What was the Death of Jesus about?

[blü 2]

No, I’m not telling the Jews what their Messiah is, I saying that Jesus WASNT the Jewish Messiah. The Jews developed their own ideas that Jesus simply could not fit.

Other way round, surely?

The coming of the Son had been foreseen before Judaism existed.

What, exactly, was foreseen, do you say? Where is the record of its being foreseen before Judaism existed?

The Gospel of Jesus was for ALL the world from the beginning. The Jews were not going to share Yahweh with the Gentile world.

If you believe Matthew then no, it was expressly Jewish ─ not a dot, not a letter, not a coffee stain of the Law would be altered until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). Nor, since Jesus was himself a circumcised Jew, and styled as the agent of the Jewish God, would an onlooker expect much room for Zeus and Aphrodite at the table.

Jesus came to realize that his message would be rejected and his body killed. He allowed it.

Which leads us back to the topic.

Given a God who's both benevolent and omnipotent, why was it necessary that Jesus die?

 

[Neuropteron]

Thanks.

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

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?
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.[/QUOTE]

Hi,

Blu2:
It appears that no one knows why Jesus had to die.
------
Sadly not many so-called Christian really understand why Jesus had to die. That's because to believe/understand the reason for his death following foundation of belief is required.

Adam was God's first human creation.
Adam was a perfect man and had free will.
Adam sinned and returned to dust or nonexistence.
The law of progeny that restricts procreation exclusively according to it's kind.
Adam sinned before he bore children, therefore his children could not inherit perfection.
Imperfection lead to death. (not life in heaven or hell).
Resurrection.
The law of legal reciprocity or correspondacy.
The legal provision of repurchasing.
God does not break or ignore his own laws.(not to say that he cannot).

The result of not believing or understanding any of these scriptural issues is that, the ransom sacrifice makes no sense.
Since most Christians today are in reality closet-skeptics, and have very little understanding of the underlying reason for Jesus death, it is not surprising that questioning intellectuals cannot find answers amongst them, and incorrectly conclude that "no one knows why Jesus died".


Blu2: the average onlooker might be forgiven for expecting that this particular question would have a clear, crisp answer, instead of a total blank.
------

The average onlooker certainly is forgiven, the fact the he/she is looking for answers is praiseworthy in itself. Those who will not be forgiven are the churches, who instead of explaining God's word dispense teaching from their theological doctrines that is based on philosophies and political church history instead of God's inspired word.
Neither can answers of any value can be expected of the pew sitters who unthinkingly repeat their mind numbing absurdities.

The answer you are looking for lies within a scriptural doctrine called the "Ransom sacrifice" which is also referred to as a propitiatory sacrifice.
Finding the correct answer is dependent on two things
1/ all explanations should come exclusively from the Bible.(a good translation)
Any theological additions can only serve to complicate this doctrine that in itself is straightforward.
2/ If not believing, at least understanding the Bible based reason and foundation for the ransom.

A short example:
The Hebrew term Ka-phar is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering of or atoning for sins. The noun ko'pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, which is the ransom price.

A covering corresponds to the thing it covers, either in its form/shape, or in its value, such as in the requirement to cover a damage caused. As a means of balancing justice and settling legal matters. The law covenant designated various sacrifices and offerings to atone for, or cover sins both of the nation as a whole and the individual. In effect, the life of the animal sacrifice went in place of the life of the sinner and it's blood was a placeholder for a more complete future atonement in the person of the Messiah.
The day of atonement [yohm hak-kip-pu-rim] is referred to as the "day of the ransoms. Since these sacrifices were required to maintain and have Jehovah's approval, they can be referred to as a mediatory arrangement between the Israelite and God, because without fulfilling these prerequisite no communion with Jehovah could be hop't for. These things not only prefigure Jesus's sacrificial death but lead to the fulfillment of God's purpose to benefit not only the Nation of Israel but all of mankind.
Ref: Gen 26:4; Ps 65:3; 78:8,9; Ex 29:33-37; Le 16:6; 1:4; 4:20,26,31,35; 17:11; 23:16-28) compare Heb 9:13,14;10:1-4

Should you require additional scriptural reference concerning this subject, I will gladly share them.

Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

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?
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.

