What was the Death of Jesus about?

[blü 2]

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

The idea of a resurrection is that it occurs from an authentically dead state, no?

So the claim of a resurrection necessarily implies a preceding authentically dead state, no?

Or are you saying there was no resurrection? That's certainly arguable, but it's not what the NT says.

 

[Trailblazer]

But WHY was it necessary for anyone to die, let alone a god sacrificing [his] son to [him]self?

I guess that was just fated by God. The sacrifice served a purpose as I explained. It certainly served a better purpose than the alleged resurrection. That served no purpose, not that I believe it ever happened.

Should not God have replied, "Don't be a dingbat, son! What good would that do?"

It did do a lot of good because it demonstrated sacrifice and self-denial and how much Jesus loved humanity.

I think Jesus knew it was God’s will that he sacrifice Himself and Jesus also knew he was not really going to die, that only his body would die, but his soul would continue to live in the spiritual world (heaven).

What other methods of freeing us from the imperfections of our physical nature were considered? Why were they all rejected?

I don’t really know why, but that is the method God and Jesus chose.

Let's say that's correct. Why would a human sacrifice make any difference? What would it change? Why? How else could that change have been effected?

Read the whole chapter on the link because it is explained. The chapter is not very long.

29: EXPLANATION OF VERSE TWENTY-TWO, CHAPTER FIFTEEN, OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

So human sacrifice is a terrific idea, and we should be seeking to expand and normalize its uses, right? Wow, the US could get rid of its national debt down overnight! Or at least by lunchtime Sunday!

No, this was just a one shot deal. Jesus was unique and the cross sacrifice was part of His mission on earth. It had to end that way, it was meant to. Do you know that the Bab also gave his life for the Cause of God? The execution was very dramatic, witnessed by about 10,000 people. Like Jesus, the Bab was also very young and had a short mission on earth.

Execution of the Báb

 

[rational experiences]

The idea of a resurrection is that it occurs from an authentically dead state, no?

So the claim of a resurrection necessarily implies a preceding authentically dead state, no?

Or are you saying there was no resurrection? That's certainly arguable, but it's not what the NT says.

Science using old symbolism thesis.

Human stated.

Life is lived consciously in heavens where gods spirit is slight burning sacrificed as gas in void womb space.

Owned by state heavens only.

God body deceased gases no longer alight. Deceased AS the tomb stone.

How you read the info mis interpreted.

The dead spirit was resurrected burning alight illuminated.

As womb void keeps life safe from burning it was sacrificed the statement.

Newly born ice is ancient.

Newly born end of year ice returned stable life DNA human baby life returning.

A teaching first.

Ice was why DNA healed returned in a cooling atmosphere. A science teaching.

The resurrection stated pre warned life would die. Attacked.

It did recur life died. Remember life was already notified of its sacrifice.

The resurrection was another event.

The resurrection proved why life was being sacrificed.

Sink holes opened.

You have to be present in vicinity to see sink hole open tomb.

Before the event mountain disintegration law broken was incurred landslides notified.

Science argued against science. Why attack was prophecised as the warning signs kept recurring.

Ice is one of return yearly. Season changes one identified reason.

You read the event as if had order and are wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

As was the case, only one Apostle died of old age - John.
But the martyrdom of the Apostles was a different thing to
the punishment of the Jews. About two million Jews died
in three wars against Rome, and lost their nation.

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

And one snap of God's fingers and He could create a people who loved Him.
Just like robots - which they would be.
God gave us free will. God us the animal nature. And God gave provisions
that are powerfully symbolic and help us to understand and appreciate.

 

[John1.12]

Then tell me WHY is was necessary for Jesus to set out on a mission to die, and to suffer death by crucifixion, when God is said to be both omnipotent and benevolent ─ and since you say the answer's in the bible, please quote me the explanation, the reason why it had to be like that.

Then tell me WHY is was necessary for Jesus to set out on a mission to die, and to suffer death by crucifixion, when God is said to be both omnipotent and benevolent ─ and since you say the answer's in the bible, please quote me the explanation, the reason why it had to be like that.

The answer is in Genesis 3 .
Because of the fall . When Adam sinned . Sin enters the world . Death enters the world .We can get into the mind of God ,but we don't have evey single detail beyond Genesis. But we know enough to understand God gives dominion to man ( Adam and Eve , who were literally the first two humans ) Man fails ,sin and death enter into creation . Adam and Eve are then cast from the Garden ,all seems down hill from here ,but God gives the hope in that redemption, reconciliation will come later through the one who will reverse the situation, enabling man to be reconciled back to God.
2.cor 5

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Colt]

Ah, the Urantia book. I looked (briefly) into it in the early part of this century, but it's not the case that I was persuaded.

Thanks for your reply.

