Do you think Jesus needed to die?

[Magdalenbrother]

Do you think Jesus needed to die?

[Xmansmommy]

Before Adam and Eve used their freewill to sin, no. Afterward, yes.

[Magdalenbrother]

Let me reformulate my question...

Did Jesus hope to be rejected and killed?

Apparently, if you believe that the salvation of the world, and more importantly, YOUR salvation, depends on the blood poured out on Golgotha, you must answer a resounding Yes! to the above question.

Jesus came to be despised, mocked at and finally killed. Let us put it very simply: he came to die!

Although the above statement sounds pretty reasonable to our ears, there follow from such a premise a series of unexpected consequences.

If that be true ,we need to say that Jesus was overjoyed when Capernaum and the other cities on the Sea of Galilee refiused to convert and that nothing would have grieved him more than seeing his fellow Galileans welcome his message and turn to the Father.

We need to say that he was glad that Jerusalem, the Holy City, hounded him and killed him. He was glad that the Temple would be destroyed and the Jewish nation dispersed throughout the world. He feared nothing more than that Zion hail him as her savior, for that, of course, would have meant no propiatory sacrifice and without sacrifice no salvation for the whole human race. Jesus in fact shuddered at the prospect of a regenerated Israel. Maybe we could even say that he calculated all his moves so that the Jews would hate him and end up killing him.

But wait: did Jesus really rejoice at the unbelief and cruelty of his fellow Jews ? Did he? Didn't he get very angry at the icy indifference of the Galilean towns? Didn't he weep bitterly over Jerusalem? Did he repeatedly warn the Jews against the dire consequences that their killing him would have?

Jesus did weep and he did feel angered and disappointed. And he warned the Jews of their impending doom as a consequence of their unbelief and murderous thoughts. And he forgave them on the cross, which means that he recognized his crucifixion as a real sin committed by his countrymen.

Clearly he had hoped that his nation would welcome him. In fact, he stated that he had come for just that: to save the Jewish people.He hoped that the Jews would welcome him and receive him and that thereby the Jewish nation and the world would be liberated from the powers of evil. He was in fact so confident at the beginning of his mission that he predicted his disciples that the kingdom of God would come in power before the end of their tour of the cities around the Lake of Tiberias.

Now, if Jesus hoped to be received with sincere faith, that means that the sacrifice was NOT necessary. The Jews could have been saved without the heinous crime of Calvary. And contrary to the crazy logic of Paul, Jewish acceptance of Jesus'message would not have prevented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

On the contrary. If the Jews had received Jesus' message, they would have opened even more to the non-Jews and the Gospel would have spread everywhere with equal if not more vigour.

Now you might ask: by what would the Jews have been saved if they had not killed Jesus? Your logic tells you that there is no salvation if the Redeemer is not made to bleed to death. But my logic says that if they had not killed him, the Jews and the Gentiles would have been saved by Jesus' teachings and by his presence alone. One day, Jesus would have died in old age or he would not have died at all because the world would have been different and death abolished.

Another "proof" that the bloody sacrifice of the cross was not necessary is that Jesus did not teach it. Read the Synoptic Gospels. Read "John". TYou will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all. So are we to assume that he offered his hearers a kind of second-rate Christianity? Teachings that did not really save?

God forbid! Jesus said that he had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. If he was sincere, we need to assume that he gave his hearers in the Galilee and elsewhere the real thing.

Now that real thing did not include the bloody sacrifice of the cross...

Conclusion: salvation (Jesus' and ours) is not through the outpouring of material,physical blood on a cross of wood, but through surrender of the ego and its evil passions and thoughts, surrender of will and pride, surrender of rebellious autonomy from G-d. Briefly, salvation is through the death of ourselves as a separate ego from G-d.

Jesus accomplished all that through his Passion but he could have done it just the same otherwise.

[Xmansmommy]

To be perfectly honest I think you just made some excellent points for OVT. :wink:

[Findo]

Let me reformulate my question...

Did Jesus hope to be rejected and killed?

Apparently, if you believe that the salvation of the world, and more importantly, YOUR salvation, depends on the blood poured out on Golgotha, you must answer a resounding Yes! to the above question.

Jesus came to be despised, mocked at and finally killed. Let us put it very simply: he came to die!

Although the above statement sounds pretty reasonable to our ears, there follow from such a premise a series of unexpected consequences.

