What was the Death of Jesus about?

[stvdv]

There are many ' gods

Are there? Maybe (not), I have not seen many gods. Would be nice though (if they are friendly gods)

Of course

Nice, you know for sure. I don' t know for sure

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Jesus said
For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and
close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not
leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your
visitation.”

That's God's judgment.
Jerusalem was under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentile's time is fulfilled. And that is our day, now.
We the Gentiles, our time has come, perhaps to suffer like the Jew did.

 

[KerimF]

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

I am sure you have your good reasons to listen to every word in the Bible.

On my side, it happened that Jesus only was able to help me get the logical answers of all my crucial questions about my own existence and the real world. Naturally, I didn't need to believe in any Jesus miracle to know that Jesus, the all-knowledge, is indeed the 'Living Word of my God' {John 10:14}.

 

[stvdv]

Jesus is not free from ego

Are you 100% sure of this?

Jesus has had 2000 years to work on His Ego. Assuming He is alive now AND Jesus has a body now. Without a body can there be Ego?

BUT

@stvdv is not free from ego this I know

No embodied being is.

I do not know. Why not? How can you know for sure?

 

[blü 2]

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.

I'm not good at understanding things that don't make sense ─ only at understanding that they don't make sense.

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.

No, I'm omniscient ─ I already know exactly what the experience feels like.

As Man’s world evolves, you are not at ease with the way he is handling things

This is the same problem as with Noah's flood ─ God is supposed to be omniscient but there and in your example [he]'s being taken by surprise. You can't take an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent perfect universe-creating entity by surprise ever. Freewill shmeewill, you and I can't deviate even by the width of a quark from what [he] perfectly foresaw and intended what you and I would do when [he] made the universe.

So ─ are we to leave that aside for the present question? Are we to think God can be blindsided by human actions? That a perfect being has no clue where the future is going?

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.

In this story I'm omnipotent. So whatever it is I wish one human or those humans or all humans to understand, I snap my almighty fingers and right then and there they understand it ─ no waiting around for decades, centuries, millennia, for the word to filter up from ancient Judea, mangled by thousands of years of church politics.

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).]/quote] Snap! Problem solved!

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

No, he can get all whiney:

Mark 6:3 [...] And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”​

​

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.

That depends which Jesus. Mark's Jesus (the first to have any substantial bio) is an ordinary Jew until God adopts him as [his] son at his baptism.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Do you read Deepak Chppra? Is your library full of old Lobsang Rampa books? In other words, why would they notice that particular voice amid all the other voices?

 

[KerimF]

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).

You are right but I am afraid you missed those who asked for setting free the Jewish criminal Barabbas instead of Jesus; a Roman holiday gift to Jews.

 

[blü 2]

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

Even if I accept that (and in fact I know of no rule, then or now, that prevents anyone of the Jewish faith from directly addressing their God on the understanding that they will be heard) the mediators were ordinary humans, not supernatural ones. There was (and is) direct contact between each Jew and his or her God,

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.

For a start, free will is not discussed anywhere in the bible that I'm aware of.

By definition free will means that sin is an option.

You're saying that because you've never heard of the game rock scissors paper and therefore are incapable of cheating at rock scissors paper, that's denying you free will? I respectfully but strongly disagree. No one has free will outside the boundaries of their own understanding because there's nothing there for free will to apply to.

If we assume, for a moment, that they could sin, what was the sin ?

That brings up the further point that in the Garden story, sin is never mentioned ─ not even once. And as I think I mentioned, God didn't chuck them out of the Garden for any real or alleged sin ─ [he] stated [his] reasons clearly and only in Genesis 3:22-23.

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.

No, the snake spoke truly all the time ─ you will not die [the same day as you eat of the fruit], he said, and he was exactly right.

 

[blü 2]

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

You don't want answers to questions? What, How, Why, Where, When, Who, are not of interest to you?

We seem to have no common ground.

Go well.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Regardless, why was Jesus on a death mission? What did it accomplish in its vile and bloody fashion that God could not have accomplished much more efficiently with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?

 

[blü 2]

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.

There's a great deal we don't know, but I think your proposition is essentially reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[blü 2]

You are right but I am afraid you missed those who asked for setting free the Jewish criminal Barabbas instead of Jesus; a Roman holiday gift to Jews.

Leaving aside that "Barabbas" means "Son of Father", and that this part of the story is very likely invention, there is no evidence of the practice of which you speak ─ please correct me if that's wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There would not have been a story, and no Easter. Bible would have been shorter and poorer for it. There would not have been much for Paul to write about.

 

[blü 2]

There would not have been a story, and no Easter. Bible would have been shorter and poorer for it. There would not have been much for Paul to write about.

Actually, Paul wrote very little about a real Jesus ─ it would fit in three lines here. The rest was what Jesus told him in a vision. Note particularly Galatians 1:11-12.

 

[KerimF]

Jesus said
For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and
close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not
leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your
visitation.”

That's God's judgment.
Jerusalem was under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentile's time is fulfilled. And that is our day, now.
We the Gentiles, our time has come, perhaps to suffer like the Jew did.

Thank you for clarifying your point.

