Why Would Yeshua (Jesus) Be Necessary?

[Danizar]

Have you considered genocide from a different perspective? How about, when these people die, they go to a better place and end up better off than they were before? What if dying is like having a yoke lifted off you? A bit like waking up from a dream... Just a thought. I'm not condoning genocide or anything...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ah, so you're saying the god of the OT and the god of the NT are in fact different beings.

No... just a different understanding about the nature of the same God.



Yes, and they usually have the abrahamic god in mind when doing them. What's your point? Man commites genocide so it was okay that god did? [/quote]

Not at all ... people of all religions have done and still do these things.
God is never an excuse to sin.

Even the Old testament Jews did these things in God's name. God has never done any of these crimes.

 

[gzusfrk]

GOD never required a secretary.

No, He needed a way to get a sinful being into a Holy place.

 

[Humanistheart]

Have you considered genocide from a different perspective? How about, when these people die, they go to a better place and end up better off than they were before? What if dying is like having a yoke lifted off you? A bit like waking up from a dream... Just a thought. I'm not condoning genocide or anything...

You're suggesting the ends justify the means. Many attracities have been comminted with that idea in mind.

 

[Humanistheart]

No, He needed a way to get a sinful being into a Holy place.

What part of that makes sence?

 

[Humanistheart]

Not at all ... people of all religions have done and still do these things.
God is never an excuse to sin.

Even the Old testament Jews did these things in God's name. God has never done any of these crimes.

I don't recall hearing of any mass bhudist genocides, so I think that's incorret that people of all religions have done the things people who follow the abrahamic god do.

OT jews? I don't think you have a full understanding of the lineage of the jewish religion, but at any rate, when your god commands people to kill others, what part of him not actually doing that makes him not responcible for the crimes he ordered? And at any rate yes, god did kill many himself in the bible, the flood, sodom and gamorah, several individuals and smaller groups, not to mention the physical and mental torture he inflicted on many. Have you read the bible in full?

 

[Humanistheart]

Perhaps I missed it, but I've seen nothing posted to indicate that jesus was anything but unnecessary theatrics.

 

[TheKnight]

Christians contend that Yeshua is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In their dogma, god had to die in an incarnate human form as a sacrifice for sins. A sacrifice to appease sins is a sacrifice for/to god. God sacrifices himself as Yeshua for himself to appease a so called debt owed to himself. It's like saying my friend owed me 5 dollars but couldn't pay and is remorseful of this fact so I payed myself 5 dollars to make it alright with myself. As if that is any different from simply forgiving him and letting the debt drop. While a 5 dollar debt is simplistic compared to the topic of sin, it is an apt comparison showing it's simply unnecessary. If god wanted to forgive sin he could just forgive it, he would not need to go through all these elaberate death based plans.

I've also hear people say jesus died to full fill 'the law', but since god would be the one who had made said law, this does not answer the question, because god simply could have planned better, if he is all-knowing. Why make a law that will require yourself to sacrifice yourself to yourself? And we're back the question above.

Additionally, the idea was that jesus was human, and thus could pay for humanities sins with his death, but was also devine, thus capable of being sinless. But Yahweh makes it clear with abraham that human sacrifice was abhorrent to him. So the idea of Yeshua as a sacrifice would disgust him as well.
Also, Yeshua is said to be the 'sacrificial lamb' for sins. But the sacrificial lamb celebrated at pass-over was never used in relation of sin. If you'll recall the story in exedus the blood of a pure lamb was to be smeared over the doorway, to show which houses contained god's chosen people. The lamb had nothing to do with sin, so why would Yeshua's?

Your post is precisely the reason that Jews do not accept the Christian message. The primary reason they don't accept it is that it is unnecessary. Let's forget the fact that Jesus isn't the Messiah (it is this fact that makes Christianity false). If we look just at the message of Christianity, we can see that it is unnecessary from the perspective of the Jewish tradition.