If that be true ,we need to say that Jesus was overjoyed when Capernaum and the other cities on the Sea of Galilee refiused to convert and that nothing would have grieved him more than seeing his fellow Galileans welcome his message and turn to the Father.

We need to say that he was glad that Jerusalem, the Holy City, hounded him and killed him. He was glad that the Temple would be destroyed and the Jewish nation dispersed throughout the world. He feared nothing more than that Zion hail him as her savior, for that, of course, would have meant no propiatory sacrifice and without sacrifice no salvation for the whole human race. Jesus in fact shuddered at the prospect of a regenerated Israel. Maybe we could even say that he calculated all his moves so that the Jews would hate him and end up killing him.

But wait: did Jesus really rejoice at the unbelief and cruelty of his fellow Jews ? Did he? Didn't he get very angry at the icy indifference of the Galilean towns? Didn't he weep bitterly over Jerusalem? Did he repeatedly warn the Jews against the dire consequences that their killing him would have?

Jesus did weep and he did feel angered and disappointed. And he warned the Jews of their impending doom as a consequence of their unbelief and murderous thoughts. And he forgave them on the cross, which means that he recognized his crucifixion as a real sin committed by his countrymen.

Clearly he had hoped that his nation would welcome him. In fact, he stated that he had come for just that: to save the Jewish people.He hoped that the Jews would welcome him and receive him and that thereby the Jewish nation and the world would be liberated from the powers of evil. He was in fact so confident at the beginning of his mission that he predicted his disciples that the kingdom of God would come in power before the end of their tour of the cities around the Lake of Tiberias.

Now, if Jesus hoped to be received with sincere faith, that means that the sacrifice was NOT necessary. The Jews could have been saved without the heinous crime of Calvary. And contrary to the crazy logic of Paul, Jewish acceptance of Jesus'message would not have prevented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

On the contrary. If the Jews had received Jesus' message, they would have opened even more to the non-Jews and the Gospel would have spread everywhere with equal if not more vigour.

Now you might ask: by what would the Jews have been saved if they had not killed Jesus? Your logic tells you that there is no salvation if the Redeemer is not made to bleed to death. But my logic says that if they had not killed him, the Jews and the Gentiles would have been saved by Jesus' teachings and by his presence alone. One day, Jesus would have died in old age or he would not have died at all because the world would have been different and death abolished.

Another "proof" that the bloody sacrifice of the cross was not necessary is that Jesus did not teach it. Read the Synoptic Gospels. Read "John". TYou will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all. So are we to assume that he offered his hearers a kind of second-rate Christianity? Teachings that did not really save?

God forbid! Jesus said that he had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. If he was sincere, we need to assume that he gave his hearers in the Galilee and elsewhere the real thing.

Now that real thing did not include the bloody sacrifice of the cross...

Conclusion: salvation (Jesus' and ours) is not through the outpouring of material,physical blood on a cross of wood, but through surrender of the ego and its evil passions and thoughts, surrender of will and pride, surrender of rebellious autonomy from G-d. Briefly, salvation is through the death of ourselves as a separate ego from G-d.

Jesus accomplished all that through his Passion but he could have done it just the same otherwise.



Does it not occur to you that, as Jesus claimed to be the fullfilment of the law (OT) that perhaps He is the NEW sacrifice.. the new covanent is in His blood. Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The writer of Hebrews says:

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.


How can we expect ot be forgiven of the sin that stops us from knowing God, with out the shedding of blood.

Yes, Jesus knew He was going to die.

Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(read the whol pasage there, it is a prophecy of what will happen to Christ)

That was the reason He came. It was always God's plan. God didn't create Adam and then, oh no.. hang on a sec, Adam you stuffed it up.. well I better think of a plan B..

of course not. there is no plan B with God, He is sovreign and He will acomplish His plans.

You really need to read the WHOLE bible in context.

In regards to your statement about Jesus being glad that they did not repent..

often we find two seemingly contradictory will with God. e.g It was God's will that Pharoh let the hebrews go, yet God hardened pharohs' heart. We have a general and speciic will. It is God's will that all be saved, but all aren't. Is God's will powerless. Of course not:


Psa 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

And so it is, that yes, it was a sin to kill Jesus, and it was not His will for the jews to kill Him, yet, we read in scripture that it was the Lord's will to crush Him and make Him the penalty for our sin... in a genral sense, no it wasn't God' will for Jesus to be killed, but it the specific sense it was.

[Solly]

To be perfectly honest I think you just made some excellent points for OVT. :wink:

:sad: :no:

Oh Xmom, that's one of the saddest posts I've ever read....

