What was the Death of Jesus about?

[F1fan]

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 said it, because there is a series of claims that terminate with the A&E story. If the Jesus myth is to be accepted as true at face value, and not symbolic, then at what point in the serious of claims do the elements go from literal to symbolic? Some Christians accept the A&E story as literally true, and others don't.

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.

Where is any of it verified?

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.

Again, what stories and what claims are verified? Identify the valid premises and the facts behind them.

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.

This isn't relevant to how Western religions operate. How Hindus and Buddhists treat stories and symbolism is vastly different.

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 .

The original form of Buddhism isn't supernatural at all. It is a system of thought and practices to help a person attain balance. It's not so much an ideology to believe, but practices that can help a person if applied.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Lord Jesus Christ was the only Being ever to walk the Earth who had the ability to die (inherited from His mortal mother) and also complete control of His own life (inherited from His immoral Father).

Therefore - He could die whenever He chose - completely independent from outside sources. He could still be hanging from the cross today had He so chosen.

I think you are confusing him with Bishma.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God is unwilling to do anything that goes against His nature. He will not do anything unlawful or evil.

All He ends up doing is claiming that what He does isn’t evil.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Serpent showed up and talked to eve, and lied to her.

Serpent was the only honest character.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well not very perfect if it ends up being rebellious, right?

Personally, I prefer having relationships with non humans like pets and stuff who definitely have a mind of their own.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I think you are confusing him with Bishma.

No - I'm not.

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" (John 5:26)

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:17-18)

You don't have to believe or agree with it - but I got it straight from Him.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

All He ends up doing is claiming that what He does isn’t evil.

What evil deeds do you believe He has done?

 

[F1fan]

Personally, I prefer having relationships with non humans like pets and stuff who definitely have a mind of their own.

Yeah, but I'll tell ya that I never experienced a human steal a pork chop off my plate like my cat Lily. Twice. But you gotta give her credit for being a savvy thief.

 

[rational experiences]

No man is God reason. Common sense.

The first origin in science in human life O earth planet body.

The earth released first by mountain volcano erection hot gases.

Science mentality if I pretend that I can know volcano first gases. Atmosphere never even existed. Think like a false prostelyzing self does. Pretend equals his pure evil thoughts.

In his want to I know he pretends he will somehow know. So he Idealises ways to know.

A volcano and its stone mass are both atmospheric interactive today. Is no beginning thesis. So he won't know but says he will.

The reason a human life got sacrificed.

You are a human first to discuss a human.

A planet exists first for you to talk about when a planet never existed.

To say when a human never existed we just would not exist. Overlooked as self advice. There is no such information as when a human never existed.

Teaching of one.

All one forms exist first.

The ist...Satan ist is a liar.

I made stone says theist.

Earth core heart releases UFO radiation. Space voids it and it returns as earths radiation. Is not replacing stone.

Too much atmospheric radiation space holds it. Radiation does not come back. You got sink holes instead.

Logic God O earth is God earth you don't own it scientist. Be anywhere where it is released or returned you learn to hate your brother the scientist.

 

[blü 2]

Well, now we're past #400 and we STILL have no idea why, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, it was NECESSARY for Jesus to die as he did.

The not many reasonable replies all denied the 'benevolent' part.

And most answers have no moral argument with God about sacrificing [his] own son to [him]self ─ whereas my own morality tells me that human sacrifice of any kind is innately vile, morally repugnant to the extreme.

Ah well ─ one of those cases where not learning tells us what we needed to learn.

 

[Neuropteron]

.

Hi,
Fifan:
Some Christians accept the A&E story as literally true, and others don't.
Neuropteron: The conduct and beliefs of Christians are often UN-christian. This does not affect the reliability of the scriptures

Neuropteron:... the Ransom Sacrifice is based on a verifiable Biblical structure ...

Fifan: Where is any of it verified? Again, what stories and what claims are verified? Identify the valid premises and the facts behind them.
Neuropteron: This is just a discussion Fifan not a full blown Bible class.
This is like asking explain the universe in a sentence.
Verifiable means it can be verified.

