death was the result of His ministry
in the face of authority

 

[Colt]

What 'shortcomings' have you found?

The Bible is human and contains conflicting theological and historic errors. The NT has (2) gospels. The Book of Revelation is terribly corrupted and dark.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus did no die on the Cross so the questions pointed by one are irrelevant, please. Right?

The idea of a resurrection is that it occurs from an authentically dead state, no?

So the claim of a resurrection necessarily implies a preceding authentically dead state, no?

Or are you saying there was no resurrection? That's certainly arguable, but it's not what the NT says.

As per Jesus, and he was a truthful person, neither Jesus could die on the Cross nor he had to resurrect from the literal and physical dead ;and this is what actually happened as per the clues of the events very much also in the Gospels, I understand. Right?

Regards

 

[John1.12]

I say none of the following is mentioned in the Garden story:
sin
original sin
the fall of man
death entering the world
spiritual death
the need for a redeemer.

I also say that the story is explicit as to why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden: God gives one clear statement of [his] reasons:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
​

If you disagree, please quote the parts of the Garden story that say otherwise.

But better still, tell me why anyone had to die to achieve whatever it was God wanted. Why was there not a bloodless way, a kind and not a cruel way, to achieve it? We're talking about a benevolent and omnipotent God here, aren't we?

wouldn't that be the way WE would write it if it was 'made up '.

 

[John1.12]

I say none of the following is mentioned in the Garden story:
sin
original sin
the fall of man
death entering the world
spiritual death
the need for a redeemer.

I also say that the story is explicit as to why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden: God gives one clear statement of [his] reasons:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
​

If you disagree, please quote the parts of the Garden story that say otherwise.

But better still, tell me why anyone had to die to achieve whatever it was God wanted. Why was there not a bloodless way, a kind and not a cruel way, to achieve it? We're talking about a benevolent and omnipotent God here, aren't we?

I agree ' original sin 'is not mentioned ..Thats a term that comes from Augustine.

 

[John1.12]

I say none of the following is mentioned in the Garden story:
sin
original sin
the fall of man
death entering the world
spiritual death
the need for a redeemer.

I also say that the story is explicit as to why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden: God gives one clear statement of [his] reasons:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
​

If you disagree, please quote the parts of the Garden story that say otherwise.

But better still, tell me why anyone had to die to achieve whatever it was God wanted. Why was there not a bloodless way, a kind and not a cruel way, to achieve it? We're talking about a benevolent and omnipotent God here, aren't we?

I think we know the account . its More the point you don't believe it . I don't think its unbelievable because it seems unreasonable as to how we imagine we would plan and do things.

 

[1213]

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.

I think the other Gospels have the same idea, but they don’t explain it as much. For example, these following scriptures indicates the same idea:

… the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….
Luke 5:21-25

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
Luke 9:20

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Jews had the High Priest as intermediary and could not go confidently to God without the sacrifices that assured their forgiveness under the law.

The thing is, the priests and the kings said that certain priests were intermediaries. It was political, not divine mandate. King Josiah killed Yahwist priests who wouldn’t work in Jerusalem, which upset his plan to get a monopoly of power.

 

[blü 2]

There were plenty of idols and false gods around and Yahweh came on the scene to show He is the only true God and real God, the living God compared to the dead gods.
What you write is the ideas of men changing. The God does not change.

Of course God changes. As I said, if you don't change, you lose your congregation, and if you lose your congregation, you're on the scrapheap with everyone else's discarded deities. As I said, the record shows us Yahweh evolving from one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon with a consort, to one without a consort, to the only God, and for many Christians to the triune God (an incoherent concept, as the churches admit) to an anti-slavery god to an okay with sexual orientations god to a pro women god ... it won't end there.

God heals those who want healing and does not force people to get healing is they do not want it.

No, God is omnipotent and therefore is responsible for everything that happens in the universe from start to finish ─ when you're omnipotent, all the bucks stop at your desk, nowhere else. So (given that you're also benevolent) if one of your creatures is broken, you don't torment it in hellfire for eternity, you heal it. That's a no-brainer for a benevolent being.

The life needed to be taken to satisfy justice and show God's mercy.

You're joking, surely? Hey everyone, my son is relatively sinless so I'm going to crucify him in public to show you how merciful I am!

WHY was that the only way a benevolent omnipotent God could forgive sins?

You get the answer 100 times and do not listen except to complain about it.

You give that answer a hundred times but never explain WHY that was the only way to do it when you're omnipotent.

What other methods did God consider before [he] chose that one, and WHY did [he] discard them?

 

[blü 2]

Jesus did no die on the Cross so the questions pointed by one are irrelevant, please. Right?

Well, it's not what any of the gospel stories or Paul say in the NT.

 

[blü 2]

I don't believe His death saved anyone
His parables are the light and salvation

His death was the result of His ministry
in the face of authority

So his death is misrepresented, and accomplished nothing?

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

I think the other Gospels have the same idea, but they don’t explain it as much. For example, these following scriptures indicates the same idea:

… the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….
Luke 5:21-25

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
Luke 9:20

Ahm, Mark's Jesus is not the son of God until his adoption by God at his baptism. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke don't pre-exist the divine impregnation of Mary. Whereas with the Jesuses of Paul and John, Jesus is the gnostic demiurge, not just pre-existing in heaven with God but creating the material universe (regardless of what Genesis says).

