Some questions about the life and death of Jesus

[Tony T]

First of all, I want to disclose that while I do not accept labels I do believe in the basic ideas of Christianity which I understand to be love and forgiveness (just how many Christians subscribe to their own stuff is a matter of debate.) I felt since today is Good Friday and this is Easter Weekend, these questions might be appropriate.

 

1. I do not understand the concept of Jesus dying for people's sins.

 

2. If God forgives sins, why was it necessary for Jesus to die for them?

 

3. If Jesus died for our sins, why didn't Pontius Pilate announce that was the reason He was being nailed to the cross?

 

4. Why is the crucifiction such a powerful event, as evidenced by the controversy over the recent movie depiction "Passion of Christ?"

 

5. Did the crucifiction really occur or was it just one of those parables the Bible is famous for and serve an excellent purpose?

 

6. What reason to people have to accept Jesus as their personal savior, lest they be condemned to a life outside heaven? I don't understand why God, who gave man a free will, would put that kind of caveat on entering Heaven?

 

7. Had Jesus not been crucified, had he played it a bit more cool and not torked people off so much, would all of mankind been screwed absent his death by the cross?

 

I mean absolutely no blasphemy here. I am truly interested in people's take on this. I personally just don't know. I do not if I died on a cross, people wouldn't give a crap no matter what the reason. Is this a lot of great PR over the centuries, a real deal or what gives?

 

Many kind thanks in advance and sincere apologies to those who may be offended by my curiosity.

[moimeme]

1. I do not understand the concept of Jesus dying for people's sins.

 

Me neither. Maybe the idea was to have Him try out being human, which would then help Him understand exactly how come we are so flawed. After all, once you understand someone's behaviour from his point of view, it becomes easy to forgive him.

 

2. If God forgives sins, why was it necessary for Jesus to die for them?

 

Maybe to cement the deal. Maybe he started out forgiving on spec but needed some experiential confirmation that humans are worthy of forgiveness; that they're basically FHBs rather than evil creatures.

 

3. If Jesus died for our sins, why didn't Pontius Pilate announce that was the reason He was being nailed to the cross?

 

Pontius Pilate wasn't in on the plan.

 

4. Why is the crucifiction such a powerful event, as evidenced by the controversy over the recent movie depiction "Passion of Christ?"

 

Because this guy who was a good guy got tortured and he, rather than waving his magic wand and escaping, went through it anyway for our sakes.

 

5. Did the crucifiction really occur or was it just one of those parables the Bible is famous for and serve an excellent purpose?

 

The information on whether genuinely verifiable forensic evidence has been found has gone back and forth. The biggie, of course, is the Shroud of Turin. That Dateline show a while back had people on it who said there was a recorded historical event, I do believe.

 

6. What reason to people have to accept Jesus as their personal savior, lest they be condemned to a life outside heaven? I don't understand why God, who gave man a free will, would put that kind of caveat on entering Heaven?

 

Did He? Or did people misunderstand? We always have to remember that the Bible was translated and retranslated by humans, who are prone to error.

 

7. Had Jesus not been crucified, had he played it a bit more cool and not torked people off so much, would all of mankind been screwed absent his death by the cross?

 

Not having been privy to the plan, I can't say for sure, but if you assume the other premises to be true, then maybe yes. I'll ask, though, and let you know what I find out if I get an answer!

[quankanne]

some good questions Tony, very thought-provoking stuff for Good Friday!

 

Re the questions about the crucifixion itself: I read an interview done with some of the priests here in our diocese, and one of them had pointed out that in watching Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie, it was hard for him as a believer to accept that Christ died in such a horrific manner. But, upon reflection, he realized that it *had* to be something so awful, so horrifying and bloody to reflect the amount, the level of sin for which he was giving himself up for.

 

I guess when we reflect fully on Christ's passion -- his sacrifice and his death -- it becomes powerful and humbling at the same time, because here was this man who loved humankind so much that he went that extra mile .... My personal thought about the controversy over Gibson's "Passion" is that the people who criticize are not looking or considering the Mel's message about the depths and power of one man's love, but reacting or responding to a fear or disbelief inside themselves. Sort of looking at it, but not through eyes of faith. But that's my own thoughts on the issue.

 

Jesus dying for people's sins/the necessity of it: again, my own thought is that Christ -- being fully divine, yet fully human -- understood that to save people from an eternal life spent in darkness/apart from their Creator, and to negate the cost of sin, there had to be a singular act of love. Because he was human, I imagine he was scared at times, and questioning, but because he was divine, he also realized that death -- spiritual death -- would be conquered by this sacrifice. I think the story goes that Lucifer, that proud and glorious angel who fell from heaven, was angry that Jesus would offer himself for mankind, which he (Lucifer) considered beneath all heavenly beings ...

