What was the Death of Jesus about?

[rational experiences]

A Messiah is a one of term inferred.

First of all the subject is I am a human first my origin is human.

The second subject is I am a human destroyer a scientist who chose it for us all as humans then blamed God.

When science changed God.

At the moment their head mind says I have reduced the form of God as a subject theory to a particle. Notice I have reduced an idea by thoughts only first.

God was never inferred as a particle ever.

Humans should be warned of God inferred in that reference if you owned common sense.

God was always inferred as sealed mass of stone. In any theory.

A human states heavens reacted for 6 days. Reaction 666666666.

No reaction can react as equals the reaction for six days. As it would be activated not known until end reactive stage was reached.

Review radiation one state burnt the atmosphere as one reaction caused for six days. One state recurring as it is natural radiation itself by mass.

Not any constant.

You should start to realise science lied.

Why Satanists are not conscience and why a conscious brother had to argue for safety of life continuance.

A Messiah is said to be human.
Spiritual conscious.
Given messages that relate to why life was saved to own warnings that life was being attacked.

Always human life was already living as a human or prophecised to return as a human advising again.

Human consciousness.
Human behaviour.
Changed behaviours.

Notification a very spiritual man group invented science. Overlooked.

Attacks destroys sacrifices life on earth.

Evolution allows healing by cooling. Life returns to its higher life.

Life body mind heals human re evolved back into higher self. Reapplied same attack again. As higher conscious healed life causes it.

It was never a lower life consciousness that destroyed us. Ignored advice.

A human had to know God to change God.

The Messiah harmed before healed gets harmed again to know. As a man human.

We are all humans first.

Titles used for records only.

 

[PruePhillip]

There's an explanation for why there are two accounts that contradict, and that was to appease two different factions whose narrative differed. To include both was political. Neither are factually true.

Explain how it is accurate, and how 7 days applies to reality.

If you assume this God exists you will assume the Bible is true and touches you.

It is written with the observer in mind, situated on earth, and written with symbolic overtones and with some repetition.

First God created the heavens

... and the earth.

(Now we are on the earth - a dark, sterile, ocean world.)

first the skies cleared

then the continents rose

then life appeared on land (fresh water)

then life appeared in the oceans

then man.

Over the past twenty years this narrative has become the scientific one. In 2021 the first evidence of an earth as a dark cloud
planet like Venus. 2020 a consensus that life began on land. 2005 discovery of ocean world earth. Continental evolution ca 1960's.
1871 Darwin's 'warm pond' theory.

 

[PruePhillip]

What are you talking about? I didn’t say there wasn’t a David?

Just say'n - it was received wisdom that the story of David was a myth
because quote, "there is no evidence of King David"
but no evidence doesn't mean no David. But in the minds of many
who read this material this is exactly what it meant - no David.
This is how some biblical 'scholars' bamboozle people. I know, I have
spent years arguing with these guys.

 

[Neuropteron]

I can find nothing to inhibit directly approaching God in any of that.

On the contrary, eg Exodus 22:27 says, "And if he ["your neighbor"] cries to me [God], I will hear, for I am compassionate."

No mediator required.

This is why I ask how come a mediator is required in the 1st century when none was required before.
My apologies if I was unclear. I meant there is no discussion of the meaning of free will that I'm aware of. The phrase "of their own free will" simply means "without external compulsion", no?
I have several difficulties with that view. First, I don't accept that the NT's view of the Tanakh is the correct reading of the Tanakh ─ which on theological questions was and is a Jewish book, and on historical questions is a set of ancient documents to be examined, assessed and as far as possible understood by historical method.

Second, a thousand years is not a day in the story, and no one ever suggests in the story that the snake lied or misrepresented ─ on the contrary everything he said turns out to be correct. Not till Psalm 90:4 do we come to that idea:

For a thousand years in thy sight
Are but as yesterday when it is past,
And as a watch in the night.​

which is clearly a simile , not an identification. Nor does the idea recur in the Tanakh that I'm aware of.

Third, there's no mention of sin at all in the Garden story.

Thanks for your reply.

Hi,

I completely understand your reservations and the obstacle your finding in assembling Bible concepts in an orderly fashion.

The Bible can be frustrating for a rational an orderly mind because it is not "written" in an orderly and rational manner.

The Bible is a textbook that has a difficult to understand format, is not written in chronological order, there is no clear subdivisions of doctrines, concepts or principles. No gradual learning curve. Clarification are often given hundreds or thousands of years after the events. Some prophesies have mixed timelines, some are very specific, still others are veiled and difficult to understand whilst some prophesies are understood only after fulfillment.

