syo
Well-Known Member
He was supposed to get murdered. The ultimate sin for humans is that they turned away from God and then Kain kill Abel.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The need for Christ to die makes sense, and it doesn't
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
Goodman John
Active Member
Jesus- the Man- was executed just as any other rabble rouser would have been in those days, and rightly so from the Roman perspective.
Jesus (as The Christ) had to die and be resurrected- if this story were not promoted, Jesus/Christ is just one of literally hundreds of figures of worship- no better and no worse than any of the existing Roman gods, and certainly not in competition with the Jewish view of God.
But this is all from a practical point of view.
From a theological point of view, there's absolutely no reason why Jesus/Christ would have to die. If we assume God is omnipotent he could have just as easily snapped his fingers Thanos-style and *poof* all our sins are remitted and paid for in advance. No need for all the drama and theatrics attendant with Jesus' life and ministry and death.
~~~
My take on it is that any 'resurrection' would simply have been the spirit of the Christ returning to the spiritual realm- and in any case we would not have in any way seen it happen. But the story HAD to be promoted as a physical resurrection, otherwise the whole point of Christianity would have been lost on everyone.
So, if we are to run with a 'resurrection' story we have two options: physical or spiritual.
In the spiritual story, all is as the Bible says it is with Jesus rising from the grave to visit the disciples and show him his wounds and all that.
In the physical story, Jesus- the Man- did not, in fact, die on the cross and after a few days' recovery from his ordeal showed himself to Mary and then later to the assembled disciples- and showed them his still-fresh wounds to convince them that he was in fact very much alive.
Personally, I'm torn between the 'Jesus died on the cross' story as opposed to the 'Jesus did not die on the cross and he and Mary escaped to somewhere and lived out their lives, maybe- and very likely- having children' story. The former wraps up things very neatly with no other explanation needed, while the latter opens up the floor for a whole range of possibilities (besides being a more 'romantic' view of the end of Jesus).
Jesus (as The Christ) had to die and be resurrected- if this story were not promoted, Jesus/Christ is just one of literally hundreds of figures of worship- no better and no worse than any of the existing Roman gods, and certainly not in competition with the Jewish view of God.
But this is all from a practical point of view.
From a theological point of view, there's absolutely no reason why Jesus/Christ would have to die. If we assume God is omnipotent he could have just as easily snapped his fingers Thanos-style and *poof* all our sins are remitted and paid for in advance. No need for all the drama and theatrics attendant with Jesus' life and ministry and death.
~~~
My take on it is that any 'resurrection' would simply have been the spirit of the Christ returning to the spiritual realm- and in any case we would not have in any way seen it happen. But the story HAD to be promoted as a physical resurrection, otherwise the whole point of Christianity would have been lost on everyone.
So, if we are to run with a 'resurrection' story we have two options: physical or spiritual.
In the spiritual story, all is as the Bible says it is with Jesus rising from the grave to visit the disciples and show him his wounds and all that.
In the physical story, Jesus- the Man- did not, in fact, die on the cross and after a few days' recovery from his ordeal showed himself to Mary and then later to the assembled disciples- and showed them his still-fresh wounds to convince them that he was in fact very much alive.
Personally, I'm torn between the 'Jesus died on the cross' story as opposed to the 'Jesus did not die on the cross and he and Mary escaped to somewhere and lived out their lives, maybe- and very likely- having children' story. The former wraps up things very neatly with no other explanation needed, while the latter opens up the floor for a whole range of possibilities (besides being a more 'romantic' view of the end of Jesus).
David J
Member
It makes no sense.
"the only loophole that the creator of all the laws of the universe can come up with - why didn’t he just forgive everybody or change the laws? - but instead he has to create a loophole where he comes down bodily and sacrifices himself to himself to act as a loophole for a rule that he created. It’s absurd. " - Matt Dillahunty
And who knows what Jesus felt on the cross, he could feel or do anything. If you want to prove the ultimate hardship, there are people who have gone through worse in this life.
Before Jesus' crucifixion, there was Mosaic Law saving you too.
Goodman John
Active Member
Well there are those in the Philippines who are voluntarily crucified each year- nails through the hands, the whole ball game. I read about one guy who has done it every year for the last almost thirty years. And it's accompanied by some pretty brutal self-flagellation and mortification beforehand, so I'm reasonably sure those guys have some idea of what Jesus might have felt on the cross.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I don't know what part of the bible people arent reading.
The riddler literally says, 'g-d why have you forsaken me', so who cares, really.
The riddler literally says, 'g-d why have you forsaken me', so who cares, really.