What was the Death of Jesus about?

[Hermit Philosopher]

Good morning @blü 2

My starting point is that I can't make sense of the claims, since they seem to contradict each other, particularly the idea that an omnipotent and benevolent God would choose to solve a problem by sending [his] son to be crucified, and doing so in a relatively obscure corner of the Roman Empire.

Let us asume that you are interested in trying to solve this paradox that you see. Or at least, that you are curious about how others have solved it.

Then, you must try to be open to interpreting Scripture differently from how you do when you arrive at your paradox. And, you must attempt, not only to read the alternatives, but contemplate upon their meaning and their impact on reading Scripture.

Regarding above quote from your reply to me, you could for example start by thinking that, while God is omnipotent, Man is not.

Now, play a mind game with yourself.
As this omnipotent God, you have chosen to experience worldliness through Man and, you have given Man free-will.

As Man’s world evolves, you are not at ease with the way he is handling things and because Man is limited to his understanding of existence through worldliness, you must communicate your views to him in worldly terms. Note that it is not you who are limited; it is that which you wish to communicate with (Man) that is.

Despite Man’s limited perspective, you want him to understand why he is going about life wrongly and your way of doing this is by sacrificing your son to worldliness (not to death; death is a worldly perspective, applicable only to worldly beings).

Embodied as Man, your son now experiences worldliness in the same limited way as Man; that is, through 5 senses, positioned in a physical place. He therefore develops a personal outlook, leading to an idea of a separate self.

But as Christ, your son is able - and above all, willing - to retain his overview, where ALL is intricately intertwined, related, connected (his “god-perspective” if you like). And so, he is lives, not by the Will of Ego (as Man does), but by Divine Will.

Next time you are reading Scripture, note that when Jesus argues, he does not argue for himself; he argues on behalf of others.

Much like I can offer my other cheek to my perpetrator (for his sake, not for mine), but I cannot so willingly offer him my neighbour’s.
One can sacrifice oneself, but not another; not without spiritual turmoil.

Now, let’s go to your following comment:

In the NT, Jesus is hardly free of ego. He argues with church elders, he fights with his ma and his family, he kills the olive tree that offends him, he takes a whip to the (entirely lawful) temple traders ... and so on.

Jesus is not free from ego. No embodied being is. But Jesus does not live life by the will of his ego.

When he struggles with attachment (family, belonging, etc), he does so because of his need to live by Divine Will; against his ego.

When Jesus argues with/questions authority, he does not do so because of a “wounded ego”; he does so on behalf of all that which [Man’s] authority discriminates upon and casts out.

If you wish to understand your issues with Scripture, re-read things in this light. Try to understand the depths of what occurs around Jesus (not to him) and what he was trying to communicate through his words and actions.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Colt]

No they didn't. They never had any credible evidence to suggest such a thing was on offer, and Jesus was never a messiah in Jewish terms.

Not true, the Gospel of the Kingdom was offered all around Israel for 3+ years but they largely rejected the message and killed the messanger.

 

[KerimF]

Acts 17
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Of course, everyone is free to follow certain men who teach in the name of Jesus, in the past or now. In fact, rare people around the world are capable seeing in Jesus the divine perfect teacher (the Living Word of God). Therefore formal Christians are not supposed taking seriously all what Jesus says on the Gospel; so they search for what they like hearing elsewhere.

You gave me a good example.
I hear here about judgment as if Jesus were kidding when he said:

{Matthew 5:44-45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Please tell me where do see in this very clear saying what men used calling 'God's Judgment'? Unless one may like believing that living the true unconditional love, as Jesus revealed, is good for man, not God.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your focus on the spiritually of Jesus is totally right. But Jesus message is all about God's Love on earth as in Heaven; the unconditional love as in {Matthew 5:45}

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven (please note, Jesus didn't say your God): for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

I am afraid that 'Great High Priest' is an expression used in almost all man-made religions that are based on a certain god's law. And priests, high or not, are supposed to teach their god's law to their believers while supervising them as judges do.

Also 'lamb of God' is an expression inherited from ancient Paganism whose believers pleased their gods by sacrifices. Judaism teachings (much like the today's political constitutions) were about gathering certain human generations known as Jews (Israelis) in a well-organized formal group. Since the Jewish group was religious, giving sacrifices to God was also the norm. So I guess now, if someone couldn't get Jesus spirituality about Love, he, at best, doesn't mind seeing in Jesus (The Messiah) a sacrificed lamb to please God.

