What was the Death of Jesus about?

[blü 2]

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.

That STILL doesn't tell us WHY a death ─ and an usually cruel one ─ was necessary to achieve this, or anything else a benevolent, omnipotent God might wish to achieve.

 

[Colt]

That STILL doesn't tell us why a death (and an usually cruel one) was necessary ─ to achieve this, or anything else a benevolent, omnipotent God might wish to achieve.

I can explain, it’s because God does everything the “natural way”. Jesus shared the death experience with you. When your time comes you have a God who has experienced it. Jesus would see the excessive use of great demonstrations of his power as insulting and intrusive to our natural habitat and training regime.

 

[blü 2]

I can explain, it’s because God does everything the “natural way”. Jesus shared the death experience with you. When your time comes you have a God who has experienced it. Jesus would see the excessive use of great demonstrations of his power as insulting and intrusive to our natural habitat and training regime.

That doesn't quite fit.

God is also omniscient. [He] knows ─ indeed, being perfect, [he] perfectly knows ─ what death is like, not just for the one who dies but for those affected by the death. And [he] likewise perfectly knows these things on both sides of the veil, no?

So we still don't know why Jesus' death was NECESSARY, what exactly it was meant to achieve or WHY there was no other way for a benevolent omnipotent being to achieve the same thing.

 

[Colt]

That doesn't quite fit.

God is also omniscient. [He] knows ─ indeed, being perfect, [he] perfectly knows ─ what death is like, not just for the one who dies but for those affected by the death. And [he] likewise perfectly knows these things on both sides of the veil, no?

So we still don't know why Jesus' death was NECESSARY, what exactly it was meant to achieve or WHY there was no other way for a benevolent omnipotent being to achieve the same thing.

The son of God had not ever experienced being human, let alone death. God is experiencing through our experience.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

The problem doesn't lie with the sequence as much as it lies with the
way its written. I think it says the sun appears three times - now even
the ancients knew that wasn't correct.

The sun appeared TO THE OBSERVER in Genesis.
YOU are the observer. It's as if Genesis is saying, "How did the world
come to be? Well if YOU were here when the world formed this is what
you would see."

It's like the old saying 'The sun rises in the East.'
Is that true, or does the earth spin on its axis and orbit the sun, and the
sun orbits the galaxy and the galaxy is heading towards Andromeda?

You just say "The sun rises in the East."
And according to Einstein you are perfectly correct in saying that - YOUR
point of view is a valid as anyone looking down on the plane of the solar
orbit. And on the moon you can say the sun and earth rise.

And so on the early earth the sun appeared in the sky - not because it
had just formed but because it just appeared.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Yes, MOST Jews did not buy into the REDEEMER prophecies (remember, Jesus, his followers and those after
Him 1st Century were mostly Jews)
Why not? Because the Jews wanted a king. They didn't see the need for redemption of their own sins before
they felt they had no sin worth redeeming. And what's more exciting to a worldly mind - redemption from sin or
an all conquering king?
So the Redeemer verses were ignored, downplayed or re-interpreted (as clumsily as they could)
BUT... the Redeemer in the Old Testament is a man who already lives but one day would be born to a woman
and stand upon the earth. He would be despised and rejected of his people and his own brothers and sisters.
He would heal the sick and raise the dead. He would preach deliverance to the captives (ie His sinful people)
He would be captured, tried and executed. His hands and feet would be pierced. He would be given vinegar
and gall to drink. His garments would be parted. He would die a cruel death. He would rise from the grave. He
would see the result of His suffering and be glad. His message would go to all the world. His image (the
crucified Christ) would startle kings. His nation would be rejected of God and go into exile - they would stay in
exile until the Gentiles no longer believed. He would return in glory and the Jews would mourn to see their
long awaited Messiah king was the same lowly man they crucifiedl

This is all in the Old Testament. Every Jew can read it - Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and Zechariah I quote
here mostly.

 

[paarsurrey]

None of the gospel writers ever met an historical Jesus.
Yes, we assume that's what "the church of God" means.
Paul, it appears, was dead before 60 CE. The first gospel, Mark, was written around 75
CE.

That is why I added the sentence:
"And which Paul (his associates and the Church) did, I understand. Right?"

The process started by Paul got continued by his associates and the Pauline-Church he founded, I understand. It had nothing to do with Jesus and Jesus' teachings. Right?

Regards

 

[PruePhillip]

That doesn't quite fit.
.

Re Mark being written AD 75 or later.
That is simply not true. It's the fashionable assumption of many biblical academics
who largely dismiss the entire biblical project.
Luke quoted from Mark's Gospel. Luke died about AD 66. He had already written
his own Gospel before beginning on The Acts. I suggest Luke's Gospel was done
in the 50's and his Acts in the 60's. Mark could have been in the 30's or 40's.

Saying 'there's no evidence...' means little. Absence of evidence is not evidence
for absence.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans own bodies that feel pain and suffering.

A life condition.