Hi,

Blu2:
It appears that no one knows why Jesus had to die.
------
Sadly not many so-called Christian really understand why Jesus had to die. That's because to believe/understand the reason for his death following foundation of belief is required.

Adam was God's first human creation.
Adam was a perfect man and had free will.[/quote] No, Adam wasn't perfect. Adam was denied knowledge of good and evil. This, incidentally, meant that he was incapable of forming an intention to do wrong ─ that is, he was incapable of sin. So was Eve. And this was the condition each was in when they ate the fruit, so eating the fruit could not have been a sin.

Adam sinned and returned to dust or nonexistence.

Sin, original sin, the fall of man, none of that is mentioned anywhere in the Garden story. This take first appears (if I recall aright) among the Jews of Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE.

The law of progeny that restricts procreation exclusively according to it's kind.
Adam sinned before he bore children, therefore his children could not inherit perfection.
Imperfection lead to death. (not life in heaven or hell).

There's no indication in the Garden story that Adam and Eve were perfect or that they were made immortal. On the contrary, they were expelled from the Garden for the express and only reason and purpose of preventing them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and living forever (Genesis 3:22-3).

Oh, and Ezekiel 18, throughout, but not least in Ezekiel 18:20, says that sin can't be inherited.

Blu2: the average onlooker might be forgiven for expecting that this particular question would have a clear, crisp answer, instead of a total blank.
------
[...] The answer you are looking for lies within a scriptural doctrine called the "Ransom sacrifice" which is also referred to as a propitiatory sacrifice.

Why would God want a "propitiatory sacrifice"?

Why would a benevolent deity want any human sacrifice of any kind?

Why wouldn't a benevolent deity think like the great majority of people that human sacrifice, even if done with a consenting victim, was intolerably loathsome and barbaric, the worst of superstition?

And considering the sacrifice is nominally for [his] benefit, who better placed than to show leadership and say, Cut that out, guys! That's never what people should do!

 

[F1fan]

------
Sadly not many so-called Christian really understand why Jesus had to die. That's because to believe/understand the reason for his death following foundation of belief is required.

Adam was God's first human creation.
Adam was a perfect man and had free will.
Adam sinned and returned to dust or nonexistence.
The law of progeny that restricts procreation exclusively according to it's kind.
Adam sinned before he bore children, therefore his children could not inherit perfection.
Imperfection lead to death. (not life in heaven or hell).
Resurrection.
The law of legal reciprocity or correspondacy.
The legal provision of repurchasing.
God does not break or ignore his own laws.(not to say that he cannot).

The result of not believing or understanding any of these scriptural issues is that, the ransom sacrifice makes no sense.
Since most Christians today are in reality closet-skeptics, and have very little understanding of the underlying reason for Jesus death, it is not surprising that questioning intellectuals cannot find answers amongst them, and incorrectly conclude that "no one knows why Jesus died".

This is a really good point, and I think you are correct. The whole notion of sin goes back to the Fall of Eden. For the sacrifice of Jesus to be taken seriously and literally the whole list you provided has to be assumed literal as well. So this is the problem. the A&E story is most certainly not literal. It's a metaphor that doesn't even seem to have any application to reality. So the whole theology of Jesus fails from the start.

I'm not sure how many Christians have thought any of this through, but 7th grade science class makes the whole of the A&E story highly questionable.

 

[Colt]

it's unfortunate for the credibility of that story that it occurs in Matthew, some of whose manifest flights of fancy I've already referred to in this thread.

If you proceed on the basis that the three wise men are a fiction, you won't go far wrong.

Again, you have an Atheist agenda to begin with so it’s difficult to know what foundation to use on which day.

If the Magi story was simply added for effect it doesn’t serve to establish the anonymous story of an exclusively Jewish Messiah for either party.

 

[Brian2]

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


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

Clues in the gospels:
John 19:16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
Luke 23:44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.
John 20:32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

 

[Colt]

Other way round, surely?
What, exactly, was foreseen, do you say? Where is the record of its being foreseen before Judaism existed?
If you believe Matthew then no, it was expressly Jewish ─ not a dot, not a letter, not a coffee stain of the Law would be altered until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). Nor, since Jesus was himself a circumcised Jew, and styled as the agent of the Jewish God, would an onlooker expect much room for Zeus and Aphrodite at the table.
Which leads us back to the topic.