About 'king of the Jews', I am afraid there is no real king without being limited by a certain list of rules, a law. So, as in any well organized group, Jews had many leaders/kings though known as God's Prophets. Naturally, Jews imagined that at the arrival of their Messiah there will be a man like their great prophets though much more powerful to let them reign the world. Almost all of them, mainly their honorable Jewish Elders and Rulers, were disappointed, to a great extent, for hearing Jesus talking about Love instead and didn't mind seeing in him a dangerous deceiver threatening even the existence of Israel. In other word, 'king of the Jews' has nothing to do with Jesus spirituality.

Finally to be accurate, 'temple of the living God' may not reflect properly that Jesus came to reveal in person all natural truths about life and the world. Knowing these truths (the Light of knowledge) are needed only by those who perceive in them a spiritual living soul besides their living flesh. In other words, Jesus is the 'Living Word of God'.

I guess you meant by 'the New Testament was the spiritualization of the Old Testament' that Jesus teachings also reversed the Jewish ones (that reflect the human instincts of survival) which oppose God's Unconditional Love.

An independent student of Jesus (sorry, not a formal Christian)
Kerim

Love can be 'unconditional' but what does that mean?
Reading tonight Luke 19 about what Jesus had to say to the Jews about their
city, themselves and their children in coming days.
I see God's love as being conditional - conditioned on our acceptance of Him.
Yes, God so loved the world. But the world outside of Christ is condemned
according to Jesus.
It makes no difference if such and such a culture had a sacrificial lamb, or a
son of god, or any other similarity (remember, there were tens of thousands
of religions) - it doesn't alter God's own plan of salvation that it is through the
sacrifice of His own Son.

 

[John1.12]

Of course, everyone is free to follow certain men who teach in the name of Jesus, in the past or now. In fact, rare people around the world are capable seeing in Jesus the divine perfect teacher (the Living Word of God). Therefore formal Christians are not supposed taking seriously all what Jesus says on the Gospel; so they search for what they like hearing elsewhere.

You gave me a good example.
I hear here about judgment as if Jesus were kidding when he said:

{Matthew 5:44-45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Please tell me where do see in this very clear saying what men used calling 'God's Judgment'? Unless one may like believing that living the true unconditional love, as Jesus revealed, is good for man, not God.

who is Jesus speaking to? And is it before or After the cross?

 

[John1.12]

Of course, everyone is free to follow certain men who teach in the name of Jesus, in the past or now. In fact, rare people around the world are capable seeing in Jesus the divine perfect teacher (the Living Word of God). Therefore formal Christians are not supposed taking seriously all what Jesus says on the Gospel; so they search for what they like hearing elsewhere.

You gave me a good example.
I hear here about judgment as if Jesus were kidding when he said:

{Matthew 5:44-45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Please tell me where do see in this very clear saying what men used calling 'God's Judgment'? Unless one may like believing that living the true unconditional love, as Jesus revealed, is good for man, not God.

//Of course, everyone is free to follow certain men who teach in the name of Jesus,//How about, just from the bible alone ?

 

[Neuropteron]

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?
The Mosaic law.

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.




Blu2: The idea that a mediator is needed seems to be a novelty.

Not really as I mentioned before, the Law covenant , the priest, the sacrifices , the ceremonies etc were required to approach God, thus a type of mediatory arrangement




Blu2: 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.

That is good reasoning, but....
are they really incapable of sin?

Being incapable of sin, means that they would not have free will. By definition free will means that sin is an option.
It's either driving on rails or using a Range Rover. It's impossible to have it both ways.
The fact that this one law was in place made it possible to disobey it's dictate and thus to sin.

If we assume, for a moment, that they could sin, what was the sin ?
The definition of sin (in the Bible) is "Missing the mark".
The objective (mark/goal) in Adam and Eve case was one of abstention.
As you said, they had no concept of good and evil, but they did have a law, a very simple and easy to obey law, and they knew the consequences of breaking it.

Blu2: 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.