Because of this, those that are attempting to understand the Bible and use it as they would -let say a book on Algebra- will no succeed.

One could be forgiven for remarking that a God of order could have written a more organized textbook. However, it seems quite clear that this is by design.

Why?
Because 1/ the unsteady and untaught are not "meant" to understand the Bible, and are given opportunity to twist the scriptures to reflect their own thinking.(2Pet 3:16)

2/ God expect a person to make a serious effort to understand (prov 2:4) and to rely on him, instead or relying on his own wisdom (ps 37:5,prv 3:5).

A better analogy, perhaps is to look at the Bible not as a textbook but as a large and complex jigsaw puzzle. When a piece does not fit, it's because understanding is lacking. The more piece we place in it proper place the more we discern the meaning as a clear pattern emerges
we can know with certainty that, since this understanding is intrinsically linked with other parts of the puzzle, only one meaning is possible.

When that happens the perception that the Bible is chaotic unravels to become an homogeneous, defined and unambiguous message,


cheers.

 

[Colt]

Just say'n - it was received wisdom that the story of David was a myth
because quote, "there is no evidence of King David"
but no evidence doesn't mean no David. But in the minds of many
who read this material this is exactly what it meant - no David.
This is how some biblical 'scholars' bamboozle people. I know, I have
spent years arguing with these guys.

David was real it’s just that his story was exaggerated like much of the Old Testament.

 

[rational experiences]

Father memories lived life recorded over all ages as a human.

Says his brother who is our brother became who you believe is God man in heavens.

The story. Eternal sent all spirits across from the other side of the spirit heavens.

Only the gas form is a spirit of God.

We manifested nearly a full human but weren't. We once never owned death.

We demanifested most men did all women had.

One group was held manifest. Yet not physical living. Nearly physical.

They knew light held them to be forced to manifest. Knew. They were held not by their will. By the state gas spirit.

Why science was invented.

Instead released they were bodily converted.

By the time our parents re manifested that group of men had bio demanifested by water and microbial ownership into the cloud man being.

They were first.

Our parents never knew. It was eventually learnt. By our living experience.

Factually creation never owned a God consciousness.

Our earth heavens gained a man God angel form. By conditions of chosen circumstance.

Proven multi times and is not arguable.

How it occurred.

Never being a father the God angel we never knew him. As first form of man.

Father taught me about his brother.

What humanity forget our parents were brother and sister. So he was our brother also.

By conditions to use conscious human X two explanations. Equality.

 

[blü 2]

If you read in Luke that 'road to Emmaus' account you will see that only a 'stranger' would not have known what had happened in Jerusalem. The trial of Jesus involved Herod, Pilot, the Sanhedrin and the high priests, Jesus entry into Jerusalem the week before came with much acclaim and every day the people were attentive to hear Him.

How many? All twelve? Luke wasn't there. Paul wasn't there. None of the NT authors was there. If there was an historical Jesus such an event is not impossible; and a noticeable crowd might be possible. But your snese of narrative wouldn't let you write a gospel and say your hero rode into Jerusalem cheered on by some buddies and a friendly dog, would it?

Anyway, none of that tells us WHY any death was necessary to accomplish whatever it was that God wanted to accomplish.

 

[blü 2]

Apple ?

Old way of referring to the fruit. Used in old songs and jokes. Ir doesn't really say apple,

 

[blü 2]

I completely understand your reservations and the obstacle your finding in assembling Bible concepts in an orderly fashion.

Thanks.

The Bible can be frustrating for a rational an orderly mind because it is not "written" in an orderly and rational manner.[/quote] But here I'm focusing on just one puzzle : WHAT exactly was God setting out to accomplish and WHY did it have to involve a death, given that God is said to be benevolent as well as omnipotent?

A better analogy, perhaps is to look at the Bible not as a textbook but as a large and complex jigsaw puzzle. When a piece does not fit, it's because understanding is lacking.

Well put. It appears that no one knows why Jesus had to die, for example,

And yet the crucifix, with figure or empty, is the central symbol of Christianity. So the average onlooker might be forgiven for expecting that this particular question would have a clear, crisp answer, instead of a total blank.

 

[PruePhillip]

How many? All twelve? Luke wasn't there. Paul wasn't there. None of the NT authors was there. If there was an historical Jesus such an event is not impossible; and a noticeable crowd might be possible. But your snese of narrative wouldn't let you write a gospel and say your hero rode into Jerusalem cheered on by some buddies and a friendly dog, would it?