Fifan:It isn't relevant to how Western religions operate. How Hindus and Buddhists treat stories and symbolism is vastly different.

Neuropteron:Let's have a quick looks at some differences.
Western religion is based on authoritative texts. (Not always canonical I grant you).
The Christian textbook is the Bible and they believe that the Trinity, Jesus or Maria are deified, a very small minority believe that Jehovah is God.

Hinduism is really an European term describing a host of religions and sects (sampradayas) that have developed and flourished over the millenniums under a complex Hindu mythology and is in effect a search for liberation from a self repeating cycle. Hindus refer to their faith as Sanatan dharma and their Gods are mainly:Ganesa (elephant God),Krishna, Rama, Siva and Durga.
Hinduism has no defined creed, priestly hierarchy or governing agency but it does have swamis and gurus that teach and guide.

Budhism
A search for enlightenment without God.
Apart from the Pali "canonical texts" put in writing during the reigh of King Vattagamni Abhaya in the first century B.c.E accounts of the life of Buddha did not appear in writing until nearly a thousand years later. Some scholars contend that not a single word of the recorded teaching can be ascribed with unqualified certainty to Gautama himself.
In theory, Buddhism does not advocate belief in God or a creator. Nonetheless Buddhist temples and stupas are found in nearly every country where Buddhism is practiced. Images, relics of Buddhas and bodhisattvas have become objects of prayers, offering and devotion by devotees.
Thus the Buddha, who never claimed to be God, has become a god in every sense of the word.
The fundamental concept of Buddhism is that knowledge and understanding leads to enlightenment and salvation. But the complicated doctrines of the various schools of Buddhism have only produced confusion instead of enlightenment. For many Buddhism has been reduced to doing good and following a few rituals and simple precepts.

Fifan: The original form of Buddhism isn't supernatural at all. It is a system of thought and practices to help a person attain balance. It's not so much an ideology to believe, but practices that can help a person if applied.
Neuropteron: In other words you're saying it's a philosophy not a religion. In that case why are many Buddhist stories spiritual and supernatural, why are there temples and prayers to Buddha ?

Coming back to your statement that Western religion, Hindus and Buddhist operate differently.
Do they really?
The Christians listen to their priest, The Hindus their Swamis and Gurus, the Buddhist accept their mythical stories as guide to what is good conduct.
I claim that in essence they operate the same way, we are all led around by what so called "qualified" men have written in the past or are currently promoting us to believe in today.
In this way 99% of all religion are just following the dictate of men.

 

[F1fan]

Hi,
Fifan:
Some Christians accept the A&E story as literally true, and others don't.
Neuropteron: The conduct and beliefs of Christians are often UN-christian. This does not affect the reliability of the scriptures

I suggest the contrary. If he Scriptures were intended to relate a clear outline of a divine truth then the divine influence should be concise and clear about it, yes? That so many Christians disagree about meanings and interpretations is a serious error of the material.

Neuropteron:... the Ransom Sacrifice is based on a verifiable Biblical structure ...

Fifan: Where is any of it verified? Again, what stories and what claims are verified? Identify the valid premises and the facts behind them.
Neuropteron: This is just a discussion Fifan not a full blown Bible class.
This is like asking explain the universe in a sentence.
Verifiable means it can be verified.

I know what verified means. What I don't know is what you consider to be verified in regards to the Bible and it's structure. You avoided my direct question.

Fifan:It isn't relevant to how Western religions operate. How Hindus and Buddhists treat stories and symbolism is vastly different.

Neuropteron:Let's have a quick looks at some differences.
Western religion is based on authoritative texts. (Not always canonical I grant you).
The Christian textbook is the Bible and they believe that the Trinity, Jesus or Maria are deified, a very small minority believe that Jehovah is God.

