Why did Jesus die for our sins?

[HotCaliGirl]

I would like to suggest, that in the mean time. You think about where you aquired your notions of what constitutes entrance into heaven or hell.

ok, so what is YOUR notions of what constitutes entrance into heaven and hell? Does God have ANY say in who goes to hell?

For example I used to be a big proponent, of womens Lib, and Equality. A notion I no longer Believe.

Now before You flame me, look at the function of womens lib and equality, and what the Bible says about the roles of men and women.

I am not saying women are not just as valuable, to God, I am saying the Equality, and womens lib movements, are subversive to the roles God has assigned us. look at military chain of command. and ABSOLUTELY look at the bible for yourself, if you don't believe me.

Before I respond, can you at least be more specific? So why exactly do you agree wtih the bible that women should not be equal to men? Another reason why religion is a suppressive tool, created by men to control women.

The animal sacrifices instituted in Leviticus and throughout the OT indicates that without the shedding of blood there is no atonement or reconciliation for sin.

This is a continuation of the male created religion - full of blood and gore - made by man for man...as a woman I cannot relate to all the suppression of womenan's rights and all the bloodshed. I find it unjust towards me as a woman, and cruel and gross in all other regards as far as all the bloodshed and brutality. Maybe someone should make a feminine religion that women could benefit from and sympathetic to their rights too.

If the corn could do that (which it can't), it would be a huge benefit to the people living there. The corn is modified to emit a chemical that kills parasites, thereby increassing the amount of food produced per acre.

You are very wrong here. Genetic engineering is EXTREMELY harmful and hazardous to the environment. That's like saying fuel emissions are not harmful, they are but yes we still drive our cars...it'll all catch up to us in the long run.

it is speculated that the Garden of Eden may have been somewhere in Africa

I've always heard that the G of E is believed to have been in modern day Iraq and that Noah's ark settled on Mt. Ararat in modern day Turkey.

The common spiritual truths is about Jesus Christ the Messiah, who will incarnate and die for the sins of everyone,

Why will he die for our sins, if God will forgive sinners as long as they repent anyways? And if he wants to forgive sinners regardless of repenting, then why does Jesus have to come back to die instead of God, who I would think makes up his own mind, could forgive sinners anyways? Why does God want the act of Jesus dying to be a means of forgiving a sinner such as let's say a murderer, instead of allowing the murdered one the opportunity and choice to forgive?

I read someone posting about quantom physics in an earlier post, and I have heard Michio Kaku, and many other "respected" physicist, refer to string theory, as philosophy.

Your point? It's a THEORY and does not theorize man's fate after death or claim a supserstring being will reappear to forgive sinners.

So I guess what I'm saying is that these aren't good enough examples to convince me that there are condtradictions in the Scritpures.

Do you honestly think there are no contradictions???

[flavius]

Moai, you are going strong. Your recent posts are so clean and sharp and virtually smack-free. What a guy. You're makng it look fun again.

 

I think your twin examples of Mt 16:28 and Mk 9:1 are pretty good examples of apparent contradictions in scripture, and I'd like to challenge your point. Now, I don't adhere to the same expectation of literal and technical inerrancy as I suspect Moose and AdmT do, so please don't suppose I am speaking for them - they may not appreciate the association. But in truth I do not find the authority of the Bible in its technicalities, but in the substance of its narrative. Still, it holds together most remarkably.

 

Now. If the words of Jesus here in Mt 16 & Mk 9 mean what you assert they mean (and one actually cannot disprove you, i suppose) then Jesus' "prophecy" is incorrect, he is fallible, not divine, etc. Unless, of course we fall back to some more cryptic fulfillment of his statement via the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, or at pentecost. The very fact that we must guess among many "possibilities" reveals the rhetorical weakness of "falling back" thus. Might as well be Nostradamus as Jesus Christ,you know?

