logical consderation of jesus' value as king.

I would ask all readers to consider this proverb beforereading my ‘imperative’: Matthew 3:17

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
(after the act).

This proverb insinuates that god and jesus are two separate entities; Each with their own consciousness’ with deeds committed by separate minds; hence the ability for the son of god to please his father, the heavenly god in heaven.

And the thought:

If one person could be murdered in the interest of the crowd; Then shouldn’t the worth of that one person’s life be equal in value to the sum of the crowd? subjectively? Wait….

And consider this before answering:
If that one person’s life is subjectively worth as much as the crowd; then in god’s eyes would it not be an act of injustice to destroy one, in the interest of the other(s)? Wait….

Considering a final thought:

If this has really happened to jesus in the bible, then does he really deserve the throne? Because if he was murdered, then he is not worth the value to god of the crowd! Wait…

PS. Answer the question directly. Do not reply to this thread with anything but logic ,by which I mean opinion/theories and dogma. I am, looking for a logically based answer that concurs with the truth of this word (S). Wait…
Last thought: do not answer me with dogma. A proverb that contradicts this, conversely, would be ok.

It is wrong "for the interest of the crowd". Christ died for believers. We were blind and headed for nothing. Now we can see and we are living for the interests of The Kingdom of God.....My life has meaning because I believe. I believe because Yehoshua lived. He is remembered because he died like that. I believe his death is "the sign" as in "what will be the sign of your coming?". He really deserves the throne. Absolutely!

savagewind said:

It is wrong "for the interest of the crowd". Christ died for believers. We were blind and headed for nothing. Now we can see and we are living for the interests of The Kingdom of God.....My life has meaning because I believe. I believe because Yehoshua lived. He is remembered because he died like that. I believe his death is "the sign" as in "what will be the sign of your coming?". He really deserves the throne. Absolutely!

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think his death accomplished much, if anything at all. He was way more valuable while alive, while preaching and teaching what he believed was the right way.
Jews lived for the interests of The Kingdom of God years before Jesus was even born. The only thing that Jesus changed in regards to his surroundings and descendants, is that today, had he never lived, there would be way more Jews and no Christians - whether this is a good thing or a bad one, I guess depends on the opinions of every individual.


As to the OP:

You make a good point, and while I don't agree with Christianity's views on why he died, I feel I need to add the following. If God indeed needed a crowd to die, and there was this one man who was worth the equality of this crowd that could theoretically die in their place, you believe this would be injustice since this very righteous man does not deserve to die.

However, if this man is as valuable and precious to God, then wouldn't God be unjust in not accepting any requests this almost perfect person makes? In this case, if Jesus who, in Christian's opinion, is as close to perfection as anyone ever has been, wouldn't God be unjust in not fulfilling his one request of taking him over the whole nation?

Again, I don't agree with plenty about Christianity, but I feel this is a logical response to the question you asked.

Jews lived for the interests of The Kingdom of God years before Jesus was even born.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the average Jews got their directions from men. Yehoshua Messiah made it possible for everyone to get direction from The Father YHVH.

Logic is based on premises and ways of measurement and qualifications.

Given this, there are many different ways to analyze this, ways which may contradict themselves and remain logic, depending on the premises that we agree upon and the measurements that we agree upon.

Elipticalvoyage said:

This proverb insinuates that god and jesus are two separate entities; Each with their own consciousness’ with deeds committed by separate minds; hence the ability for the son of god to please his father, the heavenly god in heaven.

Click to expand...

First, it is more than a bit ambitious to try to make arguments about the nature of entities, consciousness, minds, and so forth based on either language or the projection of current notions onto the past.

For the first (using language), a few examples can indicate that people to day belive their minds, hearts, and brains are all thinking entities which are independent of them:

However, consider these sentences:
"My mind's playing tricks on me"
"My brain's off today"
"In my mind's eye, Horatio"
"I don't know what I was thinking"
"my heart's telling me one thing, but my mind's telling me something else, and I don't know which to rely on."

In these an many other sentences, an individual can say things that, on the surface, indicate that they are seperate from their brains/minds. One also depicts two "minds", heart and brain, in the same person, each seperate entites from one another and from the speaker. Another seems to say that a person is unaware of what they were thinking, but doesn't mean that they forgot.
We even find a trinitarian godhead-type of self expressed in "my heart's telling me one thing..." example

Nor is this new. In ancient Greek, thumos, phren, kardios, pneuma, and psyche, can all be translated with words as heart, soul, spirit, and mind.Which means we face an issue with understanding what seperate "minds" would be, and we still have various types of "minds" in one person in conflict with that person:
"'d ara eipe pros hon megaletora thumon/...all ti e moi tauta philos dielexato thumos"
"but then he [Odysseus] spoke to his great-spirited thumos...[and said] 'but why then does my thumos say these things to me?" (Iliad 11.403, 11.407).


One can of coure argue that we don't actually think our hearts (i.e., the organ) "thinks" or has any role in consciousness. But in many cultures, both before and after the gospels were written, this isn't so.

In Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen, Snell argues that ancient Greek literature demonstrates there was no real concept of a unified "self", let alone one of "mind" or "consciousness. To say people did "setzt ein Bewußtsein davon voraus, daß der lebende Mensch etwas Seelisches oder Geistiges hätte, ohne daß man dies zunächst mit einem bestimmten umfassenden Wort bezeichnen konnte/assumes of humans living that they had some mental or intellectual [property], but without first having any clear, comprehensive word to for it ."

If one person could be murdered in the interest of the crowd; Then shouldn’t the worth of that one person’s life be equal in value to the sum of the crowd? subjectively? Wait….

Click to expand...

That's assuming an additive relation on a metaphysical set; a dubious logical analysis to say the least. A picture can be worth a thousand words, but not express thing that words can (and vice versa). More importantly, you've equated the motivation behind or for the action (murder) with the resulting death of one person for many.

To clarify:

Imagine someone throwing themselves upon a live grenade to save those around them. Most likely, that individual values the lives of the others more than their own. The loss of one life is for a greater benefit for other lives, but does not make that life equal to the sum total value of those lives.

If that one person’s life is subjectively worth as much as the crowd;

Click to expand...

If it's subjective, then there's no basis to reason it needs to be considered unless enough "subjects" with this opinion agree.

If this has really happened to jesus in the bible, then does he really deserve the throne? Because if he was murdered, then he is not worth the value to god of the crowd! Wait…

Click to expand...

There is no logic behind this.

Still more objections to penal substitution, still more objections that I agree with.

It really is a good thing that Jesus wasn't crucified for the reasons stated in the OP.

Elipticalvoyage said:

I would ask all readers to consider this proverb beforereading my ‘imperative’: Matthew 3:17

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
(after the act).

This proverb insinuates that god and jesus are two separate entities; Each with their own consciousness’ with deeds committed by separate minds; hence the ability for the son of god to please his father, the heavenly god in heaven.

And the thought:

If one person could be murdered in the interest of the crowd; Then shouldn’t the worth of that one person’s life be equal in value to the sum of the crowd? subjectively? Wait….

And consider this before answering:
If that one person’s life is subjectively worth as much as the crowd; then in god’s eyes would it not be an act of injustice to destroy one, in the interest of the other(s)? Wait….

Considering a final thought:

If this has really happened to jesus in the bible, then does he really deserve the throne? Because if he was murdered, then he is not worth the value to god of the crowd! Wait…

PS. Answer the question directly. Do not reply to this thread with anything but logic ,by which I mean opinion/theories and dogma. I am, looking for a logically based answer that concurs with the truth of this word (S). Wait…
Last thought: do not answer me with dogma. A proverb that contradicts this, conversely, would be ok.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was supposed to be a life given in exchange for the collective lives of "the crowd". I think it was the life of one "sinless" individual to cleanse the crowd of their culpability for "sin".

I also don't think logic applies.

Defend, logically, the proposition that the humble, homely nature of Frodo should inspire great courage in Gandalf.

see what i mean XD

Elipticalvoyage said:

I would ask all readers to consider this proverb beforereading my ‘imperative’: Matthew 3:17

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
(after the act).

This proverb insinuates that god and jesus are two separate entities; Each with their own consciousness’ with deeds committed by separate minds; hence the ability for the son of god to please his father, the heavenly god in heaven.

And the thought:

If one person could be murdered in the interest of the crowd; Then shouldn’t the worth of that one person’s life be equal in value to the sum of the crowd? subjectively? Wait….

And consider this before answering:
If that one person’s life is subjectively worth as much as the crowd; then in god’s eyes would it not be an act of injustice to destroy one, in the interest of the other(s)? Wait….

Considering a final thought:

If this has really happened to jesus in the bible, then does he really deserve the throne? Because if he was murdered, then he is not worth the value to god of the crowd! Wait…

PS. Answer the question directly. Do not reply to this thread with anything but logic ,by which I mean opinion/theories and dogma. I am, looking for a logically based answer that concurs with the truth of this word (S). Wait…
Last thought: do not answer me with dogma. A proverb that contradicts this, conversely, would be ok.

Click to expand...

Since I believe the premise is false that Jesus and the Father are two enitiies, then I believe the conclusion to be false. Also I don't believe the conclusion follows from the premises. I believe the worth of a King is based on his power and his ability to garner followers. Jesus is therefore a worthy king indeed because He is all powerful and has millions of followers.

Elipticalvoyage said:

I would ask all readers to consider this proverb beforereading my ‘imperative’: Matthew 3:17

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
(after the act).

This proverb insinuates that god and jesus are two separate entities; Each with their own consciousness’ with deeds committed by separate minds; hence the ability for the son of god to please his father, the heavenly god in heaven.

Click to expand...

Another example would be when Jesus was on the cross, he said, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do". I read this that Jesus was afraid of what his Father might do which implies two minds once again.