The Christians will say:

1. Mankind is a sinful being and because of sin he is separated from God--Judaism, for the most part, would agree with this.

And that's about all they agree on. Is that man is sinful. Why he is sinful, the rectification of sin, what should be done with those who are sinful, all of that is disputed. Christianity will come to believer in the Tanakh and say "You cannot atone for your sins before God. You, by yourself, are unable to go to God and be forgiven of your sins. Jesus' sacrifice is necessary for you to receive salvation."

Fact of the matter is that such statements are baloney. God Himself says over and over and over and over again throughout all of Tanakh that a person should and can repent. He says that we are able to keep the law that He has given to us. I hear Christians say a lot "Jesus fixed the problem between man and God." When I ask what that problem was, they usually reply, "The fact that mankind is separated from God through sin."

My response is always, "What's wrong with the methods described in the Tanakh (Charity, Repentance, and Sacrifice?)?" They will usually say, "That was inadequate to serve as a method of forgiveness." When I ask them the following question, they are unable to answer and I have yet to me a Christian with an answer. Where in the Bible does it say that mankind is unable to attain "salvation" through the methods given in the Tanakh? Where does God say that we cannot repent WITHOUT sacrifice. Christians try to say "the Bible says 'there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood'". Little do they know, that verse comes from the New Testament. God Himself says no such thing.

 

[elisheba]

Your post is precisely the reason that Jews do not accept the Christian message. The primary reason they don't accept it is that it is unnecessary. Let's forget the fact that Jesus isn't the Messiah (it is this fact that makes Christianity false). If we look just at the message of Christianity, we can see that it is unnecessary from the perspective of the Jewish tradition.

The Christians will say:

1. Mankind is a sinful being and because of sin he is separated from God--Judaism, for the most part, would agree with this.

And that's about all they agree on. Is that man is sinful. Why he is sinful, the rectification of sin, what should be done with those who are sinful, all of that is disputed. Christianity will come to believer in the Tanakh and say "You cannot atone for your sins before God. You, by yourself, are unable to go to God and be forgiven of your sins. Jesus' sacrifice is necessary for you to receive salvation."

Fact of the matter is that such statements are baloney. God Himself says over and over and over and over again throughout all of Tanakh that a person should and can repent. He says that we are able to keep the law that He has given to us. I hear Christians say a lot "Jesus fixed the problem between man and God." When I ask what that problem was, they usually reply, "The fact that mankind is separated from God through sin."

My response is always, "What's wrong with the methods described in the Tanakh (Charity, Repentance, and Sacrifice?)?" They will usually say, "That was inadequate to serve as a method of forgiveness." When I ask them the following question, they are unable to answer and I have yet to me a Christian with an answer. Where in the Bible does it say that mankind is unable to attain "salvation" through the methods given in the Tanakh? Where does God say that we cannot repent WITHOUT sacrifice. Christians try to say "the Bible says 'there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood'". Little do they know, that verse comes from the New Testament. God Himself says no such thing.

Numbers 35:33 blood defiles the land.....

 

[Humanistheart]

Your post is precisely the reason that Jews do not accept the Christian message. The primary reason they don't accept it is that it is unnecessary. Let's forget the fact that Jesus isn't the Messiah (it is this fact that makes Christianity false). If we look just at the message of Christianity, we can see that it is unnecessary from the perspective of the Jewish tradition.

The Christians will say:

1. Mankind is a sinful being and because of sin he is separated from God--Judaism, for the most part, would agree with this.

And that's about all they agree on. Is that man is sinful. Why he is sinful, the rectification of sin, what should be done with those who are sinful, all of that is disputed. Christianity will come to believer in the Tanakh and say "You cannot atone for your sins before God. You, by yourself, are unable to go to God and be forgiven of your sins. Jesus' sacrifice is necessary for you to receive salvation."

Fact of the matter is that such statements are baloney. God Himself says over and over and over and over again throughout all of Tanakh that a person should and can repent. He says that we are able to keep the law that He has given to us. I hear Christians say a lot "Jesus fixed the problem between man and God." When I ask what that problem was, they usually reply, "The fact that mankind is separated from God through sin."