Hinduism is really an European term describing a host of religions and sects (sampradayas) that have developed and flourished over the millenniums under a complex Hindu mythology and is in effect a search for liberation from a self repeating cycle. Hindus refer to their faith as Sanatan dharma and their Gods are mainly:Ganesa (elephant God),Krishna, Rama, Siva and Durga.
Hinduism has no defined creed, priestly hierarchy or governing agency but it does have swamis and gurus that teach and guide.

Budhism
A search for enlightenment without God.
Apart from the Pali "canonical texts" put in writing during the reigh of King Vattagamni Abhaya in the first century B.c.E accounts of the life of Buddha did not appear in writing until nearly a thousand years later. Some scholars contend that not a single word of the recorded teaching can be ascribed with unqualified certainty to Gautama himself.
In theory, Buddhism does not advocate belief in God or a creator. Nonetheless Buddhist temples and stupas are found in nearly every country where Buddhism is practiced. Images, relics of Buddhas and bodhisattvas have become objects of prayers, offering and devotion by devotees.
Thus the Buddha, who never claimed to be God, has become a god in every sense of the word.
The fundamental concept of Buddhism is that knowledge and understanding leads to enlightenment and salvation. But the complicated doctrines of the various schools of Buddhism have only produced confusion instead of enlightenment. For many Buddhism has been reduced to doing good and following a few rituals and simple precepts.

My point was that Western religions treat their ideas as hard literal concepts which differs from the more symbolic treatment in Eastern religion. To my mind the Western religions struggle and create more problems through their absolutism and literalism. We see conflicts with science unlike the Eastern religions.

Fifan: The original form of Buddhism isn't supernatural at all. It is a system of thought and practices to help a person attain balance. It's not so much an ideology to believe, but practices that can help a person if applied.
Neuropteron: In other words you're saying it's a philosophy not a religion. In that case why are many Buddhist stories spiritual and supernatural, why are there temples and prayers to Buddha ?

The original form of Buddhism is Theravada which is basic and non-theistic. There are theistic forms of Buddhism, and even stripped down versions like Zen. Temples are common symbolisms and places for rituals, practices like meditation and yoga.

Coming back to your statement that Western religion, Hindus and Buddhist operate differently.
Do they really?
The Christians listen to their priest, The Hindus their Swamis and Gurus, the Buddhist accept their mythical stories as guide to what is good conduct.
I claim that in essence they operate the same way, we are all led around by what so called "qualified" men have written in the past or are currently promoting us to believe in today.
In this way 99% of all religion are just following the dictate of men.

If we look at Catholicism which is highly symbolic the practices, rituals, and symbols all supposedly represent something divine and real, but that's disputable. The Eucharist is supposed to be the blood and flesh of Christ, the bread and wine are symbols of this, but they symbolize another symbol: Christ, the sacrifice. In contrast Eastern symbolisms will often represent real phenomenon, like nature, or mental states, or processes like death and decay. So they have less conflict with what humans observe as real about life experience. The Abrahamic religions demand a suspension of reason to adopt and accept ideas that not only have no evidence, but often contrary to what is observed true about reality.

 

[Neuropteron]

I suggest the contrary. If he Scriptures were intended to relate a clear outline of a divine truth then the divine influence should be concise and clear about it, yes? That so many Christians disagree about meanings and interpretations is a serious error of the material.


I know what verified means. What I don't know is what you consider to be verified in regards to the Bible and it's structure. You avoided my direct question.


My point was that Western religions treat their ideas as hard literal concepts which differs from the more symbolic treatment in Eastern religion. To my mind the Western religions struggle and create more problems through their absolutism and literalism. We see conflicts with science unlike the Eastern religions.


The original form of Buddhism is Theravada which is basic and non-theistic. There are theistic forms of Buddhism, and even stripped down versions like Zen. Temples are common symbolisms and places for rituals, practices like meditation and yoga.



