Reason for Jesus Death Explained

Spartan said:

You should trade in your pessimism for some real history:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Those are purposefully not on your reading list, are they? Which is why you have the myopic views that you do.

Click to expand...

If they have any truth in them, then please don't hesitate to quote from them, the most reasonable argument they had offered. They could not offer any reasonable convincing proof or evidence of any worth. Right, please?

Regards

Spartan said:

You should trade in your pessimism for some real history:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Those are purposefully not on your reading list, are they? Which is why you have the myopic views that you do.

Click to expand...

I went looking and found this summary of Habernas arguments:
12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Brickjectivity said:

I went looking and found this summary of Habernas arguments:
12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Click to expand...

I believe that Gary over steps the bounds of what would be considered historical facts. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 could 'possibly' considered historical facts, but most are a merge of what Christians consider facts, and anecdotal elements and Christian beliefs.

One hint: What Christians consider facts of belief are not necessarily facts.

shunyadragon said:

I believe that Gary over steps the bounds of what would be considered historical facts. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 could 'possibly' considered historical facts, but most are a merge of what Christians consider facts, and anecdotal elements and Christian beliefs.

Click to expand...

The resurrection doesn't change the meaning of his death nor the discussion of it in the canon, however a Christian must believe in the ongoing work of Christ. That means he must believe in adoption into the family of God through the atonement, and that atonement is through Jesus obedience to the point of death. The Muslim claim is that Jesus doesn't die, and that is a slap to many of the NT books. If Muslims considered Jesus mythical then I would understand it, but they insist he's a man. They criticize the trinity saying its idolatry, but they won't let Christians have the dying man either. Thus no atonement, no denial of self, no taking up one's cross. Instead there is a huge conspiracy to make people believe Jesus dies! What can be the meaning of a death which never happens? All that is left is his obedience to the point of death which still has meaning, however it is traditional to consider Jesus as our sacrifice. This is a huge, a huge consideration the Muslims are asking, and it can't be granted. Its asking too much.

Brickjectivity said:

The resurrection doesn't change the meaning of his death nor the discussion of it in the canon, however a Christian must believe in the ongoing work of Christ. That means he must believe in adoption into the family of God through the atonement, and that atonement is through Jesus obedience to the point of death. The Muslim claim is that Jesus doesn't die, and that is a slap to many of the NT books. If Muslims considered Jesus mythical then I would understand it, but they insist he's a man. They criticize the trinity saying its idolatry, but they won't let Christians have the dying man either. Thus no atonement, no denial of self, no taking up one's cross. Instead there is a huge conspiracy to make people believe Jesus dies! Basically there is nothing left of Christianity when they do that. What can be the meaning of a death which never happens? All that is left is his obedience to the point of death which still has meaning, however it is traditional to consider Jesus as our sacrifice. This is a huge, a huge consideration the Muslims are asking, and it can't be granted. Its asking too much.

Click to expand...

Muslims don't believe in original sin or blood sacrifice. and perhaps more importantly they believe Jesus was a man without sin, born of a virgin from the mind of God. It offends their sense of justice that the purest of the prophets could die such a cruel and humiliating death.

So.. for a Muslim there is no scapegoat.. every person is directly accountable to God.

It takes a bit of getting used to, but its both respectful and rational. I don't think it is a "slap" to Christians at all. Muslims are puzzled by Christians not being happy with their good news that Jesus wasn't crucified.

Muslims read the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) as God forbidding all blood sacrifice forever.

I don't see why this would be an issue for Christians. Their Muslim beliefs have merit even if we don't agree.

Do you believe in original or inherited sin?