You are right to a degree. Some issues are not explained or dealt with in a time frame that we are accustomed to, but they are handled according to God's timetable and the meanings were revealed in God's due time, in effect all of the things you mentioned were fully explained and confirmed in the scriptures.
Dan 12:9 "...go Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end".
We are living in that time, called "time of the end" The prophesy goes on to say however that only "...the ones having insight will understand".

cheers

 

[wellwisher]

The death of Jesus was designed to reverse the fall from paradise. Adam and Eve fell from paradise when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is symbolic of law. Law teaches us good from evil. Jesus is often referred to as the new Adam. The new Adam returns to paradise by reversing the original transgression. The righteous man shall live by faith apart from the law. Before the fall and Adam and Eve lived by faith in the inner voice of instinct.

Law is based on socially imposed rules for behavior, that can differ from culture to culture as well as from natural instinct and common sense. For example, in WWII the Nazi made laws that made it legal to persecute the Jews. In America at the same time, the Democrat party pushed for laws that allowed the blacks to be segregated. Those in power can make and change the law to maintain their power. It was illegal, for most of history, for the men not to fight in the wars, even if your country was the aggressor. What is defined as good by the law does not have to be good.

Don't get me wrong, there are laws that are useful and fair. However, by the nature of humans in power making the law, those in power will often make laws to perpetuate their power, instead of do what is right for the majority based on rational standards.

Forgiveness of sins was a round about way to neutralize law. For example, say the law says the speed limit is 65 mph on a given highway. If you broke that law and was pulled over by a state trooper, but he gives you a warning and lets you go, his judgment; forgiveness of sin, neutralizes the law for that instant.

Sin is not imputed if there is no law. He forgave your sin, by temporarily suspending law, since sin is not impute where there is no law. When Jesus preached that God could forgive sin, this was a kick in the pants to all the humans in power, who made self serving laws, that God could suspend through forgiveness of sins. God forgiving sin was like a trump card.

The death on the cross between two thieves was also symbolic of law. Law divides things into good and evil; two thieves. One is not allowed to think on their own, but has to stay suspended because of the socially imposed laws that may conflict with one's inner voice, common sense and reason. In WWII it was good by the law for a Nazi to persecute the Jews. Defining this behavior as good was still a thief, in terms of stealing your genuine good.

When Jesus resurrects from the daed, this was also connected to Law. In the law, the death penalty is the supreme punishment. Once one is killed by the law, one is no longer under the law, since you are dead. They do not bring a dead man to trial. Trials are for the living. When Jesus died he was exempt from further law and when he was resurrected, he became alive and still exempt from the law, due to double jeopardy. This symbolically broke the spell of law.

As history shows man went back to law, which was the tree of Satan.

 

[blü 2]

Does it have to make ' sense ' to you to be true?

Yes, of course. I trust no one wants to believe what to them is nonsense.

But that's not what happened?

Falling quietly asleep while being crucified isn't mentioned in any records I'm aware of.

But the question is still, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, WHY would any death necessary at all? Let alone a cruel one. Let alone your own son.

 

[blü 2]

That's disingenuous. It was a Roman crucifixion but that the Romans reserved that mostly for politicals. But in Israel at the time, being in a Roman military providence, the Jews had no right to apply the death penalty to anyone.

So it appears. But who killed Jesus?

The Romans.

Who could have legally stopped the execution?

The Romans.

Who didn't stop it?

The Romans.

Why? In the story, because the Prefect was afraid of the mob. And in John's version of the story, the mob takes responsibility for the death, but that's extremely unlikely and not otherwise mentioned (and the author of John left other antisemitic remarks around).

 

[Rival]

Acts 17
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

I repent to my own God.

 

[John1.12]

Yes, of course. I trust no one wants to believe what to them is nonsense.
Falling quietly asleep while being crucified isn't mentioned in any records I'm aware of.

But the question is still, given a benevolent and omnipotent God, WHY would any death necessary at all? Let alone a cruel one. Let alone your own son.

Lots of ' whys ' . Why did God bother to create Man ect .

 

[John1.12]

I repent to my own God.

Of course. There are many ' gods ' .

 

[Rival]

Of course. There are many ' gods ' .

And yours is just one of them.

 

[John1.12]

And yours is just one of them.

In your worldview , yes . I used to believe that too before.

 

[Rival]

In your worldview , yes . I used to believe that too before.

And I used to be a Christian. We could argue this all day. You're convinced your God is special and I'm not.

 

[PruePhillip]

So it appears. But who killed Jesus?

The Romans.

Who could have legally stopped the execution?

The Romans.

Who didn't stop it?