It seems you like believing that suffering because of enemies is God's Judgment.
I am afraid that if this is the case, the first humans who were cursed by this judgment were the Apostles and first Disciples. God, as in you view, let them be suffered by their enemies till their last breath.

 

[Colt]

Do you read Deepak Chppra? Is your library full of old Lobsang Rampa books? In other words, why would they notice that particular voice amid all the other voices?

They did notice Jesus, they noticed enough to follow Jesus around spying on him, heckling him, challenging him and put Jesus through a trumped up trial and had him killed by the Romans. They thought that they got rid of Jesus when their problems with him had only just begun.

 

[John1.12]

I am sure you have your good reasons to listen to every word in the Bible.

On my side, it happened that Jesus only was able to help me get the logical answers of all my crucial questions about my own existence and the real world. Naturally, I didn't need to believe in any Jesus miracle to know that Jesus, the all-knowledge, is indeed the 'Living Word of my God' {John 10:14}.

Hopefully you quote that verse because you believe it . Why not all the bible?

 

[Brian2]

But that's the issue ─ the mission was to die. And in a grossly unpleasant manner.

What made that necessary? What could only be achieved by a hideous death when you're an omnipotent and benevolent God? Or are you still a violent and bloodthirsty Bronze Age savage?

God does not change.

What same problem would remain? Those who didn't want it wouldn't have to take it. And of course even to this day, there are those who still have never heard of it, never had a chance to take it. What's just about that?

The same problem of people being evil.
Plenty of people would take forgiveness instead of taking the consequences of sin if all it took was a snap of God's fingers. As it is now people have a choice.
The judgement is still to come and imo it is not going to just Christians who are saved. God is capable of judging us all and being merciful to whomsoever He wants to be merciful to.

If we're human, then under this logic it's because God made us as we are, warts and all. If we offend our maker, it seems ridiculous for the maker to blame the creation, doesn't it? How can an omnipotent being say anything is someone else's fault?

God gave us power over our own moral choices in life. It's the easy way out to blame God when we make the wrong choices. Not that you are doing that if you do not believe in a God of course.
God accepts us as we are and suffered and died for our evil choices.............but wants us to walk in the faith He gives.

Then why wasn't Jesus' message just that ─ Hey people, God will hear your prayers if you offer them in good faith, whether or not you've brought a sacrifice, whether or not you've paid your tithes.

That was partly Jesus message.

But before we go to the question of why it couldn't be abandoned, we have the prior question, Why was it ever necessary in the first place? As I keep saying, we're talking about an omnipotent being here ─ is [he] truly benevolent or is [he] a bloodthirsty creep?

He did the painful thing for us.

Nowhere is it suggested in the Garden story that Adam and Eve were to be immortal. On the exact opposite, the ONLY reason God threw them out of the Garden was to stop them becoming immortal ─ and [he] says exactly and only that at Genesis 3:22-23.

The tree of life was there but we did not get the chance to get to the stage where A@E ever ate the fruit.
The penalty of sin was death, that implies no death is there was no sin.

In the Garden story, there is no identification of the snake with Satan. (And indeed, Satan in the early Tanakh is simply one of God's courtiers ─ see for example Job 1. Not till much later is he the bad guy.)
God's intention still remained and how to achieve it had already been worked out.

God's intention is still working itself out.
God punished the snake and so He was not doing the will of God.

You're saying that God didn't get the Covenant right the first time and was trying to fix it by sacrificing [his] son to [him]self? With all due respect, that makes no sense at all.

No I'm not saying that.
The first step was to let people know what He considered good behaviour for them and let them see that they could not do it and needed His help and a Saviour.

But of course Christianity was very largely a pagan success, and only in a tiny way a Jewish success. Jesus was never the savior of the Jews, never their liberator from Rome, never anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which is what 'messiah' means). Instead, Christianity has meant two thousand years of Christian antisemitism, starting with the author of John. How could Jewish people possibly have thought he spoke for their God?

It seems they could not see that through the evil actions of some Christians, but they may have been able to figure it out because of their exile and what happened to them and wonder what they did to cause it.

 

[John1.12]

You don't want answers to questions? What, How, Why, Where, When, Who, are not of interest to you?

We seem to have no common ground.

Go well.

I don't say that we shouldn't have these questions. Just that there are questions . I believe the bible answers them .

 

[Rival]

How did you become a Christian?

Well it's kind of a long story. I was raised in a Christian country but not really a Christian. I always had a fascination with religion and talking to God etc. I would beg my mum for a Bible by the time I was 6, and at 9 I was gifted one from another family member at Christmas. I began to take a more serious and adult interest in my teenage years, and I began truly taking in the scriptures, listening to Christian teachers, looking up the differences between the denominations, going indepth with theologies etc. I used to enjoy listening to such folks as James White - I even watched Wretched (I still sometimes guilty pleasure watch Wretched). I attended multiple different Church services and read commentaries on the Gospels. I had a commentary on John that I really liked. It was an old book and I can't mind who wrote it, now. It's long gone.

Anyway, after years of this and being a Christian, I came to the conclusion it is wrong. I was convinced by Jewish arguments to the contrary.