[NonTrinitarian]

Now, if Jesus hoped to be received with sincere faith, that means that the sacrifice was NOT necessary. The Jews could have been saved without the heinous crime of Calvary. And contrary to the crazy logic of Paul, Jewish acceptance of Jesus'message would not have prevented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

On the contrary. If the Jews had received Jesus' message, they would have opened even more to the non-Jews and the Gospel would have spread everywhere with equal if not more vigour.

Now you might ask: by what would the Jews have been saved if they had not killed Jesus? Your logic tells you that there is no salvation if the Redeemer is not made to bleed to death. But my logic says that if they had not killed him, the Jews and the Gentiles would have been saved by Jesus' teachings and by his presence alone. One day, Jesus would have died in old age or he would not have died at all because the world would have been different and death abolished.

Another "proof" that the bloody sacrifice of the cross was not necessary is that Jesus did not teach it. Read the Synoptic Gospels. Read "John". TYou will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all. So are we to assume that he offered his hearers a kind of second-rate Christianity? Teachings that did not really save?

God forbid! Jesus said that he had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. If he was sincere, we need to assume that he gave his hearers in the Galilee and elsewhere the real thing.

Now that real thing did not include the bloody sacrifice of the cross...

Conclusion: salvation (Jesus' and ours) is not through the outpouring of material,physical blood on a cross of wood, but through surrender of the ego and its evil passions and thoughts, surrender of will and pride, surrender of rebellious autonomy from G-d. Briefly, salvation is through the death of ourselves as a separate ego from G-d.

Jesus accomplished all that through his Passion but he could have done it just the same otherwise.


So I take it you believe Jesus' words but not Paul's? Fine. Believe them.

"Just as the Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and give his soul a ransom in exchange for many."

"So he said to them: "O senseless ones and slow in heart to believe on all the things the prophets spoke. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things...And commencing at Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in the Scriptures."

"then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures, and he said to them: "In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise on the third day."

"But Jesus answered them, saying: "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Most truly I say to you, Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just one grain, but if it dies it then bears much fruit...Now my soul is troubled and what shall I say? Father, save out of this hour? Nevertheless, this is why I have come to this hour."

"Then he sternly charged the disciples not to say to anybody that he was the Christ. From that time forward Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things...and be killed...At this Peter took him aside and said, "Be kind to yourself Lord..."But turning his back, he said to Peter: "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think not God's thoughts, but those of men."

"Also, he started teaching then that the Son of Man must undergo many sufferings and...be killed, and rise three days later."

"but he said, "The Son of man must undergo many sufferings...and be killed, and on the third day be raised up."

And there are more but these should suffice. Oh, BTW. Contrary to the comment where you said


"You will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all.
these quotes are scattered throughout the Gospels, and not just near the end. The redemtion was hinted at LONG BEFORE the last supper. In fact, from John chapter one Jesus was announced as the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." What did the Jews do with Lambs?

[Magdalenbrother]

"And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."


Another "proof" that the bloody sacrifice of the cross was not necessary is that Jesus did not teach it. Read the Synoptic Gospels. Read "John". You will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all. So are we to assume that he offered his hearers a kind of second-rate Christianity? Teachings that did not really save?

God forbid! Jesus said that he had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. If he was sincere, we need to assume that he gave his hearers in the Galilee and elsewhere the real thing.

Now that real thing did not include the bloody sacrifice of the cross...

If someone among you can show me that Jesus actually taught his hearers in Capernaum and Chorazin and elsewhere(not only a select few when it became clear that things were going the wrong way) that they are saved not primarily by doing God's will and taking their own cross but by believing in his redemptive death on the cross in Jerusalem, I will certainly change my mind...

:pray: :pray: :pray:

[Magdalenbrother]

these quotes are scattered throughout the Gospels, and not just near the end. The redemtion was hinted at LONG BEFORE the last supper. In fact, from John chapter one Jesus was announced as the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." What did the Jews do with Lambs?

No dear, Jesus' dire predictions start only in chapter 16 in Matthew.

They are first mentioned in chapter 8 in Mark. There are only 16 chapters in Mark, of which 5 happen in Jerusalem, one on the way to Jerusalem and the rest, 10 chapters in all, in the Galilee. The first prediction occurs just toward the end of the ministry of Jesus in the Galilee. At that stage there was probably no hope of success any more in terms of a coming of the Kingdom of God in power. But that Jesus harbored such hopes is shown by his bold (and falsified) prophecy that:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Mat 10,23)

The first prediction occurs in chapter 9 in Luke. The chronology is the same.