 

I'll quote the Mt 16:28 & Mk 9:1 NIV, but the three most-used underlying manuscripts (Nestle-Aland 26, 1894 Receptus, and 1991 Byzantine) are all identical on this phrase. I don't want to misstate your reading of this, so check me: When Jesus said "...some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" or in Mk 9:1 "...will see the kingdom of God come with power" he is proclaiming that the Second Coming, the consummation of the rule of God on Earth, will occur within the lifespan of, at most, the two youngest bystanders. Right? I agree with the reading of the timeframe, but I will disagree with the your reading of what Jesus says will happen. Here's why, in four layered points:

 

First, it is ambiguous in English--it does not complete the thought of a "Second Coming", nor does the passage as a whole.

 

Second, this would be the first mention, chrolonologically and textually, of a Second Coming, so a glancing mention would be quite peculiar. At this point I must assume Jesus is talking about what he has been talking about heretofore in Matthew, the "first" appearance of the messiah.

 

Third, the rendering of Mt 16:28 in English is derived from this greek phrase: "erxomenon en th basileia autou" which transliterates like so (this is complicated but you seem frighteningly smart):

 

erxomenon = come/arrive/emerge/make one's appearance or entrance (no future-perfect tense, like "come-ing")

 

en in/into/by/with

 

th this/that/these

 

basileia royal power/dominion/authority

 

autou he/himself/itself

 

So if you follow, one could just as easily, and maybe more easily translate it "...see the emergence of [his] authority", or "...witness the appearance of [his] royal dominion."

 

(This nebulous process of translation is one reason I think it is a mistake to get all hyper-technical about Biblical minutiae. God could have carved it in stone in English, but chose not to. It is crazy to stuff an interpretive thread through the eye of a nebulous needle.)

 

Fourth: One CAN translate it thus, but is it justifiable to do so? The rule in translation, as in interpretation, is that you must subject the words first to their largest intended context. Well, the New Testament narrative presents itself as a continuation of the OT narrative of God's dealings with man, specifically with the Jewish nation. Matthew presents itself as the completion of the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah. The theme of Matthew is overtly the appearance of Jesus the Messiah, the king foretold by the OT prophets. The preceeding 16 chapters expound the Kingdom of God at length in parables and in ethical teaching, and to this point there has been no mention made of any Second Coming. Yes, it is justifiable and I would even say preferable.

 

Conclusion? This sentence uttered by Christ is NOT about a Second Coming, therefore not about the Day of Judgement, nor about the consummation of justice on Earth. Therefore Moai is mistaken, but it is hardly his fault. He had been misinformed by the very doctrine he set out to refute.

 

When is the "fulfillment" of Mt 16:48, then? Almost too obviously, it is in Mt 21:4 -22:45, upon Jesus' grand entrance to the temple and his presentation of himself as messiah before the multitudes. Precisely what a messiah was expected to do! Entered the capital (after three years of agitation in the provinces), entered the temple to assert his authority over the religious and administrative center of Roman Palestine, lead the people in an uprising against the oppressors...wait, he did ALMOST everything a messiah was expected to do.

 

Instead of inciting a night-time rebellion, he turned and left the city at evening and cried out an unexpected warning of destruction at the sword of Rome, and a plea for national repentance. It is THEN that the "messiah-seekers" melted away, making way for the Passion of the Christ. It is the next morning that one begins hearing of the Second Coming in Matthew (Mt 24:4...)

 

At this point Moai, you can say "so what?" That's okay. Obviously I can't joust you on every point (it took almost two hours just to write this!) But any chance to tell the story again, and I take it. I got to study a little and learn along the way.

 

All this begs some key questions, I know: what went wrong -- did Jesus fail as Messiah? What good is the Bible then, if it is that "squishy" in translation? And of course HotCaliGirl would ask, "Why did Jesus Die for Our Sins?"

[flavius]

I see a lot of implicit descriptions of male/female roles in the Bible, but precious few gender role assignments. To interpret descriptions as commandments is a recipe for oppression, and it is a stew that has sadly been simmering for ages.

