• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What was the Death of Jesus about?

Kelly of the Phoenix

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Jesus portrays God as an evil, lazy, and/or incompetent leader in nearly every parable.
 
Kelly of the Phoenix

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Fallen Prophet said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe John.
 
L

Ludi

Member
blü 2 said:
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
But if you read the Garden story in Genesis there is no rebellion. In the story, Adam and Eve are denied knowledge of good and evil, so they can't form an intention to do wrong so they're incapable of sin.

On top of that, the story never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer, or anything of the kind. God states [his] reasons for expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden at Genesis 3:22-23, and they're none of the above.
Where does the Tanakh say that?
First, as I pointed out above, there's no such "repurchase" needed, because "original sin" isn't present in the story and doesn't appear in history till late in the 2nd century BCE among the Jews of Alexandria.

Second, what "law" are you referring to?

Third, even if all those points be conceded, why would that stop an omnipotent and benevolent being from doing this (or anything else [he] wanted, without bloodshed, agony, inflicted torment?
Again I ask, what 'own laws'? Where are they set out? How are they worded?
But as I said, there's no inherited sin in the Garden story. Nor is sin heritable: Ezekiel 18:20.
But why would any follower of Yahweh ever have needed a mediator to speak to their God? There's no mention of such a need in the Tanakh that I can recall ─ you pray directly to Yahweh.
I don't think that's correct. Jews prayed directly to their God all the time, just as they still do, as far as I'm aware.

The idea that a mediator is needed seems to be a novelty.
Click to expand...
Hi. I don't think anyone has really understood the creation story, but due to my parents, and some incredible personal experiences , I think I can shine some light on it. Now keeping things factual and truthful, here we go. Now we know that man was in fact created out of the clay of the earth, or came frome the clay of the earth, water and dirt. Now it says that God created man in his own image, male and female, He created them. in the Divine Image. So if you look at babies, male or female, they come to LIFE in a purely conscious state. Now there is nothing in between that state and reality itself. So their minds remain in perfect oneness with reality, a mirror image of creation, Now that state is perfectly ALIVE, it is also made up of ENERGY, as is the universe itself. And at first stage of life, although no one remembers, the two energies actually form ONE energy. Now at this stage of life, light actually pours into you, and the world they see is actually mesmerrizingly beautiful, beyond anything you could ever even begin to imagine, but again no one remembers it. So back to the story. God told Adam and Eve they could eat from any of the trees in the garden except for, the tree of knowledge of good and bad, because a very cunning serpent exists in that tree. It also states that tree was beside the tree of life, in the MIDDLE of the garden of God. So the serpent actually was SELF, something created entirely within words, and it is the ONE thing, God did not create. Now Adam and Eve did in fact eat from that tree, and their eye's were opened, and they felt shame, so they covered themselves up. Now this actually represents the creation of SELF, because before that, you are incapable of shame. So God returns and they are hiding from Him, and upon seeing what they did He banishes them from the garden. It also states that God said basically, look they have eaten from the tree that I forbade them to eat, they have become God's unto themselves, knowing the diference between good and bad. So this also extremely important as God is talking to someone, and it is not Adam or Eve, it is another God, one who one day walk on this earth, and His name would be Jesus. This is why Christ said, I am the truth, the light, and the life.