 

[blü 2]

wouldn't that be the way WE would write it if it was 'made up '.

So you agree that none of those things are mentioned in the Garden story?

Since in fact they aren't mentioned, this is progress!

 

[PruePhillip]

The Bible is human and contains conflicting theological and historic errors. The NT has (2) gospels. The Book of Revelation is terribly corrupted and dark.

Maybe it was designed that way? Look at Genesis 1 - it has TWO creation stories, side by
side. And the one which is accurate in its sequence uses the 'seven days' analogy which
many love to mock. It's as if the bible seeks to be mocked - which it often does.
In fact the bible is meant for everyone - if you love God it will touch your heart (read Matt
5,6,7 and latter chapters of John) If you believe its history it will give you the Bronze Age
account and the story of the Jews. If you find it morally offensive it gives you child killing,
sexual impropriety prohibitions. And if you want to mock it will give you talking donkeys
and snakes.
It says that God sends strong delusion.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have a copy of the book somewhere. At over 2000 pages it does have a lot of detail. Much of that detail, like different types of alien beings, I found unconvincing. No way I've read that whole thing, but the selected bits I did look at are fantastic and unverifiable. Plus, why wasn't this whole book inspired from the start, 3000 years ago? Why wait until the 1930's? Heck even the New Testament didn't do the job. The Quran didn't do the job. The Mormon Bible didn't do the job. It just reminds me of Microsoft having to keep issuing patches to fix the operating system.

I like your analogy. Not sure about the 1930's though.
The bible states it is not about appealing to human nature.
And for inspiration the bible revealed the Messiah in stages
over many centuries, for instance
Jacob speaks of a future Hebrew nation that will end with
the Messiah.
Job says this Messiah already lives and will one day walk
on the earth.
David sees this Messiah suffering in crucifixion.
Isaiah sees the Messiah as rejected, dying and rising again.
Zechariah sees the Messiah coming a second time and the
Jews mourning to see it's the same lowly man they killed.

 

[Colt]

Maybe it was designed that way? Look at Genesis 1 - it has TWO creation stories, side by
side. And the one which is accurate in its sequence uses the 'seven days' analogy which
many love to mock. It's as if the bible seeks to be mocked - which it often does.
In fact the bible is meant for everyone - if you love God it will touch your heart (read Matt
5,6,7 and latter chapters of John) If you believe its history it will give you the Bronze Age
account and the story of the Jews. If you find it morally offensive it gives you child killing,
sexual impropriety prohibitions. And if you want to mock it will give you talking donkeys
and snakes.
It says that God sends strong delusion.

The Old Testament was finalized in Babylon after the 1st Temple was destroyed and the Israelites once again in bondage. It was written for the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep herders. The ordinary secular history books all vanished from Jewish culture.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Old Testament was finalized in Babylon after the 1st Temple was destroyed and the Israelites once again in bondage. It was written for the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep herders. The ordinary secular history books all vanished from Jewish culture.

Now that's the RECEIVED WISDOM.
Yet we now know there were many things the Jews of Babylon times simply
could not have known, ie burial practices of the Bronze Age and the destruction
of Shiloh (in Samuel 1)
And the people who gave you this received wisdom did not believe there was
a king David. And just this year the first archaeological evidence that in fact
the population of Israel could have been as large as the bible said it was
(Tinmar Valley excavations.)

 

[blü 2]

You have accepted a certain sceptical ' scholarly ' view of the bible. Possibly Ehrman / Carrier ect .

All reasoned enquiry is skeptical, including historical method, which Ehrman uses. Carrier puts me to sleep in a page and a half, so I've read little of him.

There are others of course . I've never heard of an original reason for not accepting the bible as written.

Well, historical method rules the supernatural out for a start. Otherwise all the gods, miracles, spirits, naiads, sprites, goblins, witches, warlocks, demons, Rainbow Serpents, all the gods and supernatural beings of history would be entitled to equal time. We have not a single authenticated example of a miracle, for example.

And why is there no evidence or reasons given.
Its always " well they were written after the facts , " they were not eyewitnesses "

That's true, they were. So, of course were a great many other ancient documents. Note that these aren't treated differently ─ each ancient document must be assessed for what, where, when, who and why; and all historical conclusions, like all conclusions in physics, are tentative, subject to things we haven't found yet, or haven't seen the relationship yet.

They say they did see , hear , touch, witness and handle . Why would they make it up ?

That they made stuff up is obvious on the face of the record. Apart from the miracles and appearances, and temptation and so on, for example,

the author of Matthew requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 renders Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;

He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2.

He invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.

He absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9;​

And since the authors of Mark, Luke and John do the same or similar things, you notice that it would be possible to write the entire bio of Jesus in this way.

Oh, and apart from the fact that an authentic resurrection is a contradiction in terms, and that we have no contemporary, no independent, no eyewitness account of it, the accounts of the resurrection in Paul, the four gospels and Acts 1 each contradict the other five in major ways. The evidence is of stunningly low quality. You may remember the Ganesha milk-drinking miracles a few years ago, with videos on the net of statues of Ganesha "drinking milk". That evidence of a miracle was many orders of magnitude better in quality than the bible accounts of the resurrection, but no one who wasn't already a believer was persuaded by it.

To be clear, my own view is that there may have been an historical Jesus, but if there was ─ it's possible there was not ─ then we know very little about him, and the gospels are not innately credible or reliable sources and require considerable care.