 

The one big, fat "role assignment" is in Genesis 3, where God explains the curse of disobedience variously to the man and to the woman. I see the "woman curse" is briefer and narrower: I will increase your pain in childbirth...[and]...your desire will be for your husband...and he will rule over you."

 

If you cut and paste the Hebrew text it looks like this: (l-h(%h (mr hrBh (rBh )Cbnj whrnj B)cb Tldy bnye w(l-(y$j T$Wqtj whW( ym$l-Bj s . Now that brings clarity, doesn't it?

 

Watch this though. Hebrew is a very primitive, rich language. Each word carries a lot of meaning, and like many languages, meaning is contextually derived. This is the transliteral rendition: "woman greatly-multiply pain(labor)-in-childbirth(childrearing) pain bring-forth-children say desire husband rule"

 

Now, unfortunately I cannot shuffle the words around like I did in the Greek butchery I did above, because I do not understand the syntax. But imagine that is heirglyphics on a cave wall. Painted by God. Do you see a command that woman is ordered to be subordinate? Or do you see a description of life "outside the garden", in a world outside God's shelter, where competition and scarcity and violence drive humanity into the exact same pattern that evolutionary anthropologists argue have shaped society and gender politics throughout the ages.

 

As we look at the whole "curse", especially that expounded to Adam, we see scarcity and frustration and complexity and futility and death. Now, in the same passage, NOBODY assumes that Adam (man) is commanded to subject himself to those things, or prohibited from rising above them -- no, we appropriately celebrate when man vanquishes hunger, cheats death, and builds a better mousetrap. It's not a black eye to God, who intended us for the succor of his garden to begin with. It's a joy! Likewise, let all who are Godly celebrate that women around the world are rising above oppression and dependence and violence, etc. in fact, let us proclaim "freedom for the captive" like Jesus did. And may God forgive the ignorance of those who have perpetuated a curse rather than seeking "the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Rom 8:21)

 

Anyway, those few words might well be translated "with such great toil in child-rearing, you'll actually want one of those men who seem to insist on running everything." Hmmmm?????

 

Whatever the cause, I'm glad God worked it out so that SOMEBODY wants me!

[flavius]

I am not trying to pose as an ancient language scholar. I'm just doing my best with what I've got.

 

And for the record, I believe in special creation, creation by God's breath of life. Not evolution, which is creation by an endless cycle of mishap and death.

 

But I'm not out to prove either. I'm just here to say that God is good, and his mercy endures forever.

[Guest]

Why will he die for our sins, if God will forgive sinners as long as they repent anyways?

 

The shedding of blood is ALWAYS a prerequisite of any sin being forgiven. Someone or something HAS to pay the penalty and atone for the sin. Repentance is necessary for the atonement to take effect.

 

And if he wants to forgive sinners regardless of repenting, then why does Jesus have to come back to die instead of God, who I would think makes up his own mind, could forgive sinners anyways?

 

Repentance is necessary. Usually the Holy Spirit will convict people of sin, through the Bible, or through some other means. Once there is a heartfelt sorrow of how one has strayed away from God, or fallen short, then repentance is possible. A repentance based on regret for the consequences of a sin would be rather shallow and may not hold.

[Admiral Thrawn]

In answer to HotCaliGirl, the shedding of blood, and a true repentance are both necessary conditions for the forgiveness of sin. Everyone who is forgiven, is forgiven through the blood of Jesus, and this is appropriated through true repentance and faith.

 

Understanding the full dynamics of this, however, is not necessary to be saved, all you need is simple child-like faith in Jesus, that's why Jesus said somewhere that you have to be like children to enter the kingdom of God.

 

You may call this a man based religion - or may not appreciate the concept of atonement, but let me tell you this, this has been the oldest concept that has been practised for the past 6000+ years, and as the Gospels say, Jesus Christ is alluded to, in type if not directly, throughout the books of Moses, the laws of OT, and the prophets.

 

This is not something that was just invented and pulled out of some hat yesterday. You have the whole OT as a foundation.