So the story basically finishes with God banning Adam and Eve from the garden. And He stations two cherubs, with fiery revolving swords, guarding the way to the tree of life. So this represents how neither of the two, once in SELF, could ever return to the state they were created IN. So when they were in that STATE, when there was nothing in between they were always eating from the tree of life, in the middle of the garden. Now once SELF was created, they existed in the tree of knowledge, in the middle of the garden, in between consciousness, and reality, never again eating from the tree of life. So to explain this better I would touch on the Ark of the covenant. So the Ark had on either side of it, a cherub, each looking back towards the Ark. So each cherub represented a person not yet born, and the Ark, Jesus himself. So the first was Buddha, who lived around 500 years before Jesus was born. Now Buddha went through what he called an incomparable self awaking., and he described what he found like this, Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned alone IS, all else has, is, and always will be a state of make believe fiction. He called this state Nirvana, and said it was the stopping of the process sustaining conditioned states, and the realization of Nirvana, the unconditioned state. Now Buddha had his perception SHIFT from SELF, back to the purely conscious state he was born in.. He would have realized that, that state had never changed, since the moment he came to life, and could not in fact be changed, That is why he said, the unconditioned itself alone IS. He would have also seen the fallacy of words. Actually I am sorry but its getting late and I have to work in the morning, if you, are anyone else would like me to continue I will gladly. either way I hope everyone finds what there looking for. good night
 
F

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Kelly of the Phoenix said:
The flood genocide was immoral. Are you saying everything, including embryos and kittens and flowers were steeped in sin?
Click to expand...
No - but the generations of Man during Noah's time were making it impossible to raise any good kids.

Imagine being a spirit in God's presence - waiting for your turn to enter into mortality - but everyone on Earth is so evil that you knew that you had no chance to live a good life if you were born there?

God made a tough decision and I believe it was justified.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
The first question is:
WHY was it necessary for Jesus to die?

What could the death of Jesus achieve that an almighty God could not have achieved without bloodshed, just with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?

The second question is:
WHAT did Jesus’ death actually achieve? What, specifically, was different afterwards, that wasn’t so before?

The third question is:
Since God had made [his] covenant with the Jews, and was the God of the Jewish nation, and the only God, and had never needed an intermediary,
why would God suddenly need an intermediary in the first century CE?

Grateful for illumination.
Click to expand...

I have studied this question in depth, not for you or this forum, but for myself. You challenged me. I don't expect this will make any sense
to you.


The bible declares we are natural - 'of the clay' and 'akin to the animals.' And we are spiritual - the 'breath of life' and have 'living souls'
which returns to God at death.

Flesh and spirit in conflict, symbolized by the rival brothers Isaac and Ishmael, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau. 'First born' symbolizes
human nature - what we are born with.

In Exodus 12 Hebrews took an unblemished male lamb into their homes for three days (where they would likely bond with it) then killed it.
They ate it whole - its head, legs and 'inner parts.' Its blood was daubed on the lintel and door. That night the 'death angel' passed over
Egypt. The 'first born' of every household would die without this blood sign.

We have the Old Testament because of its symbolic language. In reading about Jesus as the Lamb of God the OT has explanatory power,
and context. Thus we can understand the sacrificial animals, Promised land, priesthood, altar, God's chosen people, Egypt, the Pilgrimage
and the eternal city.

But everything Jesus Himself did was also symbolic. He came to be the 'lamb of God' who was 'slain from the foundation of the world.'

Whoever loved Him enough to die to their first born nature would be 'covered' by his sacrifice, brought out of Egypt and saved from death.

You must 'eat' all of the lamb. Not just parts which appeal, as many Christian religions chose to do. Jesus isn't all about healing and loving
children.

This is all symbolic language. Symbolism on top of symbolism.

So we better understand, ie to 'show the Lord's death till he comes'

And

'a corn of wheat dying brings forth much fruit'

And

'dying daily' to self and the world.

Those who left everything for Christ died to their former selves.
This struck many people - if a man or woman gave up literally everything they had, or were even facing death, then this must be
very important.


Snapping of the finger to atone for sin trivializes sin.


The power of Christ's suffering and death lies in its symbolism of the severity of sin, the brevity of life, the rejected world,
overcoming our nature, the perspective death give us of our brief life.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
PruePhillip said:
I have studied this question in depth, not for you or this forum, but for myself. You challenged me. I don't expect this will make any sense
to you.


The bible declares we are natural - 'of the clay' and 'akin to the animals.' And we are spiritual - the 'breath of life' and have 'living souls'
which returns to God at death.