Anyway, none of that tells us WHY any death was necessary to accomplish whatever it was that God wanted to accomplish.

Yes, Luke came onto the scene later. He became a preacher and was with Paul in that last
boat journey to Rome we read in Acts.
Paul may or may not have been there. We don't know. Wouldn't be surprised if indeed he
was there as he was at Jerusalem and he was a significant person.
The Apostles were with Jesus as Jerusalem.
The crowd, according to the Gospels, turned out after hearing the man who raized Lazarus
was coming.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God's intention was for humans to live forever, thus the tree of life.

Well apparently only some jellyfish or whatever ate from it.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, Luke came onto the scene later. He became a preacher and was with Paul in that last
boat journey to Rome we read in Acts.
Paul may or may not have been there. We don't know. Wouldn't be surprised if indeed he
was there as he was at Jerusalem and he was a significant person.
The Apostles were with Jesus as Jerusalem.
The crowd, according to the Gospels, turned out after hearing the man who raized Lazarus
was coming.

So why was it necessary for Jesus to die?

 

[F1fan]

In as much as TWO Messiahs are spoken of then I see no difference in these
Messianic prophecies. Your idea of various cults over the millennium is interesting
but you would need to identify how the cultic order of Israel changed from Moses
onward. I don't see that.

That Jews didn't buy into the whole notion of Jesus being THE messiah as predicted in the Jewish text tells us something. That's understandable since Christians changed the definition of Messiah and salvation.

It's all known that there were various religious sects and teachers that came about with new ideas. Some speculation about the jesus story was an illustration of numerous religious leaders that gained some degree of popularity.

Even the centuries after the supposed time of Jesus had many diverse sects of what ended up becoming unified as Catholics under Constantine. Heck, even under the umbrella of Christianity there are over 40,000 sects.

 

[F1fan]

It is written with the observer in mind, situated on earth, and written with symbolic overtones and with some repetition.

First God created the heavens

... and the earth.

(Now we are on the earth - a dark, sterile, ocean world.)

first the skies cleared

then the continents rose

then life appeared on land (fresh water)

then life appeared in the oceans

then man.

Over the past twenty years this narrative has become the scientific one. In 2021 the first evidence of an earth as a dark cloud
planet like Venus. 2020 a consensus that life began on land. 2005 discovery of ocean world earth. Continental evolution ca 1960's.
1871 Darwin's 'warm pond' theory.

Your synopsis is inaccurate and you know it. God created the earth and heavens. Then it created light, which means the sun. False, the sun existed first, and planets formed with help from the sun's gravity. But then after plants were created God created the two lights, the sun {again?} and the moon, which only reflects light. Wrong order. The moon formed before life did and from the gravity of the earth. So not very scientific. That some elements are consistent with science is not extraordinary. Even primitive people can sort out that animals depend on plants so God should have made them first, right? A God should know the correct order.

 

[John1.12]

So why was it necessary for Jesus to die?

Because that's what God decided .

 

[1213]

Ahm, Mark's Jesus is not the son of God until his adoption by God at his baptism. ...

There is no reason to think that Jesus was not the son before God told it.

 

[savagewind]

When you say you trust God what exactly is it you are trusting?

Righteousness. I believe that there is such a thing as righteousness. Who's the boss of it?

 

[blü 2]

Because that's what God decided .

Sure, But WHY did God so decide?

If we don't understand why it HAD to be a tormented death then we don't understand anything.

 

[blü 2]

There is no reason to think that Jesus was not the son before God told it.

Yes there is. The gospel of Mark is the first and only substantial earthly bio of Jesus. Paul's earlier version will fit in three lines, Matthew and Luke use Mark as their template, that template is also the basis, at a greater distance, of John.

And in that bio, Jesus is an ordinary Jew, a sinner whose sins are washed off by JtB, and only then do the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as [his] son, on the model of [his] earlier adoption of David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33). The birth of Mark's Jesus is not attended by portents or angelic messengers ─ instead his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:31). And he's the only Jesus that is not said to be descended from David (a claim made for the other four, but self-evidently absurd if God and not Joseph is your father, as with the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke).

Note too that the stories of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are full of fictions, and their wonders are not mentioned in Paul, Mark or John. For example (as I may have mentioned earlier here):

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 Greek 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 so on.

 

[Colt]

Sure, But WHY did God so decide?

If we don't understand why it HAD to be a tormented death then we don't understand anything.

Jesus told his enemies that the death and resurrection would be proof of his authority. Plus he was supposed to experience death like we all will.