[Moose]

Look at Mark 9:1. It is clear that Jesus is talking to people standing right infron of Him, and He says that He'll be back before they die--and they are all dead.

The next verse tells us that Jesus took Peter, James, and John into a high mountain and was there transfigured before them.

1. There they got a glimpse of Jesus in the power of His kingdom.

a. His raiment became shining.

b. It was exceeding the whiteness of snow.

c. Moses and Elijah appeared and were talking with Him.

 

So no.....this isn't a contradiction either.

Do you honestly think there are no contradictions???

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe there are NO contradictions in the Scriptures.

[HotCaliGirl]

In answer to HotCaliGirl, the shedding of blood, and a true repentance are both necessary conditions for the forgiveness of sin. Everyone who is forgiven, is forgiven through the blood of Jesus, and this is appropriated through true repentance and faith.

it just sounds like a satanic ritual, all the bloodshed and forgiving through blood. i think that's gross and I don't get it.

Understanding the full dynamics of this, however, is not necessary to be saved, all you need is simple child-like faith in Jesus.

Having faith in someone associated with sending people to hell seems like worshipping a satanic entity, don't you agree?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe there are NO contradictions in the Scriptures.

That would take all day to start listing them, so we could save that one for later

This is not something that was just invented and pulled out of some hat yesterday. You have the whole OT as a foundation.

And people used to think that the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too - does that mean we should still believe that? Remember Pope Urban VIII had Galileo imprisoned and his works banned because he agreed with Coprnicus that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun and we weren't the center of the universe with everything revolving around us, going against established Christian belief. Even one of the greatest minds to exist, Socrates, was given the death sentence and ordered to drink poison because he questioned the gods of his time. It would've been interesting if he could jump in here to comment lol

[Moose]

That would take all day to start listing them, so we could save that one for later

I'll start a new thread.

[Admiral Thrawn]

it just sounds like a satanic ritual, all the bloodshed and forgiving through blood. i think that's gross and I don't get it.

 

Having faith in someone associated with sending people to hell seems like worshipping a satanic entity, don't you agree?

 

The shedding of Jesus' blood was what I was referring to.

 

I already told you human sacrifice does not exist anywhere in the Bible.

[Admiral Thrawn]

And people used to think that the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too - does that mean we should still believe that? Remember Pope Urban VIII had Galileo imprisoned and his works banned because he agreed with Coprnicus that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun and we weren't the center of the universe with everything revolving around us, going against established Christian belief. Even one of the greatest minds to exist, Socrates, was given the death sentence and ordered to drink poison because he questioned the gods of his time. It would've been interesting if he could jump in here to comment lol

 

This is a discussion about why Jesus died for our sins. I told you that this concept was not pulled out of a hat, but is a concept that is woven throughout the Old Testament.

 

Nothing of what you have mentioned is relevant to the Old Testament, or of the concept of why Jesus Christ died for our sins.

[HotCaliGirl]

This is a discussion about why Jesus died for our sins. I told you that this concept was not pulled out of a hat, but is a concept that is woven throughout the Old Testament.

 

Nothing of what you have mentioned is relevant to the Old Testament, or of the concept of why Jesus Christ died for our sins.

You're right it got a little off topic there, even though it went to that direction in a related way, wasn't too jumpy... So maybe you can answer then, why the hell did jesus die for people's sins? Why not die for people's bravery or for a better cause...or more practically, why die at all? And why choose a death of significance to be carried out by the enemy, already creating tension and hostility before the religion is even established and his body resurected...leading to more bloodshed, hatred and death in the thousands of years to come over it...seems brutal and hard to make sense out of and not a wise thing to do.

 

and my other question I recently asked is, before I go back to another question I had earlier, I want to know if you (anyone who wants to respond) believe that god has a say in who goes to hell. I think you'll already know where I'm going to go with that one...Thanks.

[Bogun]

So maybe you can answer then, why the hell did jesus die for people's sins?

Short answer....he didnt die, as he never existed. Theres no proof he existed, quite the opposite actually. Its only peoples faith in the bible that convinces them that jesus died for our sins.