Flesh and spirit in conflict, symbolized by the rival brothers Isaac and Ishmael, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau. 'First born' symbolizes
human nature - what we are born with.

In Exodus 12 Hebrews took an unblemished male lamb into their homes for three days (where they would likely bond with it) then killed it.
They ate it whole - its head, legs and 'inner parts.' Its blood was daubed on the lintel and door. That night the 'death angel' passed over
Egypt. The 'first born' of every household would die without this blood sign.

We have the Old Testament because of its symbolic language. In reading about Jesus as the Lamb of God the OT has explanatory power,
and context. Thus we can understand the sacrificial animals, Promised land, priesthood, altar, God's chosen people, Egypt, the Pilgrimage
and the eternal city.

But everything Jesus Himself did was also symbolic. He came to be the 'lamb of God' who was 'slain from the foundation of the world.'

Whoever loved Him enough to die to their first born nature would be 'covered' by his sacrifice, brought out of Egypt and saved from death.

You must 'eat' all of the lamb. Not just parts which appeal, as many Christian religions chose to do. Jesus isn't all about healing and loving
children.

This is all symbolic language. Symbolism on top of symbolism.

So we better understand, ie to 'show the Lord's death till he comes'

And

'a corn of wheat dying brings forth much fruit'

And

'dying daily' to self and the world.

Those who left everything for Christ died to their former selves.
This struck many people - if a man or woman gave up literally everything they had, or were even facing death, then this must be
very important.


Snapping of the finger to atone for sin trivializes sin.


The power of Christ's suffering and death lies in its symbolism of the severity of sin, the brevity of life, the rejected world,
overcoming our nature, the perspective death give us of our brief life.
Click to expand...
I was simply making the point that the Christian God is not the Jewish God, despite all claims to the contrary, since the Jewish God has the covenant and is not triune.

And as I understand it another difference is that in Judaism you don't need an intermediary to pray to God ─ you just do it.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ludi ─ Sorry, I missed this at the time.

Ludi said:
God told Adam and Eve they could eat from any of the trees in the garden except for, the tree of knowledge of good and bad, because a very cunning serpent exists in that tree.
Click to expand...
No, the story at no point suggests that the snake lives in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Ludi said:
It also states that tree was beside the tree of life, in the MIDDLE of the garden of God. So the serpent actually was SELF, something created entirely within words, and it is the ONE thing, God did not create.
Click to expand...
No, nothing of that is in the Garden story either.
Ludi said:
Now Adam and Eve did in fact eat from that tree, and their eye's were opened, and they felt shame, so they covered themselves up.
Click to expand...
Yes, the story says that.
Ludi said:
Now this actually represents the creation of SELF, because before that, you are incapable of shame.
Click to expand...
The story says nothing of the kind.
Ludi said:
So God returns and they are hiding from Him, and upon seeing what they did He banishes them from the garden.
Click to expand...
It says (Genesis 3:22-23) that God expelled them from the Garden BECAUSE [he] was afraid they'd eat the fruit of the tree of life and become immortal like [him] ─ and for no other reason.

The point being that the Garden story offers zero support for the Christian notion of original sin.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
I was simply making the point that the Christian God is not the Jewish God, despite all claims to the contrary, since the Jewish God has the covenant and is not triune.

And as I understand it another difference is that in Judaism you don't need an intermediary to pray to God ─ you just do it.
Click to expand...

This 'triune' business is a Catholic invention. The word 'trinity' is not mentioned in the bible.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
PruePhillip said:
This 'triune' business is a Catholic invention. The word 'trinity' is not mentioned in the bible.
Click to expand...
It's not mentioned in the bible at all, though from memory the three are mentioned together at at least one point in the NT. Bear in mind the Eastern Orthodox Church is Trinitarian on the same footing as the West, and didn't finally break with Rome till 1054.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top