 

If Jesus died for our sins, why didn't Pontius Pilate announce that was the reason He was being nailed to the cross?

 

Pilate wasn't in the loop. Heck, even the apostles/disciples weren't even in the loop fully! Only Jesus knew, as did his heavenly Father, what was about to happen.

 

Did the crucifixion really occur or was it just one of those parables the Bible is famous for and serve an excellent purpose?

 

There's one to contemplate! A believer will tell you "yes, it happened" and a nonbeliever, "no." But the answer is a subjective one, based on an individual's faith perspective/belief. Me? I believe, and I am happy and secure in that belief ...

 

What reason to people have to accept Jesus as their personal savior, lest they be condemned to a life outside heaven? I don't understand why God, who gave man a free will, would put that kind of caveat on entering Heaven?

 

very good question, one that I struggle with, because obviously, there are many non-believers who live their lives in what seems to me is a Christian manner: they are selfless and giving in their love for others, they are "do-right" men and women even when there's no preacher, priest or rabbi reminding them to live by a certain moral code. I guess we all belong to God, but find different paths in our faith journeys to him?

 

Had Jesus not been crucified, had he played it a bit more cool and not torqued people off so much, would all of mankind been screwed absent his death by the cross?

 

I think at some point, the crucifixion would have been played out on behalf of humanity. And we still see examples of it today, even among different cultures and races: Think of the Martin Luther Kings, the Ghandis, the Oscar Romeros, the Mother Teresas of this world -- they all loved their fellow man so much so that they willingly gave up whatever promise of fortune and fame they could have to make others' lives better and richer. Whether they were killed (like the three men mentioned above) or died a natural death, they offered their lives for others because of a "mystical" call to do just that.

[Reckless]

1. I do not understand the concept of Jesus dying for people's sins.

 

The concept of giving your life to save anothers isn't so foreign. Ransoms demanded and paid are usually monetary but sometimes there are life for life exchanges even today (I was thinking of a demand that a (political) prisoner be freed for a group of hostages. Or on a less controversial line - a parent that will risk (or sacrifice) their life to save that of their child. A soldier holding off the enemy at the cost of his life, so his comrades have a chance to get away safely.

 

To understand why Jesus' death was viewed as a random you'd have to accept an awful lot of biblical teachings ...

 

- that there is a God/creator

- that Jesus was more than a 'good' man or even a prophet, you'd have to accept that his life was equal (in God's eyes) to the price demanded

- that the random price demanded was the result of the actions of the first man Adam

-that there was a first man Adam

 

... see what I mean? you'd have to accept the concept of 'sin' 'redemption', Divine justice, the original paradise... and so much more before you could even begin understand what is afterall the central teaching of the bible. Still as I said, people have and do sacrifice their lives to save others. Whether you accept we needed 'saving' depends on how much of the bible account you can accept.

 

Big questions Tony, I'll leave the rest for others...

 

R.

[Pyrannaste]

Hope this is not off-topic.

Anyone has read 'memnoch the devil' by Ann Rice? I found it quite shocking even if I am a bit of bible-basher.

[dolphinsunshyn]

6. What reason to people have to accept Jesus as their personal savior, lest they be condemned to a life outside heaven? I don't understand why God, who gave man a free will, would put that kind of caveat on entering Heaven?

 

Well, if you believe in spiritality and NDEs, God has made different religions as a way to learn and bring your spirit to a higher plain/rank in the afterlife. There is no "right" or "wrong" religion. Christianity serves as another level for your spirit reach just the same as Buddism, Hindu, Mormon, ect.

 

I believe (and this may be a little out there for some of you) that we are all connected spiritally no matter what religion we are. Earth serves as a place of learning for our spirit. Equivilant to a University, so to speak. We come here, learn what we are supposed to, and then leave. We are graded in the afterlife and "God" decides to promote us spiritally by the life we chose here. Spirits can come and go as they please and can visit earth at any time in human or spirit form.

 

I know it sounds hokey; but, I have read too many books, have had too many experiences, and have met too many "psychics" that have all confirmed what I believe. I'm not religious, but I'm highly spirital and have a tremendous amount of faith in "God" and the afterlife. I figured if my theroy holds true, my free will to believe this will not affect my chances of getting into "heaven". Why else would there be so many choices available to us on earth?