[Admiral Thrawn]

You're right it got a little off topic there, even though it went to that direction in a related way, wasn't too jumpy... So maybe you can answer then, why the hell did jesus die for people's sins?

 

So that anyone can, by faith, be justified in the sight of God, and be delivered from sin. Otherwise, the human race would have to be destroyed as a result of Adam's transgression as the only other viable alternative since everyone born would simply go to hell and be unable to enter heaven because they would not be holy enough or good enough to make it on their own merits.

 

Again, justification by faith is a unique concept which differentiates Christianity from any other religion, that people's slates are simply wiped clean, they are given a new life, a new Spirit, and their lifestyle should simply reflect a sence of gratitude of what was already done on their behalf, and good works should be premised on such gratitude, not on earning brownie points to make it to heaven as in other religions.

 

Why not die for people's bravery or for a better cause...or more practically, why die at all? And why choose a death of significance to be carried out by the enemy, already creating tension and hostility before the religion is even established and his body resurected...leading to more bloodshed, hatred and death in the thousands of years to come over it...seems brutal and hard to make sense out of and not a wise thing to do.

 

It is the only way to address the sin problem.

 

and my other question I recently asked is, before I go back to another question I had earlier, I want to know if you (anyone who wants to respond) believe that god has a say in who goes to hell. I think you'll already know where I'm going to go with that one...Thanks.

 

God does not cherry pick who goes to heaven or who goes to hell, and is not a respector of persons. Every single person is equal under the eyes of God and no preferential treatment, or discrimanatory treatment exists in judgement, just what is absolutely fair.

 

What we do know is God is absolutely just, and absolute love - and as a judge paying a fine for someone convicted in a court, so Jesus has paid the fine of sin for everyone guilty before God.

[flavius]

I Timothy 4:10 says:

We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

 

[flavius]

Short answer....he didnt die, as he never existed. Theres no proof he existed, quite the opposite actually.

 

Now THAT is truly laughable. But perhaps it makes you feel smart to say it.

[Bogun]

Now THAT is truly laughable. But perhaps it makes you feel smart to say it.

Not only smart, but clearly better educated than you flavo. Ive posted on other threads in the past, commenting that there are no historical documents from the time mentioning jesus. At least none that any intelligent scholar accepts.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Wow. This is really getting silly. First of all, this topic is about why Jesus died for our sins. One of the richest elements of theology, and consistency and integrity of the Old Testament and New Testament rests on this fundamental concepts between Genesis to Revelation. The reason is the glue that holds the whole Bible together and makes it a coherent book.

 

The reason is found in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,.... ALL the books of the Bible - of why Jesus died for our sin, and typologies of Christ are found throughout the Old Testament. This is not exclusively a New Testatment concept that was pulled out of a hat, but has a rich theological foundation from Genesis.

 

Be it known, that the Temple for animal sacrifices is destroyed on 70 AD, and that when Israel, God's choosen people were ever conquered by Gentile forces, they were in disobedience to God. That means, the sacrifice was made to end all sacrificies. The old temple was invalidated as animal sacrifices were now irrelevant because Jesus paid the price for all humanity. Jesus died for the sins of the world. This is what the animal sacrifices (lambs, etc...), were pointing too, and this is why they are concluded.

 

Now, Bogun is making an absurd arguement, because, what happened on 70 AD was pretty nasty, so it is obvious something had to have happened just before that time the Israelites during that time to have deserved it. To me, this judgement proves quite clearly that something happened. This is something that no scholar can deny.

 

As far as the scholars supporting what Bogun is saying, again, that is totally absurd. The existance of Jesus is a well known fact, the main contention that most people have is who Jesus is, not on whether He existed or not. The main 'eternal question and answer' for everyone, is who is the identity of Jesus. Because, if you believe He is just a man, then you are on your way to hell. That's how important His is identity is in the faith. Most anti-Christian faiths are not going to deny that Jesus existed, but will deny His divinity, and the fact you can only go through Him to be saved. So, it is a non-issue of whether or not He existed or not as you can see in terms of the real debate.