Given a God who's both benevolent and omnipotent, why was it necessary that Jesus die?

By Judaism's own creation record Enoch is mentioned. The so-called Book of Enoch which predated Jesus refers to a "deliverer" type of figure. 1 Enoch is the first text to contain the idea of a preexistent heavenly Messiah, called the "Son of Man.

If you are arguing in defense of the Jews concept of a Jewish Messiah then I would have to ask which one? Because there were different camps of thought on the form and function of a Messiah. I don't think that you even believe in ANY Jewish Messiah.

Jesus came to foresee or realize his rejection and death.

 

[blü 2]

Again, you have an Atheist agenda to begin with so it’s difficult to know what foundation to use on which day

Either Matthew contains manifest fictions or it doesn't. This is a matter of determining what's true, and so a question for reasoned enquiry, in this case history. And the answer is hardly ambiguous ─ yes, it contains fictions.

If the Magi story was simply added for effect it doesn’t serve to establish the anonymous story of an exclusively Jewish Messiah for either party.

Note that there are three distinct accounts of Jesus' birth ─ in Mark, Jesus is just an ordinary Jew until John the Baptist washes off his sins, the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son, just as [he] adopted David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. He is said not to be descended from David.

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born by the divine insemination of a virgin. He therefore has God's Y-chromosome. In each case he's said to be descended from David, but that's not possible since his genetic father is God.

In Paul and John, Jesus pre-existed in Heaven with God, and in the role of the gnostic demiurge ('craftsman') created the material universe; we're not told how he came to earth; the inference is that, since he's said in both cases to be descended from David, his spirit entered into a normally conceived zygote of a Jewish couple.

By Judaism's own creation record Enoch is mentioned. The so-called Book of Enoch which predated Jesus refers to a "deliverer" type of figure. 1 Enoch is the first text to contain the idea of a preexistent heavenly Messiah, called the "Son of Man.

A quick net check on the Book of Enoch says it's not part of the Tanakh, and is early or pre-kabbala in subject matter. So what makes you think it's special?

If you are arguing in defense of the Jews concept of a Jewish Messiah then I would have to ask which one?

I'm only aware of two basic models ─ the first is a civil, military or religious leader who's been anointed by the Jewish priesthood. The second is an honorific applied to a distinguished non-Jew who's seen to favor the Jews.


But the question for this thread is, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary for Jesus to die, indeed to set out in order to die? What could that accomplish that a benevolent and omnipotent God couldn't achieve without bloodshed?

 

[Colt]

Either Matthew contains manifest fictions or it doesn't. This is a matter of determining what's true, and so a question for reasoned enquiry, in this case history. And the answer is hardly ambiguous ─ yes, it contains fictions.
Note that there are three distinct accounts of Jesus' birth ─ in Mark, Jesus is just an ordinary Jew until John the Baptist washes off his sins, the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son, just as [he] adopted David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. He is said not to be descended from David.

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born by the divine insemination of a virgin. He therefore has God's Y-chromosome. In each case he's said to be descended from David, but that's not possible since his genetic father is God.

In Paul and John, Jesus pre-existed in Heaven with God, and in the role of the gnostic demiurge ('craftsman') created the material universe; we're not told how he came to earth; the inference is that, since he's said in both cases to be descended from David, his spirit entered into a normally conceived zygote of a Jewish couple.
A quick net check on the Book of Enoch says it's not part of the Tanakh, and is early or pre-kabbala in subject matter. So what makes you think it's special?
I'm only aware of two basic models ─ the first is a civil, military or religious leader who's been anointed by the Jewish priesthood. The second is an honorific applied to a distinguished non-Jew who's seen to favor the Jews.


But the question for this thread is, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary for Jesus to die, indeed to set out in order to die? What could that accomplish that a benevolent and omnipotent God couldn't achieve without bloodshed?

You will die, why is that necessary in Gods economy? Its the design of life. Death and or Translation is your option. I said from the outset that the Creator Son has now experienced the death that we are called to experience. (He didn't have to) God decided the death and resurrection was the course to take in light of the rejection.

BTW, the agreement or "covenant" with Abraham predates the religion of Judaism by at least 500+ years. The scripture books would begin after Exodus.