We all hope we will be healthy.
We know an equal atmospheric condition supported the highest form created human life.

So no one should be sick.

Basic human conscience natural advice.

We claim to any human use commonsense and don't be coerced.

Yet you believe in coercion.

Spirit memory said the first form manifested man human life was the same DNA owner who gave us bodily death and pain and suffering.

How the first voice image man god like presence human was placed by microbiome burning carbon irradiation water evaporation into cloud imaged.

The theme memory man god term.

Man did it to us. Scientist.

A spirit teaching. Our bodies never needed to eat food. We did not own pain or suffering. We never owned death.

First man form changed nature in pyramid science thesis time transport. Even was heard confessing spiritually of what he caused.

Reason wanted to go back to being in the eternal spirit. Not a human spirit.

Man was possessed by science and machine since. Did it again. Did it again. Did it again.

Atlantis into sAtanlit all life destroyed.
Moses.
Jesus.

So the text quotes three times the man scientist has denied life it's healing return.

As the warning.

You either believe we came from spirit as a pre owned body or you don't.

Science a human tries to claim a thesis how we were invented by his thoughts.

Spirit is known. We have had variations in experiences to tell a story about the eternal presence being real. And that a form of man god spirit did it to himself from the eternal form.

A pre eternal being has always existed. It caused creation and God by mass O sounds was sung out of its body burst burnt. Creation.

After heavens filled in space spirit came across once again released sung out of the eternal. Not for any reason. The heavens naturally returned accrued. Forced it.

Why the theme man god is a self contradiction that took nature into a lower manifested form by radiation passing through its spirit body.

Pre formed bodies.
Pre owned bodies of same eternal substance.
Converted by radiation.

Why science cannot trace it.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, MOST Jews did not buy into the REDEEMER prophecies (remember, Jesus, his followers and those after
Him 1st Century were mostly Jews)
Why not? Because the Jews wanted a king. They didn't see the need for redemption of their own sins before
they felt they had no sin worth redeeming. And what's more exciting to a worldly mind - redemption from sin or
an all conquering king?
So the Redeemer verses were ignored, downplayed or re-interpreted (as clumsily as they could)
BUT... the Redeemer in the Old Testament is a man who already lives but one day would be born to a woman
and stand upon the earth. He would be despised and rejected of his people and his own brothers and sisters.
He would heal the sick and raise the dead. He would preach deliverance to the captives (ie His sinful people)
He would be captured, tried and executed. His hands and feet would be pierced. He would be given vinegar
and gall to drink. His garments would be parted. He would die a cruel death. He would rise from the grave. He
would see the result of His suffering and be glad. His message would go to all the world. His image (the
crucified Christ) would startle kings. His nation would be rejected of God and go into exile - they would stay in
exile until the Gentiles no longer believed. He would return in glory and the Jews would mourn to see their
long awaited Messiah king was the same lowly man they crucifiedl

This is all in the Old Testament. Every Jew can read it - Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and Zechariah I quote
here mostly.

Jews have had 2000 years to review their book and the New Testament and they aren;t convinced. I know it bugs some Christians.

 

[F1fan]

The problem doesn't lie with the sequence as much as it lies with the
way its written. I think it says the sun appears three times - now even
the ancients knew that wasn't correct.

The sun appeared TO THE OBSERVER in Genesis.
YOU are the observer. It's as if Genesis is saying, "How did the world
come to be? Well if YOU were here when the world formed this is what
you would see."

It's like the old saying 'The sun rises in the East.'
Is that true, or does the earth spin on its axis and orbit the sun, and the
sun orbits the galaxy and the galaxy is heading towards Andromeda?

You just say "The sun rises in the East."
And according to Einstein you are perfectly correct in saying that - YOUR
point of view is a valid as anyone looking down on the plane of the solar
orbit. And on the moon you can say the sun and earth rise.

And so on the early earth the sun appeared in the sky - not because it
had just formed but because it just appeared.

Jews don't take it literally, so that would be good advice for Christians.

 

[F1fan]

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

Since you're the one you believes in it, you're the boss of it. I don't know what your attitudes are, but let's note that the Southern Baptists of the Confederate States of America believed their mission was righteous. What does this tell us? That mere mortals, like us, need to be very careful about exploiting God and the Bible for our own immoral ends when we have ulterior motives that have no test in front of an actual God.

In some way these extreme Christians whose beliefs are immoral must not really believe a God exists. If they did they would be bending over backwards with humility in fear to offend God's judgment. They don't. They act as if they are the highest authority they have to answer to.

 

[PruePhillip]

Jews don't take it literally, so that would be good advice for Christians.

What Jews do or don't do isn't the issue.
It's super contentious to say this but
THE BIBLE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE JEWS.

There's no book that condemns the Jews like the bible does. Even Moses said the
Hebrews would not retain their homeland. A whole generation of them had died on
the journey to the Promise Land. Jesus outraged his own townsfolk by reminding
them that in the days of Elias only two people were helped during a famine - one
was Lebanese and the other was Syrian.
And almost every author of the Old Testament condemned the Jews and spoke of
the ultimate destruction of Israel.
And of course, there's the New Testament, written solely by Jews, against the
Jews.