[moimeme]

I think along the same lines you do, Dolphinsunshyn. I don't believe that God started out an exclusive club for members only.

[dolphinsunshyn]

Originally posted by moimeme

I think along the same lines you do, Dolphinsunshyn. I don't believe that God started out an exclusive club for members only.

 

Very good way to put it Moi!!

 

I find that some religions serve as a crutch for people. Living your life out of fear doesn't seem very appealing to me.

[dyermaker]

(I speak as a Catholic, I'm most educated in Catholic tradition, my opinions aren't neccessarily textbook catholicism)

 

Because of the fact that some of it is accepted on faith, and that Jesus IS God, 100% human and 100% divine--it's hard to explain. The Paschal Mystery is like Quantum Computing.

 

Originally posted by Tony

1. I do not understand the concept of Jesus dying for people's sins.

Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God. Don't look at it like "we killed Jesus, so that we'd be free of sin"--rather, that Jesus (who IS God) wanted to take on our eternal suffering for us. Some things just need to be stipulated, you have to take them on faith--one of them is that when we die, we have to pay for our sins. God, in becoming human, attoned for our sins by sacrificing the lamb, his son--both God and Jesus were inherently without any wrong. God is Good, humans are faulted--we sin. Jesus, however, never sinned. It's the purity of being sinless, and the sacrifice of intense human suffering, that enabled Jesus to TAKE on the sins of our soul, if we choose to let him do so. It wasn't something we did to Him, it's something He did for us. God had promised this, it was part of his promise to his people, to save them from suffering.

 

Hebrews 9:22 - In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Ephesians 1:7-8 - In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace [8] that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.

Matthew 26:28 NIV - This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Romans 6:23 NIV - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

2. If God forgives sins, why was it necessary for Jesus to die for them?

The Bible makes it clear that, for the most part, we all die, we all sin, and the punishment for sin is death. God is uber-holy, he can't stand sin at all. The punishment for that sin is not only a physical death, which you will inevitably experience, but a spiritual death as well--because God can't stand to be around sin, and if you are sinful you cannot be with him. Jesus died, both physically and spiritually, to free us from that attonement, it was something that God couldn't do without becoming human. I sense that I'm not making any sense, could you ask more specific questions?

3. If Jesus died for our sins, why didn't Pontius Pilate announce that was the reason He was being nailed to the cross?

Pontius Pilate could give a flying squirrel about religion and Jesus's teachings, or the scriptures--or any of that crap. He was acting on behalf of Rome. The temple officials were pissed at Jesus for blasphemy, they didn't like his surly attitude, nonresponsive demeanor--they didn't like that he broke the letter of the law, they didn't like that he was claiming a higher position in the kingdom of God than the temple officials. They saw him as a threat to power, even though his intentions weren't to gain administrative power on Earth, his charisma and his message was a threat to authority. They wanted to bust him for blasphemy, but they didn't have the authority to kill Jesus. They were a province of Rome, given the autonomy to run things according to their law and pray to God instead of the Roman Gods--but not enough independence to try capital cases. (ATTN anti-semites: Jews 2000 years ago could NOT kill people for crimes). Pilate, as a Roman official, could--but he couldn't care less about blasphemy. Jesus' official Roman charge was inciting a riot, or some crap like that, but his charges were secular. Pilate had no religious investment in Jesus' death--he didn't even see Jesus as a threat (remember the hand-washing?), but crucified him to keep the rowdy crowd (the same crowd that shouted hossanah last Sunday) at bay.

4. Why is the crucifiction such a powerful event, as evidenced by the controversy over the recent movie depiction "Passion of Christ?"

Crucifixion was an awful death, it wasn't an honorable execution. Jesus died relatively quickly (they didn't want unsightly dying people up there during the sabbath) but his pain was unmistakable. The amount of physical torment exacted by cruel humans (all of us) on the only truly innocent human ever is enough to bring some to tears. The controversy over the Passion of the Christ was created less by personal emotion, and more by a general hatred for Jews by a minority of fanatics. These people, completely missing the message of the Paschal mystery, seek to blame Jews for the death of their savior, using, just like many have over human history, religion to justify personal hatred.

5. Did the crucifiction really occur or was it just one of those parables the Bible is famous for and serve an excellent purpose?

It's my understanding that the divinity of Christ is a matter of faith, whereas the humanity of Christ is a matter of history. Tacitus, a non-christian Roman historian, gives evidence that Pilate was responsible for the death of the founder of Christianity, and also describes some of the torments that Nero put the early Christians through. Lucian, a non-christian, also refers to his death on the cross. The "Logos Alethes" of Celsus, 2nd Century (I think), state that the general facts of the Gospels were accepted as historically true (he's not a Christian either). Josephus, a Jewish historian, also mentions Jesus' crucifixion.