 

[blü 2]

You will die, why is that necessary in Gods economy?

It isn't. Death is part of reality, an aspect of evolution.

But I'm trying to understand Christian theology here, and all I can make of the answers so far is that, given a benevolent and omnipotent deity, nobody knows why it was necessary for Jesus to die.

 

[Colt]

It isn't. Death is part of reality, an aspect of evolution.

But I'm trying to understand Christian theology here, and all I can make of the answers so far is that, given a benevolent and omnipotent deity, nobody knows why it was necessary for Jesus to die.

God created our reality and by the process of evolution. Neither this world or our material mechanism was ever meant to be our permanent home.

Jesus left the meaning of his death and resurrection open to interpretation. That’s where Christian theology speculates.

* To Christians the cross was the payment of a blanket sin debt which makes salvation possible for cursed humans.

* To me the cross is a shared human experience and proof of Jesus’ divinity.

 

[1213]

...Jesus is an ordinary Jew, a sinner whose sins are washed off by JtB...

However, Mark doesn’t say Jesus is a sinner. That is your interpretation and I have no reason to believe it.

...instead his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:31). ...

Mark 3:31 says ” His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him, calling him.”

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;

I think virgin is the correct understanding of the word “almah”.

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

I have no reason to believe it is unhistorical.

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

I have no reason to believe it is unhistorical.

He absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey...

I have understood it tells he rides on a donkey that is a colt, not on two different animals.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus left the meaning of his death and resurrection open to interpretation. That’s where Christian theology speculates.

That's where there's a great big hole in Christian theology, then ─ incomprehension at the very heart of the cross.

* To Christians the cross was the payment of a blanket sin debt which makes salvation possible for cursed humans.

But all of that is based on a demonstrably false reading of the Garden story in Genesis.

 

[Colt]

That's where there's a great big hole in Christian theology, then ─ incomprehension at the very heart of the cross.
But all of that is based on a demonstrably false reading of the Garden story in Genesis.

While I don't believe the general details of the Garden story in Genesis its pretty straight forward as far as where Christians and others get their ideas from.

 

[blü 2]

However, Mark doesn’t say Jesus is a sinner. That is your interpretation and I have no reason to believe it.

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. [...] 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

So why would God wait until Jesus was baptized before adopting him as [his] son? Yes, Matthew 3:14-15 offers an excuse, but adding subtracting and editing Mark is one thing Matthew and Luke do eg in Mark Jesus on the cross is a defeated and abandoned figure ─ "Why have you forsaken me?" (which in fact is a literary device from Psalm 22:1 which Mark uses more widely for his scene); Matthew's is not quite so much; Luke's omits "Why have you forsaken me?" so Jesus' last words are "Into thy hands ..." ─ and in John Jesus is the MC, not the victim, at the crucifixion and signs off with "It is accomplished".

Mark's Jesus has no remarkable birth, is an ordinary Jew, and is not the son of God until his adoption.

Mark 3:31 says ” His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him, calling him.”

Oops! My typo, my apology. It should be Mark 3:21.

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."​

I think virgin is the correct understanding of the word “almah”.

It means "young woman". Some young women are virgins, some are not. That is, the idea of virginity is not present in the Hebrew text.

I have no reason to believe it is unhistorical.

I have no reason to believe it is unhistorical.[/quote] Then please do what historians have been unable to do and point to any census throughout the Roman empire at any time around 1 CE, and then add the condition that it's a census which required each person to go to their place of birth to be enrolled. (What purpose could that requirement possibly serve?)

I have understood it tells he rides on a donkey that is a colt, not on two different animals.

Compare it to the other gospel accounts of Jesus' entry. It serves as yet another example of the Tanakh, and not history, being used to set the author's scenes of Jesus.


Now, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary for Jesus to die?

 

[blü 2]

While I don't believe the general details of the Garden story in Genesis its pretty straight forward as far as where Christians and others get their ideas from.

The Garden story never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer ─ nothing, zip, nada.

The present Christian view appears to have arisen from the Jewish midrash tradition in Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE and is mentioned once by Paul. It's not an issue until Augustine of Hippo picks up the idea around 400 CE and starts the fuss.