My response is always, "What's wrong with the methods described in the Tanakh (Charity, Repentance, and Sacrifice?)?" They will usually say, "That was inadequate to serve as a method of forgiveness." When I ask them the following question, they are unable to answer and I have yet to me a Christian with an answer. Where in the Bible does it say that mankind is unable to attain "salvation" through the methods given in the Tanakh? Where does God say that we cannot repent WITHOUT sacrifice. Christians try to say "the Bible says 'there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood'". Little do they know, that verse comes from the New Testament. God Himself says no such thing.

Excellent contribution knight.

 

[elisheba]

Your post is precisely the reason that Jews do not accept the Christian message. The primary reason they don't accept it is that it is unnecessary. Let's forget the fact that Jesus isn't the Messiah (it is this fact that makes Christianity false). If we look just at the message of Christianity, we can see that it is unnecessary from the perspective of the Jewish tradition.

The Christians will say:

1. Mankind is a sinful being and because of sin he is separated from God--Judaism, for the most part, would agree with this.

And that's about all they agree on. Is that man is sinful. Why he is sinful, the rectification of sin, what should be done with those who are sinful, all of that is disputed. Christianity will come to believer in the Tanakh and say "You cannot atone for your sins before God. You, by yourself, are unable to go to God and be forgiven of your sins. Jesus' sacrifice is necessary for you to receive salvation."

Fact of the matter is that such statements are baloney. God Himself says over and over and over and over again throughout all of Tanakh that a person should and can repent. He says that we are able to keep the law that He has given to us. I hear Christians say a lot "Jesus fixed the problem between man and God." When I ask what that problem was, they usually reply, "The fact that mankind is separated from God through sin."

My response is always, "What's wrong with the methods described in the Tanakh (Charity, Repentance, and Sacrifice?)?" They will usually say, "That was inadequate to serve as a method of forgiveness." When I ask them the following question, they are unable to answer and I have yet to me a Christian with an answer. Where in the Bible does it say that mankind is unable to attain "salvation" through the methods given in the Tanakh? Where does God say that we cannot repent WITHOUT sacrifice. Christians try to say "the Bible says 'there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood'". Little do they know, that verse comes from the New Testament. God Himself says no such thing.

atonement...by the blood of him who sheds it
numbers 35:33

 

[TheKnight]

To Elisheba: What does that verse have to do with the atonement of sins? That verse is talking about one who sheds blood and murders another human being.

Ezekiel 18 states:

27-28
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Similarly,

14-16
Again, when I say unto the wicked: Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

 

[Humanistheart]

Numbers 35:33 blood defiles the land.....

This would seem to support my point as well, thank you for providing it.

I think we can all agree jesus simply was not necessary.

 

[Humanistheart]

Alright, since no one has offered any reason why jesus would be necessary in this theologic construct, I can expect that all the questions about jesus will cease on this site, as there's no point in discussing someone who's been proven to be a false god/messiah, which means christianity has been well established as a false religion.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Christians contend that Yeshua is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In their dogma, god had to die in an incarnate human form as a sacrifice for sins. A sacrifice to appease sins is a sacrifice for/to god. God sacrifices himself as Yeshua for himself to appease a so called debt owed to himself. It's like saying my friend owed me 5 dollars but couldn't pay and is remorseful of this fact so I payed myself 5 dollars to make it alright with myself. As if that is any different from simply forgiving him and letting the debt drop. While a 5 dollar debt is simplistic compared to the topic of sin, it is an apt comparison showing it's simply unnecessary. If god wanted to forgive sin he could just forgive it, he would not need to go through all these elaberate death based plans.

I've also hear people say jesus died to full fill 'the law', but since god would be the one who had made said law, this does not answer the question, because god simply could have planned better, if he is all-knowing. Why make a law that will require yourself to sacrifice yourself to yourself? And we're back the question above.