 

Also, parables are different than metaphors, at least in terms of their explicitness. Jesus taught using parables, stories that used things common to his audience to LEAD the reader to draw spiritual conclusions. Jesus liked his audience to think for themselves. There were a ton of rabbis (rabbi = teacher) at the time, going around preaching about God--Jesus was just a unique one, he taught using parables, almost always used nature and the outdoors as his 'classroom', it's also likely, because of the concordance of different writings of Jesus' ministry, that Jesus often used the words "amen" and "abba" (translated sometimes as 'truly' and 'father' respectively)--The AMEN would differentiate between something metaphorical and something explicit, while the "Abba" was new to the Jews at this time, they didn't call God their Father, it was seen as blasphemous to humanize God so much. Anyway, Parables were Jesus' way of teaching. That's not to say that there aren't tons of metaphors in the Bible--for example, it is my belief that the entire book of Genesis and Revelations contain little or no historical fact in them (my belief). However, the Crucifixion, is something that I accept as a historical occurence just as I accept the assasination of President Lincoln.

6. What reason to people have to accept Jesus as their personal savior, lest they be condemned to a life outside heaven? I don't understand why God, who gave man a free will, would put that kind of caveat on entering Heaven?

The 'accept or burn in hell' thing fascinates me as well, it seems to be an awfully crappy way to convince you to join a certain sect. I can't help you with this one, as I don't subscribe to this belief.

7. Had Jesus not been crucified, had he played it a bit more cool and not torked people off so much, would all of mankind been screwed absent his death by the cross?

It was God's plan. The crucifixion of Jesus was not a surprise to God or a surprise to Jesus. He knew when it was coming, and willingly gave himself up to be sacrificed. He had a chance to deny his mission in the desert, but being intrinsically sinless, he did not deny what he was sent to do.

[moimeme]

Living your life out of fear doesn't seem very appealing to me

 

Oh hey! (with apologies to Tony for this little diversion) A favourite saying for years was from a poster on the Chaplaincy office at university: "Do you not understand that what died on the cross was fear?"

[Tony T]

If God is a loving and forgiving God, then why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to die for sins that are forgiven anyway? The Lord's Prayer, which Jesus taught, asks that God forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Where did Jesus fit into this process?

 

If Jesus died for our sins, what would the purpose be of a final judgement as spoken of in the Bible?

 

The Bible promises a second coming of Christ. Is it possible that this has already occured? If not, just how will this happen? What would be the purpose of coming back to judge the living and the dead if these sins were taken away by the crucifiction?

 

I'm sorry people, I'm just real confused about this stuff. ...only want to know.....

[moimeme]

If God is a loving and forgiving God, then why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to die for sins that are forgiven?

 

There are absolutely no biblical texts which when read in proper context portray Jesus as a scapegoat or state that He supplied total satisfaction for our sins. We are required to become living sacrifices (Romans 12:1); to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus the Christ which is being offered perpetually in heaven. Jesus' death on the cross accomplished our redemption and made our salvation possible, it opened heaven for us; a heaven which had essentially been closed to mankind since the sin of Adam and Eve.

 

To understand the difference between a sin offering, through which expiation of sins is gained, and a scapegoat, through which removal of all sinfulness was done, we must look at sixteenth chapter of the book of Leviticus which describes Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (at-one-ment, being made one with God), which occurs once each year in the Jewish calendar.

http://www.stmonica.cc/papers/atone.htm (quite a good Apologetics site)

 

As I recall Catechism, the idea was that nobody could get into heaven until Jesus opened the door by doing his thing. Before that, you got to the waiting room (purgatory). Now you can get to heaven, but as the Apologetics site explains, you have to participate in your own redemption. You don't get a 'by' just because JC died.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Tony

If God is a loving and forgiving God, then why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to die for sins that are forgiven anyway?

I attempted to answer this above. What about my explanation wasn't clear?

 

The Bible promises a second coming of Christ. Is it possible that this has already occured?

I don't think so, I haven't studied enough about the second coming or the apocalypse, things are so metaphorically exuberant that they're tirelessly conflict with speculation. But, I'm pretty sure when he comes again, the world ends--and elections aren't until November.

[CaterpillarGirl]

I like this part from the essay Moimeme linked to:

 

"We are required to become living sacrifices (Romans 12:1); to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus the Christ"

 

It's like, "God can't do all the work for us." To be forgiven, one must ask for and accept forgiveness, which is actually very hard for some people, myself included. Only then can there be a true reconciliation, reunion, with God. Without that, then yes, you are divided from God and exist in well, Hell.