But given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary that Jesus should die?

 

[Neuropteron]

This is a really good point, and I think you are correct. The whole notion of sin goes back to the Fall of Eden. For the sacrifice of Jesus to be taken seriously and literally the whole list you provided has to be assumed literal as well. So this is the problem. the A&E story is most certainly not literal. It's a metaphor that doesn't even seem to have any application to reality. So the whole theology of Jesus fails from the start.

I'm not sure how many Christians have thought any of this through, but 7th grade science class makes the whole of the A&E story highly questionable.

Fifan:
So this is the problem. the A&E story is most certainly not literal. It's a metaphor that doesn't even seem to have any application to reality. So the whole theology of Jesus fails from the start.
------
I put forth that it is only a problem if it is suggested that you have to believe the story without presenting the evidence that support it.

But I wasn't saying that.
I was only saying that the Ransom Sacrifice is based on a verifiable Biblical structure leading in a rational and scripturaly legal manner to Christ death.
Thus the Bible and doctrines such as the one in question is a matrix of interlocking verifiable concept Whether a person accepts it's premise and chooses to believe in them is another matter entirely.

Many religions have beliefs that are simply accepted because it is part of their culture. For instance Buddhas existence is based mainly of texts written in Pali, 6th B.C.E.
How many Buddhist, for instance, question how Queen Mah-Maha-Maya came to conceive Buddha in a dream?
Additionally,apart from the Pali texts, there is almost no source material of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) the founder of this religion, not to mention that there are serious questions concerning how these texts were produced.

It would seem to me that, If someone is willing to believe in Buddhism, it should not be difficult to understand why a belief with a firm and rational foundation can be accepted .

 

[1213]

...adopting him as [his] son? Yes, Matthew 3:14-15 offers an excuse, but adding subtracting and editing Mark is one thing Matthew and Luke do eg in Mark Jesus on the cross is a defeated and abandoned figure ─ "Why have you forsaken me?" ...

Bible doesn’t speak of God adopting Jesus. That is why I don’t agree with that.

And about the forsaken Jesus. It is interesting that Bible actually says Jesus said "Eli, Eli, lima sabachthani?" and it is commonly translated "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". However, the scripture continues by saying that those who heard it, thought he was calling Elijah. This makes me to think that perhaps it is translated wrongly.

About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lima [TR reads "lama" instead of "lima"] sabachthani?" That is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Some of them who stood there, when they heard it, said, "This man is calling Elijah."
Matt. 27:46-47

... It should be Mark 3:21.
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."...

Interesting, I understand that meaning, the other people, like scribes were saying "He is beside himself.", not his friends. Interesting also that translations that I use, have word friends, not family in that.

​

...It means "young woman". Some young women are virgins, some are not. That is, the idea of virginity is not present in the Hebrew text.

By what I know, it means unmarried woman, which at that time period should have meant virgin.

...Now, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary for Jesus to die?

I believe the reason was that it was predicted that it will happen. If it would not have gone so, the prophesy would have been wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Bible doesn’t speak of God adopting Jesus. That is why I don’t agree with that.

The bible speaks of God adopting David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7.

Mark (but not the other gospels) speaks of God adopting Jesus as his son on the model of Psalm 2:7. The "this day have I begotten thee" part is left out, but affirmed expressly in Acts 13:33.

So unambiguously Mark's Jesus becomes the son of God by adoption, the only one of the five versions of Jesus in the NT to do so (and the only one of the five versions who is not descended from David).

Interesting, I understand that meaning, the other people, like scribes were saying "He is beside himself.", not his friends. Interesting also that translations that I use, have word friends, not family in that.

The Greek is οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ 'his own people".


But the question is still unanswered: given a benevolent and omnipotent God, why was it necessary for Jesus to die? Why could God not achieve anything [he] liked without bloodshed?

Or is the answer that God is not benevolent?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do what, exactly? And if Man must do, what's the point of Jesus dying ─ indeed, setting out determined to die, and succeeding?
According to the gospels, Jesus could be pretty selfish, and was. Think of his hostility (in all four gospels) towards his mother in particular and family in general; or his lethal sulkiness with the unobliging olive tree.

Or “Screw the poor. I want an expensive oil rub from the hot chick.” Lol.