John does not mention any predictions about the death of Jesus. Only much later, after the resurrection had taken place, did the disciples realize the import of some mysterious sayings of Jesus about the Temple.

The lamb, yeah, do you believe that Jesus had an ovine nature beside his human nature?

The lamb made many sacrifices during his life. One of the greatest occurred during the temptation in the desert, where he was tempted to grap equality with God. Each and every surrender of personal will in Jesus' life was salvific both for himself and for mankind.

[Findo]

No dear, Jesus' dire predictions start only in chapter 16 in Matthew.

They are first mentioned in chapter 8 in Mark. There are only 16 chapters in Mark, of which 5 happen in Jerusalem, one on the way to Jerusalem and the rest, 10 chapters in all, in the Galilee. The first prediction occurs just toward the end of the ministry of Jesus in the Galilee. At that stage there was probably no hope of success any more in terms of a coming of the Kingdom of God in power. But that Jesus harbored such hopes is shown by his bold (and falsified) prophecy that:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Mat 10,23)

The first prediction occurs in chapter 9 in Luke. The chronology is the same.

John does not mention any predictions about the death of Jesus. Only much later, after the resurrection had taken place, did the disciples realize the import of some mysterious sayings of Jesus about the Temple.

The lamb, yeah, do you believe that Jesus had an ovine nature beside his human nature?

The lamb made many sacrifices during his life. One of the greatest occurred during the temptation in the desert, where he was tempted to grap equality with God. Each and every surrender of personal will in Jesus' life was salvific both for himself and for mankind.


I do believe you have no realision of what the term 'lamb' refers to. Remember the passover?

btw.. I also believe that Jesus death was predicted a couple of hundred years prior to His coming:


Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.



Did it occure to you that pehaps no one was ready to hear about His sacrificial death until that point?

[NonTrinitarian]

I do believe you have no realision of what the term 'lamb' refers to. Remember the passover?

btw.. I also believe that Jesus death was predicted a couple of hundred years prior to His coming:


Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.



Did it occure to you that pehaps no one was ready to hear about His sacrificial death until that point?And Simeon's words to Mary that a sword would pierce her too suggests that he understood Jesus' coming death (Luke 2:35)

And to add to this, we note by Magdalenbrother's own admission that about halfway through each Gospel Jesus repeatedly discusses his on coming death. MB seems to think that unless Jesus taught it from DAY ONE that it was not part of his original purpose. I wonder if we should show him the part where Jesus told his disciples "I have many things to teach you but you are not able to bear them at the moment." (Perhaps this is what you were referring to LB?) Those words by Jesus toss out MB's theory that unless Jesus mentioned it from Day One it wasn't part of it. And really, of all the teachings the Disciples would not have been able to bear, wouldn't you think Jesus' death would have been in the top 5!


Furthermore, Magdalenbrother's whole exegesis ignores the actual words Jesus said in the verses I quoted. It's important to notice not just WHEN Jesus said things, which appears to be the only thing MB is focusing on, we have to notice WHAT he said.

Just as the Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and give his soul a ransom in exchange for many."

Jesus' dying wasn't an afterthought, it's the whole reason he came to the earth.

"So he said to them: "O senseless ones and slow in heart to believe on all the things the prophets spoke. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things...And commencing at Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in the Scriptures."

The scriptures Jesus had to fulfill said he had to die. It was necessary for him to do such, according to his own words. Now unless MB is proposing Jesus was oblivious to these scriptures at the beginning of his ministry or that Jesus was intending to go contrary to these prophecies, he has no grounds to stand on.

"then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures, and he said to them: "In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise on the third day."

Same thought as above. MB's argument hinges on when Jesus said them, not what he said.

"But Jesus answered them, saying: "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Most truly I say to you, Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just one grain, but if it dies it then bears much fruit...Now my soul is troubled and what shall I say? Father, save out of this hour? Nevertheless, this is why I have come to this hour."

Apparently MB doesn't really believe what Jesus said here. According to MB, it was not necessary for Jesus to die. But Jesus said flat out unless he dies, there will be no others. And he stresses that this is the whole reason why he came to the hour of death.

"Then he sternly charged the disciples not to say to anybody that he was the Christ. From that time forward Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things...and be killed...At this Peter took him aside and said, "Be kind to yourself Lord..."But turning his back, he said to Peter: "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think not God's thoughts, but those of men."