[UCFKevin]

Boy, great questions Tony, and great answers, folks. Very thought provoking stuff. Well done.

 

I too have problems with that whole "My way or the highway" stuff in the Bible. Hope that isn't how it goes. I'd like to think that heaven, MY heaven, would include my best friends, two of whom are Jewish, y'know?

[Micheal]

jews,catholics,christains,and muslums all hipocrits in ther order i stated beginning with paganism its the same RELIGION!!!!just a continuation but they all say each other are wrong and hate hmm religion got messed up when it got organized and people had power same story over and over ,these people ultimatly they mean well but preach love for thereslf and hate for others ,theres on ly one god ,ha, who says. a man .aren't i a man too ,a christain professor told me this one time "if your a king and u want to stop stealing ,what sounds sounds better ,if u steal u die or in a dream an angel from god came and told me if u steal youll burn in hell for eternity "hmm which is worse?its all bull a man can find god by just looking in the mirror or looking around ,god ,is just a three letter word the real god is the universe and its to big to notice us and thats not its porpuse.all organied relion do was to enfore some laws of men and a means of controling people.how many poor souls have lost there lives because of religion.worst about religion they mean good and want to help people but ultimately takes the precious thing u have a free mind to think ,instead u filter everything thourgh religion,ridiculous,when the day comes when people no longer die and more science there will be no religion eventullay religion is based on faith science is based on fact!

[dyermaker]

Micheal, what about the religious people who still think logically, and don't use God to condemn others or justify hatred.

Do you still think less of them?

 

Also, it's fallacious to say that religion and science are fundamentally opposite, they are certainly not.

[Micheal]

i do because umtimatly they believe in there relgion and never see the truth till they dispel this.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Micheal

i do because umtimatly they believe in there relgion and never see the truth till they dispel this.

What is truth?

[Micheal]

thats for u to decide do i live your life or anyone esle no man can tell u whats right for u ,u have to decide.

[dyermaker]

So, aren't religious people, being unable to dispel their religion, still seeing truth?

[Micheal]

no beacause they believe in what people tell them and there eyes and mind are clouded .i mean they can but its harder for them but utimatly truth is what matters to u anything esle u can say is fasle to u because its doesnt matter,hmm thats kinda vague but the universe is a nylist it doesnt care about right wrong or religion

[dyermaker]

1. What about religious people who pursue both religious, historical, and personal truth empirically--that is, without being told?

2. If the universe is a nihilist, what consequence is truth at all?

3. How can you advocate a secular pursuit of truth, and still maintain that truth is personal?

4. Is there any ABSOLUTE truth at all? If so, are religious people ever capable of perceiving it? And are nonreligious people ever of being denied of it?

5. What qualifies you to speak for the cares of the universe?

[Micheal]

hahaha man i dont have all the answers im just speaking from my experiences through life ,i once attended a christain unversity for a year ,and

1. those religous people it goes to ther soul and they might dimiss somthing because it doesnt fit there relgion at one time magic was religion now its hocus pocus i think alot of knowledge is lost because people dont really look or try.

2. truth exist because we do ,we made it but i think the unveriverse doesnt have a concience mind answer none the universe probably doesnt care or notice ,its a people thing

3.trueth is whatever it means to u ,its totally a selfish act, it will always be personal as long as your a person and care

4. absulute truth i dont think so because the truth is different for evryone,all of us perceve things differently even if its the same event.

5.im in it i have as much right as any man who has ever lived or will lived unless ther built different as far as i see we all have one brain two eyes etc...

 

hope thse answer some but youll get a different answer with every person u ask then u have to come u with the truth i think thats the best way left to people ,

 

i take religion like i do martail arts all the styles hit on some truths but cover by ridiculous things , so u take the truth from each stlye till u are left with your truth.

 

i do the same with religion i dont tatolly dismiss any religion just take there truths and move to the next never stop learning ,you can call it freestyle

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Micheal

1. those religous people it goes to ther soul and they might dimiss somthing because it doesnt fit there relgion at one time magic was religion now its hocus pocus i think alot of knowledge is lost because people dont really look or try.

Didn't you just instruct me to relax my bowels and call upon the power of my unibrow to shoot out of my body and rendezvous with dead guys in a different thread?

 

Now, seriously, if truth is a matter of perception, wouldn't all delusions be inherently true, and therefore paradoxically not delusional at all?