Brickjectivity said:

The resurrection doesn't change the meaning of his death nor the discussion of it in the canon, however a Christian must believe in the ongoing work of Christ. That means he must believe in adoption into the family of God through the atonement, and that atonement is through Jesus obedience to the point of death. The Muslim claim is that Jesus doesn't die, and that is a slap to many of the NT books. If Muslims considered Jesus mythical then I would understand it, but they insist he's a man. They criticize the trinity saying its idolatry, but they won't let Christians have the dying man either. Thus no atonement, no denial of self, no taking up one's cross. Instead there is a huge conspiracy to make people believe Jesus dies! What can be the meaning of a death which never happens? All that is left is his obedience to the point of death which still has meaning, however it is traditional to consider Jesus as our sacrifice. This is a huge, a huge consideration the Muslims are asking, and it can't be granted. Its asking too much.

Click to expand...

I believe you are talking about what and why people believe the way they do, and not facts.

'Must believe' in any context to me is a conflicting paradox, because of so many diverse and conflicting beliefs that fallible humans claim we 'must believe' This paradox actually negates the belief in one one of the diverse conflicting beliefs, because of their cultural moribound nature without regard of the universal beyond individual beliefs.

shunyadragon said:

I believe you are talking about what and why people believe the way they do, and not facts.

'Must believe' in any context to me is a conflicting paradox, because of so many diverse and conflicting beliefs that fallible humans claim we 'must believe' This paradox actually negates the belief in one one of the diverse conflicting beliefs, because of their cultural moribound nature without regard of the universal beyond individual beliefs.

Click to expand...

I agree with your comment on "must believe".. Unless one is very attached to inherited sin and blood sacrifice, I find Muslim beliefs acceptable.

I have always been uncomfortable with the notion that innocent blood atones for sins of others. I find it pagan at its heart... so perhaps its easier for me to get the position of Islam.

The story of the scapegoat Azazel is pretty awful and primitive IMO.

shunyadragon said:

I believe that Gary over steps the bounds of what would be considered historical facts. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 could 'possibly' considered historical facts, but most are a merge of what Christians consider facts, and anecdotal elements and Christian beliefs.

One hint: What Christians consider facts of belief are not necessarily facts.

Click to expand...

"Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection." 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Spartan said:

"Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection." 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Click to expand...

How does this 75% know the tomb was empty?

How do you or anyone else know what the disciples believed between 33 AD and 90 AD?

Spartan said:

"Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection." 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Click to expand...

I do not buy this mass assault of 'many scholars' to justify a subjective and anecdotal basis of belief. The agreement by many scholars that the 'empty tomb' is true does not therefore conclude that the Resurrection is true, and not that the testimony of the 'empty tomb' is true. The primary problem with all these claims is there are no documented eyewitnesses. The gospels were compiled edited and redacted well after the life of Jesus .by those that relied on the testimony of second sources like Paul.

shunyadragon said:

I do not buy this mass assault of 'many scholars' to justify a subjective and anecdotal basis of belief. The agreement by many scholars that the 'empty tomb' is true does not therefore conclude that the Resurrection is true, not that the testimony of the 'empty tomb' is true. The primary problem with all these claims is there are no documented eyewitnesses. The gospels were compiled edited and redacted well after the life of Jesus .by those that relied on the testimony of second sources like Paul.

Click to expand...

Those who compiled, edited and redacted were also on a mission.. Peter and Paul were rivals. James didn't agree with Paul.

Paul and Luke never knew Jesus..

I sometimes wonder if Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus was the sudden realization of the political power and opportunity Jesus and his martyrdom offered.

I find the claims that 500 people saw Jesus after the Resurrection to be very strange.

[QUOTE="sooda, post: 6132162, member: 66031
I find the claims that 500 people saw Jesus after the Resurrection to be very strange.[/QUOTE]

. . . including the tens of thousands who claim to have a personal experience with UFOs

shunyadragon said:

[QUOTE="sooda, post: 6132162, member: 66031
I find the claims that 500 people saw Jesus after the Resurrection to be very strange.

Click to expand...

Good point......

. . . including the tens of thousands who claim to have a personal experience with UFOs[/QUOTE]

sooda said:

Muslims don't believe in original sin or blood sacrifice. and perhaps more importantly they believe Jesus was a man without sin, born of a virgin from the mind of God. It offends their sense of justice that the purest of the prophets could die such a cruel and humiliating death.