This helps us understand why Jesus earlier said he had many things to explain to them but they were not ready to bear them. Even when the time came to explain them, we note Peter's reaction. It was God's THOUGHT that Jesus should die.

"Also, he started teaching then that the Son of Man must undergo many sufferings and...be killed, and rise three days later."

"but he said, "The Son of man must undergo many sufferings...and be killed, and on the third day be raised up."

Either Jesus MUST die or not. Jesus said he must die.

MB needs to look these verses over again, along with the scores of prophecies regarding Jesus in the OT. Not fulfilling them was not an option for Jesus. Everything he did, even from the casting of lots for his garments and crying out 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?' at his death, had to be fulfilled. So MB, my question to you is this: Was Jesus trying to NOT fulfill these prophecies or was he totally oblivious of them?

[NonTrinitarian]

I notices MB started a new thread on the Lamb of God. But why? We already had the discussion going here. I'm still waiting for him to deal with the above verses that expose the flaw in his argumentation.

[themuzicman]

Think of it like a man who knows a major snowstorm is coming, even though it's unseasonably warm outside, and he wants to protect a flock of birds that he's been feeding all summer long. So, he opens the barn door, expecting that they will go into the barn. But, unaware of the impending danger, they do not. So, he tries to shoo them into the barn. But they start in the right direction, but then fly off in other directions.

Finally, he goes to the local pet psychic, at the cost of great personal and social embarrassment, and goes back to the birds to communicate with them on their level. Now, he gets about half the birds to listen to him, and to go into the barn, but about half refuse, and will die in the storm.

Now, he had to do you honestly think he was glad that those other birds were going to die?

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

:sad: :no:

Oh Xmom, that's one of the saddest posts I've ever read....

Why saddest? :nsm:

[7thangel]

Let me reformulate my question...





Did Jesus hope to be rejected and killed?

Apparently, if you believe that the salvation of the world, and more importantly, YOUR salvation, depends on the blood poured out on Golgotha, you must answer a resounding Yes! to the above question.

Jesus came to be despised, mocked at and finally killed. Let us put it very simply: he came to die!

Although the above statement sounds pretty reasonable to our ears, there follow from such a premise a series of unexpected consequences.

If that be true ,we need to say that Jesus was overjoyed when Capernaum and the other cities on the Sea of Galilee refiused to convert and that nothing would have grieved him more than seeing his fellow Galileans welcome his message and turn to the Father.

We need to say that he was glad that Jerusalem, the Holy City, hounded him and killed him. He was glad that the Temple would be destroyed and the Jewish nation dispersed throughout the world. He feared nothing more than that Zion hail him as her savior, for that, of course, would have meant no propiatory sacrifice and without sacrifice no salvation for the whole human race. Jesus in fact shuddered at the prospect of a regenerated Israel. Maybe we could even say that he calculated all his moves so that the Jews would hate him and end up killing him.

But wait: did Jesus really rejoice at the unbelief and cruelty of his fellow Jews ? Did he? Didn't he get very angry at the icy indifference of the Galilean towns? Didn't he weep bitterly over Jerusalem? Did he repeatedly warn the Jews against the dire consequences that their killing him would have?

Jesus did weep and he did feel angered and disappointed. And he warned the Jews of their impending doom as a consequence of their unbelief and murderous thoughts. And he forgave them on the cross, which means that he recognized his crucifixion as a real sin committed by his countrymen.

Clearly he had hoped that his nation would welcome him. In fact, he stated that he had come for just that: to save the Jewish people.He hoped that the Jews would welcome him and receive him and that thereby the Jewish nation and the world would be liberated from the powers of evil. He was in fact so confident at the beginning of his mission that he predicted his disciples that the kingdom of God would come in power before the end of their tour of the cities around the Lake of Tiberias.

Now, if Jesus hoped to be received with sincere faith, that means that the sacrifice was NOT necessary. The Jews could have been saved without the heinous crime of Calvary. And contrary to the crazy logic of Paul, Jewish acceptance of Jesus'message would not have prevented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

On the contrary. If the Jews had received Jesus' message, they would have opened even more to the non-Jews and the Gospel would have spread everywhere with equal if not more vigour.