 

Whether He was human, God, or human/God, and what His role on earth was for humanity. Whether it was the start of a new religion, or a born-again experience, where people can be saved and enter into the kingdom of God, that is a relevant debate or issue.

[HotCaliGirl]

the sacrifice was made to end all sacrificies. The old temple was invalidated as animal sacrifices were now irrelevant because Jesus paid the price for all humanity. Jesus died for the sins of the world. This is what the animal sacrifices (lambs, etc...), were pointing too, and this is why they are concluded.

But I don't get the concept of why God would want animal sacrifices in the meantime. The bible says how he liked the smell of their flesh burning. I just think that's odd and weird and disrespectful to animals and the act gross in itself. So again...WHY did Jesus die for "the sins of the world?" Don't sinners deserve punishment? What happened to an eye for an eye. Shouldn't the victim be the one who could choose to forgive? If someone rapes and murderers my mother, and God forgives him because of JEsus and all that stuff, then I am going to get angry at God and think there is no free will or respect for my feelings. And why does God choose that jesus DIE for sins and not for people's goodness instead?

 

Also, why choose death and not write a book or something else? I can't relate to a gruesome murdering on a cross as having meaningful significance, especially it is directed only towards sinners, at the exclusion of good people...so favoring sinners seems satanic in nature.

 

And why does God stop Abraham from killing his son explaining how awful it would've been and he was only testing/teasing him, but turns around and has his own son killed in a humiliating, painful, gruesome way...not for something holy but to benefit the crooks and sinners and child molesters, taking the right of victims to decide whether they deserve to be forgiven, like they mean less than the sinner.

[Admiral Thrawn]

But I don't get the concept of why God would want animal sacrifices in the meantime. The bible says how he liked the smell of their flesh burning.

 

That is all a typology of Christ. This was all pointing to Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross.

 

Another typology is the Passover. The Angel of death passed over the houses that had the blood of the lambs on them, but killed the first-born son of every Egyptian, since they did not have the blood of lambs on their doorpost.

 

Similarly, God sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world (first-born typology on Egyptians), and His blood is shed in your place to avoid the wrath of God on your soul (angel of death passing over - the passover). Passover feast is with unleaven bread - Jesus is like the unleaven bread (as in last supper), no sin, no leaven.

 

There is much more typology and symbolism in the Bible in the Old Testament that refers to Christ. I'm merely pointing to the fact that there is a rich theological foundation in scripture and much depth to trying to understand this.

 

Your question is the key to understanding what the whole Bible is about.

 

I just think that's odd and weird and disrespectful to animals and the act gross in itself. So again...WHY did Jesus die for "the sins of the world?" Don't sinners deserve punishment?

 

Again, God has to explain things to people so they can understand. Animal sacrifices is one way we can understand the sacrifice of Jesus. It is conceptually equivalent. Something precious had to die for someone else's sin. You think it is disrespectful for animals? What about God's only begotten Son who created them and everything else? This was all necessary to address the sin problem.

 

If all sinners were justly punished, then nobody would be good enough to make it before God. As I stated earlier, when the Israelites were on the mountain with Moses, and God came down in a cloud, and was going to write the Ten Commandments in Stone, they were afraid they were ALL going to die when they felt the holy presence of God. Why? Because they were all sinful and all deserved to die in their sin.

 

The story in the Israelites in the Old Testatment, shows that the law, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, simply doesn't work. People, had already tried, to be good enough to make it, but failed miserably. The Old Testament showed this. The Israelites were used as a divine test case of humanity to show that we cant keep the laws of God on our own effort, and simply need a Savior. That was the point of the Old Testament.

 

 

What happened to an eye for an eye. Shouldn't the victim be the one who could choose to forgive?

 

It is the responsibility of the state to deal with crimes. What goes around comes around. Jesus said, he who kills by the sword, will be killed by the sword. People get what they deserve here on earth.