So the Jews can say Jesus was 'not the Messiah but a naughty boy', but then they
have to explain how they lost their nation in three terrible wars and suffered ever
since as they were driven from country to country and hated by everyone. Maybe
THEY are the 'naughty boy' who don't know their own bible.

Certainly Zechariah saw it that way when he said the Jews will mourn when they
see that their long awaited Messiah was the lowly man they crucified.

 

[F1fan]

What Jews do or don't do isn't the issue.
It's super contentious to say this but
THE BIBLE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE JEWS.

The Old Testament does. The New Testament is irrelevant to them.

And of course, there's the New Testament, written solely by Jews, against the
Jews.

That's why they are Christians. And Christians are so divisive there are over 40,000 sects.

So the Jews can say Jesus was 'not the Messiah but a naughty boy', but then they
have to explain how they lost their nation in three terrible wars and suffered ever
since as they were driven from country to country and hated by everyone. Maybe
THEY are the 'naughty boy' who don't know their own bible.

Or maybe Christians are lost and have no authority over Jews.

Certainly Zechariah saw it that way when he said the Jews will mourn when they
see that their long awaited Messiah was the lowly man they crucified.

He's been wrong so far.

 

[Rival]

but then they
have to explain how they lost their nation in three terrible wars and suffered ever
since as they were driven from country to country and hated by everyone.

Because the Christians threw them out because of their irrational hatred, not as a result of anything Jews actually did.

 

[blü 2]

The process started by Paul got continued by his associates and the Pauline-Church he founded, I understand. It had nothing to do with Jesus and Jesus' teachings. Right?

Close enough, yes ─ given an historical Jesus, it looks like he was chiefly concerned about the End Times, the establishment of the Kingdom on earth within a few years of his preaching (following John the Baptist). How much of the rest eg the Sermon on the Mount, is from sayings of his is hard to state with any confidence ─ the history of the Jesus Seminar shows the difficulty,

 

[blü 2]

Re Mark being written AD 75 or later.
That is simply not true. It's the fashionable assumption of many biblical academics
who largely dismiss the entire biblical project.

The gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel.Its trial of Jesus scene takes as its template Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in Wars VI.5.3. This was published in 75 CE. Separately, Mark was certainly written after the destruction of the Temple 70 CE

What was God trying to achieve with the death of Jesus?

Why was a death necessary, given a benevolent and omnipotent God?

Or is my growing suspicion correct that no one really has a clue?

 

[Dave Watchman]

A very good reason to sacrifice your son to yourself?

In a remote corner of the Roman Empire?

It was a part of the Adamic Covenant.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel​

The Script had to be fulfilled.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

If Jesus didn't step in the way, in between God's wrath and Adam, the human race would have died that day.

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

That's what the Atheists always say.

If God is all knowing, why did he even create Lucifer, if he knew how screwed up things would be?

I don't know.

But I think God is smart.

If He could have done it another way, He would have done it already.

When Jesus was crucified, I'm sure the Devil had a front row seat and was cheering it on with the jeering crowd.

And I'm sure the Holy Angels were all watching it too.

I wonder if there will be another Lucifer, 500,000 years from now.

I doubt it.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[PruePhillip]

The gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel.Its trial of Jesus scene takes as its template Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in Wars VI.5.3. This was published in 75 CE. Separately, Mark was certainly written after the destruction of the Temple 70 CE

What was God trying to achieve with the death of Jesus?

Why was a death necessary, given a benevolent and omnipotent God?

Or is my growing suspicion correct that no one really has a clue?

No, here this 'template' is nothing more than trying to 'explain away' as best as possible,
a totally different trial. In fact Jesus' trial was like nothing in Jewish history - covert, done
at night, forcing him to testify against himself, handing him over to the mob, no lawyer
for him, pre-judging him, no court room etc..
Finding something remotely similar won't wash - no evidence, let alone proof.

 

[blü 2]

It was a part of the Adamic Covenant.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel​

The Script had to be fulfilled.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

If Jesus didn't step in the way, in between God's wrath and Adam, the human race would have died that day.

Ah, so ─ you're saying ─ God is NOT benevolent but malicious, NOT magnanimous but petty ... but isn't it self-contradictory that such a nasty individual would go out of [his] way to let humans off the hook at all?

Though I agree it would account for the cruelty.

That's what the Atheists always say.

Do they? Whichever way, it seems a perfectly reasonable question, given the premises.

I think God is smart.

If He could have done it another way, He would have done it already.

If I were omniscient and omnipotent and perfect and benevolent ─ if I've had any successes, they might be with benevolence ─ I'd have perfectly known before I made the universe everything that would ever happen in it, so I must have (in an aberrant moment of spite or boredom) intended the cruelty gratuitously.

Can you think of any other explanation?