If we look at Catholicism which is highly symbolic the practices, rituals, and symbols all supposedly represent something divine and real, but that's disputable. The Eucharist is supposed to be the blood and flesh of Christ, the bread and wine are symbols of this, but they symbolize another symbol: Christ, the sacrifice. In contrast Eastern symbolisms will often represent real phenomenon, like nature, or mental states, or processes like death and decay. So they have less conflict with what humans observe as real about life experience. The Abrahamic religions demand a suspension of reason to adopt and accept ideas that not only have no evidence, but often contrary to what is observed true about reality.

Hi,
Thank you for sharing your views , perhaps we should agree to disagree on this subject.
Cheers.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe that has nothing to do with it. By definition a person can't be resurrected unless he is dead first. However one thing God was not before Jesus was in a body that died. As Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again.

I believe you should know human nature better than that. In the parable of Lazarus and the beggar Jesus said even if one comes back from the dead they still won't believe and it is true of the Jews to this day. The Tenach has references to the forgiveness of God and even to this day there is a day of atonement but I met a Jew who didn't believe that God forgives his sin. The Qu'ran tells of God's forgiveness but I heard of a Muslim who didn't believe that God forgave him. The blood on the cross is God's personal seal of forgiveness.

I have no idea what the Gnostics believed and don't care because they were heretics. The reality is that a God that can't be seen, has to find some way of communicating with people and that is easier with intermediaries.

I believe that, so you shouldn't presume that God didn't want those 2,000 years and for the Gospel to be spread by people.

 

[Muffled]

I do not trust the Bible. I trust God.

I believe if one really trusts God then one would trust the Bible. What one might not trust is what some say about the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

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

Regards

I believe the questions are still relevant because Jesus was on the Cross, suffering and the body of Jesus died which appears to be the death of Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

I believe that has nothing to do with it. By definition a person can't be resurrected unless he is dead first. However one thing God was not before Jesus was in a body that died. As Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again.

There are five major versions of Jesus in the NT, those of Paul and each of the four gospels. Each version of Jesus says clearly that he is NOT god. In Christianity Jesus is not elevated to God status till the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century CE, as a result of church political pressure to have the central character of Christianity equivalent to God.

I believe you should know human nature better than that. In the parable of Lazarus and the beggar Jesus said even if one comes back from the dead they still won't believe and it is true of the Jews to this day. The Tenach has references to the forgiveness of God and even to this day there is a day of atonement but I met a Jew who didn't believe that God forgives his sin. The Qu'ran tells of God's forgiveness but I heard of a Muslim who didn't believe that God forgave him. The blood on the cross is God's personal seal of forgiveness.

You're saying Jesus had to die because an omnipotent benevolent omniscient God could think of no other way to get the message across? But we're talking about the Jewish God and the Jewish notion of a messiah, and not only was Jesus nothing like a Jewish messiah, but Christianity was the start of two millennia of antisemitism, beginning with the gospel of John. The Christian God is not the god of the Jews, and not just because the latter is distinctly not triune.

I have no idea what the Gnostics believed and don't care because they were heretics. The reality is that a God that can't be seen, has to find some way of communicating with people and that is easier with intermediaries.

What, an omnipotent God can't communicate, can't appear, wherever and whenever and however [he] wishes? Then [he] should go and see whoever sold [him] his omnipotence and ask for [his] money back.

I believe that, so you shouldn't presume that God didn't want those 2,000 years and for the Gospel to be spread by people.

That's not the question asked in this thread. The question is, WHY was it NECESSARY for a benevolent omnipotent deity to achieve whatever it was [he] wished to achieve, using human sacrifice.

Do you approve of human sacrifice? Do you think we should use it more widely for public relations purposes? My own view is that it's deeply barbaric, innately immoral, a practice of primitive superstition.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Weird. God told me the Bible was written by man and He didn’t say half that stuff and the only sure way to know His will is to see how it works in reality. Should I tell God I prefer the Bible?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And one snap of God's fingers and He could create a people who loved Him.
Just like robots - which they would be.

We never really punished our fur kids outside some light teasing. We honored that they had their own personalities and only stepped in when their safety/ health were at stake.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

I’ve watched too many Christians suffer and die who wanted to be healed. This is just flat out wrong.