 

I've known people who have given their lifes to the Lord, who led sexually permiscious lifestyles before they were saved. Although they made it to heaven, they still reaped the consequences and died of HIV/AIDS.

 

The concept of paying for sins relates only to eternal life and eternal damnation. But if you look at it, nothing is going to justify someone, in a human's perspective, to go to hell for eternity, unless you are Stalin or Hitler, or some diabolical monster that has triggered a nuclear war that destroyed almost all the world's population. However, theologically, everyone deserves to go there, because, that is the only place you can go and stay away from God for all eternity. If God does not allow sin in His presence, and you have sin, then where are you going to go? How will you account for your sin except through the blood of Jesus?

 

If someone rapes and murderers my mother, and God forgives him because of JEsus and all that stuff, then I am going to get angry at God and think there is no free will or respect for my feelings. And why does God choose that jesus DIE for sins and not for people's goodness instead?

 

Because as a race we are all messed up, and frankly, there is no real goodness in people anyway. As Paul the Apostle said, in him (referring to his flesh) there is no good thing. The carnal mind is emnity against God, the carnal flesh is the enemy of God. Therefore, by defination, people are born in sin, and have a natural disposition to do wickedness and are against God by their very nature. There is no goodness in people, and if there is, it is going to be selfishly motivated and in the context of using someone - which is not really true goodness.

 

Also, why choose death and not write a book or something else? I can't relate to a gruesome murdering on a cross as having meaningful significance, especially it is directed only towards sinners, at the exclusion of good people...so favoring sinners seems satanic in nature.

 

It is directed to everyone since ALL have sinned, and like I have said before, you are as much as a sinner as anyone else who doesn't know the Lord. You'll be like one of those Isralites by the mountain begging God to stay away from them lest they die in His Holy presence.

 

And why does God stop Abraham from killing his son explaining how awful it would've been and he was only testing/teasing him, but turns around and has his own son killed in a humiliating, painful, gruesome way...not for something holy but to benefit the crooks and sinners and child molesters, taking the right of victims to decide whether they deserve to be forgiven, like they mean less than the sinner.

 

Isaac was a typology of Christ. Isaac represented Jesus, God's only Son. Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son. How would it feel for Abraham to sacrifice his son to God. How would it feel for God the Father to sacrifice His only Begotten Son for the sins of the world? Abraham understood Christ through this action, and obedience to God is illustrated, as Jesus was obedient to the will of the Father to the end.

 

Brilliant. The OT is full of typology to better understand the dynamics of God the Father, sending Jesus His only begotten (first-born and only born) Son to die for the sins of the world. His sacrifice was a sweet smelling sacrifice to God because through Jesus, we can all go to heaven and be with the Lord forever.

 

Amen.

[Bogun]

As far as the scholars supporting what Bogun is saying, again, that is totally absurd. The existance of Jesus is a well known fact, the main contention that most people have is who Jesus is, not on whether He existed or not.

Absurd? A well known FACT???? There are NO documents other than the bible to support the belief that jesus actually existed as a real man. I suppose you are going to say that the devil destroyed all the documents mentioning jesus.....

 

 

Here's what I wrote on another thread.....

 

Here's a list of the historians Christians use as evidence that Jesus was a real person:

 

1. Tacitus, a roman historian, wrote one passage mentioning "christ" (there is no mention of "jesus"). It was written in 112 AD, and the passage was about the big fire in rome in 64 AD. A passage written a century after jesus was supposedly born, and only mentioned in passing when relating the events of a fire 50 years earlier. I wouldnt call this substantial evidence, would you??? There were dozens of famous roman historians besides tacitus, yet none of them mention jesus. Why would that be?

 

2. Josephus, a jewish historian. There are some passages amongst Josephus's works that mention jesus. However, historians now firmly believe that these passages were not written by Josephus, as they are much later additions, and the writing style is much different. Also, another historian of the time Origen, stated that Josephus did not believe in any jewish messiah figure, instead he believed that the roman emperor Vespasian was the prophesied ruler of the world.