Additionally, the idea was that jesus was human, and thus could pay for humanities sins with his death, but was also devine, thus capable of being sinless. But Yahweh makes it clear with abraham that human sacrifice was abhorrent to him. So the idea of Yeshua as a sacrifice would disgust him as well.
Also, Yeshua is said to be the 'sacrificial lamb' for sins. But the sacrificial lamb celebrated at pass-over was never used in relation of sin. If you'll recall the story in exedus the blood of a pure lamb was to be smeared over the doorway, to show which houses contained god's chosen people. The lamb had nothing to do with sin, so why would Yeshua's?

think of it this way. We have a debt to God that we can't pay. God love us so much that he willing to cancel the Debt and the only way for the debt to be canceled is for blood to be shed. The hebrews would sacrifice their best animals and the debt would be payed back for a year, but God decided that He wanted to cancel out the debt compeletly so he took the most perfect thing himself and bled on the cross to wash the debt away.

 

[Humanistheart]

think of it this way. We have a debt to God that we can't pay. God love us so much that he willing to cancel the Debt and the only way for the debt to be canceled is for blood to be shed.

The hebrews would sacrifice their best animals and the debt would be payed back for a year, but God decided that He wanted to cancel out the debt compeletly so he took the most perfect thing himself and bled on the cross to wash the debt away.

You lost it in the first two sentances. You say we have a debt to god. I never made any wager or deal with this being, I owe him nothing. You've completley missed the point. This god decides we owe him so we do? Not neccessary. If god set the debt and the rules of this world, then the debt could be paid any number of ways. One could sing the debt away instead of killing inoccent animals. Why in heavens name would you want to worship a god that requires blood be spilt before he forgives.

Let me ask you. If you had children and they did something you didn't like would you cut them? According to you blood is neccessary for forgivesness now isnt' it. So what about cutting or killing your children would satify you?

Again, jesus was clearly unnnecessary.

 

[TheKnight]

think of it this way. We have a debt to God that we can't pay. God love us so much that he willing to cancel the Debt and the only way for the debt to be canceled is for blood to be shed. The hebrews would sacrifice their best animals and the debt would be payed back for a year, but God decided that He wanted to cancel out the debt compeletly so he took the most perfect thing himself and bled on the cross to wash the debt away.

Where in the Bible does God says we have a debt to pay? If there is a debt, who said that we can't pay it? If we can't pay it, what makes you think that the ONLY way the debt can be canceled (by a God who can do anything) is through the blood of human beings?


There is NOTHING in the Tanakh to suggest that mankind has a debt that he cannot pay. The opposite. Mankind is a dual-part creature. Part animal, part divine. Sin is the elevation of the animal nature over the divine. The goal is to harmonize the two.

 

[blackout]

Who wants a banker for a god.

yuck.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

You lost it in the first two sentances. You say we have a debt to god. I never made any wager or deal with this being, I owe him nothing. You've completley missed the point. This god decides we owe him so we do? Not neccessary. If god set the debt and the rules of this world, then the debt could be paid any number of ways. One could sing the debt away instead of killing inoccent animals. Why in heavens name would you want to worship a god that requires blood be spilt before he forgives.

Let me ask you. If you had children and they did something you didn't like would you cut them? According to you blood is neccessary for forgivesness now isnt' it. So what about cutting or killing your children would satify you?

Again, jesus was clearly unnnecessary.

Jesus was God wrapped in Flesh he was paying his debt off.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Where in the Bible does God says we have a debt to pay? If there is a debt, who said that we can't pay it? If we can't pay it, what makes you think that the ONLY way the debt can be canceled (by a God who can do anything) is through the blood of human beings?


There is NOTHING in the Tanakh to suggest that mankind has a debt that he cannot pay. The opposite. Mankind is a dual-part creature. Part animal, part divine. Sin is the elevation of the animal nature over the divine. The goal is to harmonize the two.

Well the Tanakh and The Bible is two different things.