The UB explains a lot for me considering the shortcomings of the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

The UB explains a lot for me considering the shortcomings of the Bible.

What 'shortcomings' have you found?

 

[John1.12]

Alternatively, it suited the authors of the gospels to exaggerate the impact Jesus actually had as a player in the Jewish religion industry. There's no contemporary mention of him, no NT author ever met an historical Jesus, Paul (writing 20+ years after the traditional date of Jesus' death) gives only a bio that will fit in two or three lines. Mark (writing 45 years or so after) is the first and only substantial bio, and a lot of it is invented by moving Jesus through scenes from the Tanakh that the author of Mark liked to think were messianic prophecies.

Why is writing something later ( the normal dates given , not the radical nonsense ) a issue . Most ancient writing we have is written down much later than the biblical writing's. I found all of the radical, sceptical explanations for the NT so far fetched its far easier to just accept as written .

 

[John1.12]

In John Jesus indeed uses it in that sense. But John is gnostic-flavored, with the idea that God is pure spirit and accordingly infinitely remote, such that it would never cross [his] mind to create the material universe, a job which falls to a being [he] created called the demiurge ('craftsman'), on earth known as Jesus. Paul is of the same school but John is the only gospel holding this view.

You have accepted a certain sceptical ' scholarly ' view of the bible. Possibly Ehrman / Carrier ect . There are others of course . I've never heard of an original reason for not accepting the bible as written . Its like a formula that one person started and its just been regurgitated over and over down the years . ' telephone game theory ' ' corrupt monk theory ' ' ' swoon theory ' , hallucinating theory ect. I've never heard a sensible reason as to what reason there was for this supposed ' corruption to the text . To go to all that trouble for what ? What were these tricksters up to with all this supposed tampering with the texts? Or just inventing/ embellishing ect . Why ? And why is there no evidence or reasons given . Its always " well they were written after the facts , " they were not eyewitnesses " Blah blah. But thats not what a the actual narrative says . They say they did see , hear , touch, witness and handle . Why would they make it up ? Let's not pretend there are no scholars that actually do believe the bible is legitimate. Ok some do propose a ' swoon theory / Group Hallucinating theory ' ect but at least they accept that the writers did believe they saw a risen Christ ect . I can respect this approach at least . They accept Paul's account even though they believe he was mistaken and probably had an epileptic episode or something lol . But again I can respect they don't make silly arguments about ' corrupted text theories that IMO are completely ridiculous, because no sensible explanation is ever given for WHY ? they were corrupted and NO evidence is ever given .

 

[PruePhillip]

You have accepted a certain sceptical ' scholarly ' view of the bible. Possibly Ehrman / Carrier ect . There are others of course . I've never heard of an original reason for not accepting the bible as written . Its like a formula that one person started and its just been regurgitated over and over down the years . ' telephone game theory ' ' corrupt monk theory ' ' ' swoon theory ' , hallucinating theory ect. I've never heard a sensible reason as to what reason there was for this supposed ' corruption to the text . To go to all that trouble for what ? What were these tricksters up to with all this supposed tampering with the texts? Or just inventing/ embellishing ect . Why ? And why is there no evidence or reasons given . Its always " well they were written after the facts , " they were not eyewitnesses " Blah blah. But thats not what a the actual narrative says . They say they did see , hear , touch, witness and handle . Why would they make it up ? Let's not pretend there are no scholars that actually do believe the bible is legitimate. Ok some do propose a ' swoon theory / Group Hallucinating theory ' ect but at least they accept that the writers did believe they saw a risen Christ ect . I can respect this approach at least . They accept Paul's account even though they believe he was mistaken and probably had an epileptic episode or something lol . But again I can respect they don't make silly arguments about ' corrupted text theories that IMO are completely ridiculous, because no sensible explanation is ever given for WHY ? they were corrupted and NO evidence is ever given .

Because the bible offends the modern mind. The liberal, secular and self-important mind.

 

[blü 2]

And one snap of God's fingers and He could create a people who loved Him.

That doesn't explain ─

what [he] was trying to achieve, if anything, or
why anyone had to die to achieve it.

 

[blü 2]

The answer is in Genesis 3 .
Because of the fall . When Adam sinned.

I say none of the following is mentioned in the Garden story:
sin
original sin
the fall of man
death entering the world
spiritual death
the need for a redeemer.

I also say that the story is explicit as to why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden: God gives one clear statement of [his] reasons:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
​

If you disagree, please quote the parts of the Garden story that say otherwise.

But better still, tell me why anyone had to die to achieve whatever it was God wanted. Why was there not a bloodless way, a kind and not a cruel way, to achieve it? We're talking about a benevolent and omnipotent God here, aren't we?