 

These are the only 2. No other historians at the time mention a messiah figure called jesus.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Absurd? A well known FACT???? There are NO documents other than the bible to support the belief that jesus actually existed as a real man. I suppose you are going to say that the devil destroyed all the documents mentioning jesus.....

 

 

Here's what I wrote on another thread.....

 

The Bible is good enough proof for me. I guess it must be good enough proof for most of the religions that are out there too that dont believe the Bible.

 

I will reiterate the facts again, that virtually every religion out there will believe that Jesus Christ existed, even those that are anti-Christian. Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet. Jews acknowledge He existed but may deny His diety or fulfillment as Messiah. Hidus acknowledge Jesus as one of the gods. Every religion recognises Jesus existed, but may pervert the meaning of His identity.

 

Furthermore, people died for their belief in Jesus, and were martyres during the Roman Empire. People do not die for something that is fictional.

 

Thus, in view of the obvious, your proposition is an arguement that can not be taken seriously as part of rational discussion. Even if there is no direct documentation other than the Bible, there is no shortage of circumstantial evidence.

 

Furthermore, I would also reiterate the fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, an arguement that obviously you have blinders to hearing, because you know the destruction of that temple disproves your whole arguement because it shows something happened that would warrant it to be destroyed. That is more circumstantial evidence.

[HokeyReligions]

There are many historians who support the existence of a man called Jesus, and who was accepted as a preacher. There is no proof of a messiah by any name or that Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin. That part is faith-based.

 

As for why He died? If a God exists, what better way to demonstrate His love for mankind than by sacrificing his Son? Especially in light of the old testament teachings and the beliefs and societies that existed up to that point?

[Bogun]

I will reiterate the facts again, that virtually every religion out there will believe that Jesus Christ existed, even those that are anti-Christian. Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet. Jews acknowledge He existed but may deny His diety or fulfillment as Messiah. Hidus acknowledge Jesus as one of the gods. Every religion recognises Jesus existed, but may pervert the meaning of His identity.

Your talking out of your butt once again thrawn. Hindus do not acknowledge jesus as anything other than some guy in a foreign religion. If you knew anything about hinduism you'd know how rediculous you sound claiming that they believe jesus is one of the gods. They have a hundred or so different gods, some specific only to certain regions IN INDIA. Jesus has never been one of them.

I can't speak for muslims, but as far as buddhists go, they dont give a toss who jesus is and whether he existed.

 

Furthermore, people died for their belief in Jesus, and were martyres during the Roman Empire. People do not die for something that is fictional.

Just because jesus was a mythical figure doesnt mean christianity is fictional. As Ive said on other posts, at the time that jesus was supposedly around, there was a group of christians called the gnostics, who did not believe jesus to be a literal man but a mythical figure created in order to teach the spiritual path of christianity. My whole point is that jesus dying for our sins does not make sense if you take it literally, but if you see it as a metaphor, and take it out of the literal context that most people see it in, it does make some sense.

 

As for why He died? If a God exists, what better way to demonstrate His love for mankind than by sacrificing his Son?

If he's a god, why would he have to sacrifice his son, like he owes a debt to someone??? I certainly don't want to worship a god that chooses to demonstrate his love for us by killing his own son.

[HokeyReligions]

 

If he's a god, why would he have to sacrifice his son, like he owes a debt to someone??? I certainly don't want to worship a god that chooses to demonstrate his love for us by killing his own son.

 

If you studied the Bible from a historical point you would recognize that it was not a 'debt' of any kind. That is your very limited view based on current human development and recent past social practices and beliefs, and your attempt to put a human/mortal 'spin' on something or someone who is not human/mortal and does not follow any physical or spiritual 'rules of life'. No one is telling you to worship anything. Well, AT is telling everyone that does not believe as he does that they are 'wrong', but that is no different than you telling everyone who does not believe or think as you that they are wrong. You are both very alike in that regard. How human of you both.