The Romans.

Why? In the story, because the Prefect was afraid of the mob. And in John's version of the story, the mob takes responsibility for the death, but that's extremely unlikely and not otherwise mentioned (and the author of John left other antisemitic remarks around).

If you read the history of Rome there were two things the state wanted from the provinces, taxes
and peace. With revolts (and there were three within 60 years in Israel) the Romans didn't get
revenue, they lost it, plus lives.
Being a military protectorate the governors were chosen by the Emperor instead of the Senate,
so these positions were more onerous. And complaints going back to Rome (as they did often
from Palestine) sometimes saw the end of some governor's career.
So if the mob agitated for something then you paid attention to the matter. It could be war, or
it could be your own scalp.
The trial of Jesus was illegal on about 18 separate points. One of these was the assumption
of guilt and the method of death. I suggest the mob wanted crucifixion over stoning because
it was more cruel - and the agitators made it clear to Pilot they could take the matter to Rome.

 

[John1.12]

And I used to be a Christian. We could argue this all day. You're convinced your God is special and I'm not.

How did you become a Christian?

 

[KerimF]

Love can be 'unconditional' but what does that mean?
Reading tonight Luke 19 about what Jesus had to say to the Jews about their
city, themselves and their children in coming days.
I see God's love as being conditional - conditioned on our acceptance of Him.
Yes, God so loved the world. But the world outside of Christ is condemned
according to Jesus.
It makes no difference if such and such a culture had a sacrificial lamb, or a
son of god, or any other similarity (remember, there were tens of thousands
of religions) - it doesn't alter God's own plan of salvation that it is through the
sacrifice of His own Son.

You remark is interesting. So I read again Luke 19. I heard Jesus saying simply what will happen to the city, though this could be applied to almost all cities in the world in human history. But I couldn't find God's judgment in his saying about the city but perhaps I missed something.

Truth be told, I am aware that one can find at least one clear saying (parable), referred to Jesus, about God's Judgment {Luke 16:20}. But if one reads it attentively, it reflects the God's Judgment as it was addressed to Jews. This reminds me how parents judge and punish their little kids if they disobey the rules (actually, the rules approved by their parents). And, in case parents are good and wise, they won't do the same to their children when they are no more their little kids. Their relationship would be based on trust and love, not obedience. Similarly, while God was communicating first with Jews, humans on earth were rather primitive (kids of humanity). This explains why love, as revealed by Jesus, couldn't be told to the ancient Jews. And the purpose of Judaism teachings was simply to gather a group of people (Jews) in a well-defined group which was organized by a set of rules, known as God's Law. God was taking care of his chosen Jews, via wise Elders and Kings, known as Prophets, so that they could be ready for the arrival of Jesus, The Messiah, among them. When Jesus came, Judaism fulfilled its mission. This is why Jesus said very clearly that the greatest Jewish Prophet is John The Baptist who was the last Prophet and devoted his life for this mission.

Perhaps I missed things because I don't see Jesus bringing the world any list of good and bad. Such a list could be found in all man-made religions and reflects simply the human instincts of survival (much like the one addressed to Jews).

So please notify me whenever you find a rule that Jesus found necessary to be imposed on me (as in the army).
Thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What was the death of Jesus about?

Jesus, according to the gospels, sets out, not on a suicide mission (meaning a very dangerous mission), but on a mission to die, a seeking of death, a literal suicide.

In Mark he puts it on the table right near the start:

Mark 2:20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.​

and at the end he doesn’t take the midnight special camel train out of Jerusalem to points east, but deliberately avoids every chance to escape:

Mark 14:33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. 34 And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch." 35 And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt."

Matthew 26:18 He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.'"

Matthew 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 26:38 Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Luke 22:22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!"

Luke 22:42 "Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."​

The tone in John is different, but the determination to die is still foremost:

John 17:4 I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; 5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

John 17:13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.​

I've never understood what's supposed to be going on. I'd be grateful for coherent answers to three

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.

My take on it: I think the most likely reason that Jesus dies in the Gospels is that he died in real life.

I think you're right: looking at things theologically, Jesus's death doesn't seem necessary or even meaningful. Instead, I think what's going on is that Jesus really did die, so his followers had to rationalize this as best they could within the religious framework they were in.

The good news for the Christians is that this points to there being a real historical Jesus at the centre of the myth instead of Jesus being entirely invented.