 

[blü 2]

The UB explains a lot for me considering the shortcomings of the Bible.

If that's your spiritual journey, good luck!

 

[rational experiences]

Our parents were eternal beings.

Forced to leave and come into the atmospheric life as it returned spirit mass via god in space. By God O the original angel that went to hell. Survived cooled. Gods are planets suns still in hell.

Gases from planets Refilled emptied out space. With spirit gases.

Stone owned the evil history of Satan to God.

The heavens now exist as according with the eternal. As the eternal lost to change.

Spirit inherited the cause change.

We know we were the eternal self and now a human.

All humans die. Our bio form continuance is created by sex.

To some humans sex was an act of evil to constantly return to pain and suffering and cruelty. When our parents as humans were given one life only.

Conscious confusion due to brain irradiation is most humans behavioural mis behaviour today in groups.

Jesus a theme about no sex. About returning healed to still live owning pain and suffering.

The highest teachings were to abstain from sex.

It is natural that human spiritual anger is a retaliation of their losses. As it is conscious reckoning. Some made sex an agreed ceremony of retaliation.

How humans lost their owned human self purpose.

God's throne is stone sitting in its own glory in its heavens.

Humans lost half of their origin first human form water mass supported to angelic image.

A great loss.

To many minds psyche you then feel the greatness of the heavenly being. Seeing it was taken from us at the ground.

I knew angels are real but I knew as a human I was not any angel.

A lot of minds can no longer differentiate their own being.

To be taught is to understand conscious change as caused by the only fake state science machine human controlled.

We are innate awAre. Introduce not natural causes was as confused as our conscious self became.

We die.
We still have one spirit left. An eternal self.... always was eternal self. Not human. Was never human and is before us. Eternal before creation lost some of its body.

What evil minds claim about not human states are not human states.

 

[robocop (actually)]

How do you know God is perfect? Would you know what an imperfect God looks like?

Because of His ability, I assume God is perfect or near perfect.

 

[robocop (actually)]

How on earth (or elsewhere, for that matter) could a perfect God think it's a terrific idea to have [his] son crucified?

Or is there some back story, Jesus' eagle at the 18th cleaning out all the skins?

Because then His Son would be conveying the ultimate lack of love!

 

[blü 2]

Because then His Son would be conveying the ultimate lack of love!

Err ... ahm ... Who insufficiently loved Who here?

But its an interesting thought, whichever side you're on.

Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

Of course [he] does. In prehistory [he] had a female consort, Asherah. In the bible, [he] starts out as one tribal god among many (Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 82:1, Psalm 86:8, Psalms 95:3, Psalm 135:5 &c.), declared by [his] followers to be the foremost God (henotheism: "you shall have no other gods before me", not "there ain't no other gods"). Then at the time of the Babylonian Captivity or shortly after [he] becomes the only God (monotheism). Then in the 4th century CE the Christian version of this God becomes triune; in the 18th century [he] begins to give up [his] approval of slavery; in the 20th century [his] opposition to divorce; in the 21st century [his] opposition to homosexuality, indeed LGBTQ, and so on. Gods who don't change with their congregations lose their congregations, and to lose your congregation is to lose your god status and pass from relevance.

There were plenty of idols and false gods around and Yahweh came on the scene to show He is the only true God and real God, the living God compared to the dead gods.
What you write is the ideas of men changing. The God does not change.

When I get to be an omnipotent God, all that will change. Postmortal souls that fall into my hands deeply or lightly stained with sin will be healed, not thrown into everlasting fires.

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

But that's not the question.

The question is, why was any such vile thing necessary at all? A God sacrificing to [him]self? Sheesh!

The life needed to be taken to satisfy justice and show God's mercy.
You get the answer 100 times and do not listen except to complain about it.

I say again, the Garden story in Genesis never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything like that. The Sin idea is first found among the Jews of Alexandria late in the second century BCE, mentioned once by Paul, and made popular by Augustine of Hippo around 400 CE. In other words, it's a latecoming idea wished onto a text that in no way supports it.

The disobeying of God and the not trusting of God and what He said is there even if it is not called sin then. What's the big deal about a word? It's the concepts that are important. Original sin means the first sin. It's consequence for us humans is death.
noun

1. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

 

[F1fan]

What 'shortcomings' have you found?

I have a copy of the book somewhere. At over 2000 pages it does have a lot of detail. Much of that detail, like different types of alien beings, I found unconvincing. No way I've read that whole thing, but the selected bits I did look at are fantastic and unverifiable. Plus, why wasn't this whole book inspired from the start, 3000 years ago? Why wait until the 1930's? Heck even the New Testament didn't do the job. The Quran didn't do the job. The Mormon Bible didn't do the job. It just reminds me of Microsoft having to keep issuing patches to fix the operating system.