So.. for a Muslim there is no scapegoat.. every person is directly accountable to God.

It takes a bit of getting used to, but its both respectful and rational. I don't think it is a "slap" to Christians at all. Muslims are puzzled by Christians not being happy with their good news that Jesus wasn't crucified.

Muslims read the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) as God forbidding all blood sacrifice forever.

I don't see why this would be an issue for Christians. Their Muslim beliefs have merit even if we don't agree.

Do you believe in original or inherited sin?

Click to expand...

What I believe is that people are responsible for our actions, and I also believe that is consistent with the NT writers all of whom do not excuse personal evil acts. What original sin there is Jews have traditional methods of dealing with: mikvehs, chants, things they wear, things they don't eat. Christians don't do those things but are atoned for, thus that original sin doesn't affect Christians. Murders, thefts etc are not atoned for by Jesus, and I don't know of any argument in the NT which can counter that. I have heard preachers claim it, but always they have been shady. They're the type who enforce tithing and who live like gods of their own temples.

MJFlores said:

And Roman Justice is infallible and perfect?
When the Roman magistrate like Pontius Pilate who is also the governor says a man is guilty, he is?
When the method of execution is crucifixion is imposed, a man is really guilty as charged?

Click to expand...

The above response doesn't relate to what I posted and seems to be a misinterpretation of where I was coming from.

Brickjectivity said:

What I believe is that people are responsible for our actions, and I also believe that is consistent with the NT writers all of whom do not excuse personal evil acts. What original sin there is Jews have traditional methods of dealing with: mikvehs, chants, things they wear, things they don't eat. Christians don't do those things but are atoned for, thus that original sin doesn't affect Christians. Murders, thefts etc are not atoned for by Jesus, and I don't know of any argument in the NT which can counter that. I have heard preachers claim it, but always they have been shady. They're the type who enforce tithing and who live like gods of their own temples.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you're saying.

metis said:

Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, whereas the Jewish form was stoning. The Romans did not get involved with administering Jewish Law, plus the form of crucifixion used indicates a serious violation of Roman law..

Click to expand...

Just elaborating the ways a man could be executed in those days.
And it is true that crucifixion is one of the shameful ways a man was put to death.
As in the Roman times and even today, man's justice system could condemn an innocent man to death.
Most especially during those times when the Roman governor is judge, jury and executioner - all rolled into one.

On Jesus Christ case, Pontius Pilate was cowed, scared and erred in judging. The rule of law was not observed but it was the crowd cries for a guilty verdict.



Matthew 27:24-26 New International Version (NIV)
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

sooda said:

I don't really understand what you're saying.

Click to expand...

I will attempt to explain how I am reading this. I am having trouble being succinct. Please overlook it.:

Often translators combine multiple items as 'Sin' (in Greek Koine) when they are separate things. This was not a problem when readers understood Torah, but people today don't know Torah usually. These different items called 'Sin' must become differentiated again to understand where the concept of original sin is from and what it is supposed to mean. If you do something bad you bring trouble (iniquity) upon your descendants, but that often is translated as sin, confusing people. Its iniquity. Multiple things are translated into the Greek Koine using the same word 'sin', but that doesn't mean they are the same.

The trouble (iniquity) of being a human is the original 'Original sin'. It is our tendency to sin. It is our nature. These are the things that Christ's death atones for. Contrarily we have to repent from vicious acts and undo them to the best of our ability, and they aren't atoned by sacrifice. You can't hurt someone and fix it by killing a goat. This can be seen by reading the list of sacrifices in Leviticus and noting what they are for, especially the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, which Jesus gets associated with. People still must do right and try to undo their harms. Then their community and God can forgive them. That doesn't change with the cross.

NT writers imply that what Jews do with ritual, with food, with various things is attempt to circumcise the heart. That is part of their law, and their law says so. Even so until that happens they must function with hearts that have pride built in, but keeping the law atones for it in the community. They take kiddish, train hard, keep festivals and do many things to make real what is symbolized in their flesh. So they deal with their human tendency to err by following the law, but gentiles do not. Gentiles have a simple Noahic covenant of peace. You don't kill me, and I don't kill you. We live in peace and thus the world is not destroyed. Jewish law goes beyond that with its atonement, community sacrifices, meditations, laments, festivals, justice system, forgiveness and laws.

The most important thing is that atonement with God is also atonement between Christians. Jesus teaches that if you forgive, you are forgiven. You cannot exclude other Christians and judge them while expecting God to ignore your own humanity. That is not how things work. That is not atonement.

There is forgiveness beyond original sin. This is where evil actions are forgiven, but they are not atoned through sacrifice. They're atoned when the person repents and is forgiven by others. If a Christian commits theft, they ought to repay if they are able. If they are a soldier, they ought to be as just as possible and not extort people...etc and so on. They can't just do whatever. The atonement is between God and between Christians a group effort, and forgiveness above and beyond that is, too.

Brickjectivity said:

I will attempt to explain how I am reading this. I am having trouble being succinct. Please overlook it.:

Often translators combine multiple items as 'Sin' (in Greek Koine) when they are separate things. This was not a problem when readers understood Torah, but people today don't know Torah usually. These different items called 'Sin' must become differentiated again to understand where the concept of original sin is from and what it is supposed to mean. If you do something bad you bring trouble (iniquity) upon your descendants, but that often is translated as sin, confusing people. Its iniquity. Multiple things are translated into the Greek Koine using the same word 'sin', but that doesn't mean they are the same.

The trouble (iniquity) of being a human is the original 'Original sin'. It is our tendency to sin. It is our nature. These are the things that Christ's death atones for. Contrarily we have to repent from vicious acts and undo them to the best of our ability, and they aren't atoned by sacrifice. You can't hurt someone and fix it by killing a goat. This can be seen by reading the list of sacrifices in Leviticus and noting what they are for, especially the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, which Jesus gets associated with. People still must do right and try to undo their harms. Then their community and God can forgive them. That doesn't change with the cross.

NT writers imply that what Jews do with ritual, with food, with various things is attempt to circumcise the heart. That is part of their law, and their law says so.

Even so until that happens they must function with hearts that have pride built in, but keeping the law atones for it in the community. They take kiddish, train hard, keep festivals and do many things to make real what is symbolized in their flesh. So they deal with their human tendency to err by following the law, but gentiles do not.

Gentiles have a simple Noahic covenant of peace. You don't kill me, and I don't kill you. We live in peace and thus the world is not destroyed. Jewish law goes beyond that with its atonement, community sacrifices, meditations, laments, festivals, justice system, forgiveness and laws.

The most important thing is that atonement with God is also atonement between Christians. Jesus teaches that if you forgive, you are forgiven. You cannot exclude other Christians and judge them while expecting God to ignore your own humanity. That is not how things work. That is not atonement.

There is forgiveness beyond original sin. This is where evil actions are forgiven, but they are not atoned through sacrifice. They're atoned when the person repents and is forgiven by others. If a Christian commits theft, they ought to repay if they are able. If they are a soldier, they ought to be as just as possible and not extort people...etc and so on. They can't just do whatever. The atonement is between God and between Christians a group effort, and forgiveness above and beyond that is, too.

Click to expand...

OK.. I get what you mean by "sin"...

I wouldn't pay any attention to what NT Christians have to say about Jewish "attempts" to circumcise the heart.

sooda said:

OK.. I get what you mean by "sin"...

I wouldn't pay any attention to what NT Christians have to say about Jewish "attempts" to circumcise the heart.

Click to expand...

This is all about the meaning of Jesus death based on the NT. Right or wrong this is the argument, however the law does directly command Jewish males to circumcise their hearts. It is not made up in the NT, merely referred to.