Now you might ask: by what would the Jews have been saved if they had not killed Jesus? Your logic tells you that there is no salvation if the Redeemer is not made to bleed to death. But my logic says that if they had not killed him, the Jews and the Gentiles would have been saved by Jesus' teachings and by his presence alone. One day, Jesus would have died in old age or he would not have died at all because the world would have been different and death abolished.

Another "proof" that the bloody sacrifice of the cross was not necessary is that Jesus did not teach it. Read the Synoptic Gospels. Read "John". TYou will see that Jesus nowhere talks to his audience about his redemptive sacrifice. According to the Synoptics he only predicted his death toward the end of his mission (when it was clear that the message would not be received) and the redemption was hinted at at the Last Supper. But during most of his ministry Jesus did not speak of a propiatory sacrifice at all. So are we to assume that he offered his hearers a kind of second-rate Christianity? Teachings that did not really save?

God forbid! Jesus said that he had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. If he was sincere, we need to assume that he gave his hearers in the Galilee and elsewhere the real thing.

Now that real thing did not include the bloody sacrifice of the cross...

Conclusion: salvation (Jesus' and ours) is not through the outpouring of material,physical blood on a cross of wood, but through surrender of the ego and its evil passions and thoughts, surrender of will and pride, surrender of rebellious autonomy from G-d. Briefly, salvation is through the death of ourselves as a separate ego from G-d.

Jesus accomplished all that through his Passion but he could have done it just the same otherwise.
The death of Christ on the cross is part of Christ's accounted part in the law of Moses. He is the lamb killed in the passover, that was foreordained of God.
In fact, when Peter is after helping him, Christ said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

Since Christ was predestined to save the people thus way, he has to fulfill it no other way.

However, as regards to your conclusion, we should realize that it is God's predestination of Christ's death that saved us. And thus, Christ's death is the signification of God's salvation according to predestination. In what predestination entails, we do more than what you have said in your conclusion. Actually, if we are predestined, then we were stripped of our identity that is separate from God. Rather we see ourselves as mere of His creations. As Psalms said: Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;

[Magdalenbrother]

Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.



The WHOLE passage is in the past tense...

[Magdalenbrother]

Objectors and contradictors please, throw cyberstones at my other thread "the Lamb that takes away Paul's theology".

Please address all my arguments. Did Jesus teach the redemptive death at Golgotha doctrine in Capernaum? Yes? No? Apparently he didn't...

Why?

And please address the parable of the wicked vinedressers. Jesus said that his Father had hoped all along that "they would respect my son".

God had hoped that Jesus should become the triumphant Messiah of the OT prophecies. It didn't turn out that way...

He said it. Yes, he did. Yes, he did !

Undestand that Jesus died spiritually many times before the cross. That is John's basic message. Jesus' being is sacrificial and salvific by definition. Here and now. Before the cross, after the cross, during the cross.

I am the resurection and the life.

Present tense.

[7thangel]

The WHOLE passage is in the past tense...

God is not guessing, he is speaking of what He had FOREKNOWN.

In any case, if you think they are not referring to the Messiah, would you give me the persons refered in each of those passages?

thanks

[Magdalenbrother]

God is not guessing, he is speaking of what He had FOREKNOWN.

In any case, if you think they are not referring to the Messiah, would you give me the persons refered in each of those passages?

Give me some time. Let me browse a few Jewish websites to see how Jews interpret this passage. I guess their interpretation is probably very different from the Christian one.

Are all Jewish exegetes stupid?

"Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. According as many were appalled at thee - so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men - so shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him. He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

"But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray. We turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

"Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand: Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear. Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 52:13-53:12, translated from Hebrew in The Holy Scriptures, by The Jewish Publication Society of America)

Was Jesus a leprose? What kind of disease afflicted him during his life?

At this stage, I think that this prophecy may partly apply to Jesus but what does it really prove? Alongside this prophecy, there are many others which describe the Messiah as a warrior king.

How do the two fit together ?

Even for a Christian it is awkward to argue that the loving Jesus will come back as a vengeful character. Is Jesus Janus-faced?

Note also the botanical passage above. Shall we say that Jesus has a vegetal nature beside his humanity/divinity ?

If I remember well, he said he was "the true vine" and he compared himself to "green wood" on the way to Calvary...

No ambiguity here. If trinitarians could lay their hands on a passage that is grammaticaly and otherwise even half as clear as "I am the true vine" or "behold the Lamb of God", how happy they would be !

The passage in red is rather embarrassing if it applies to Jesus, don't you think so ? Jesus did not have any offspring and he didn't live long.

Symbolical? How do I know?

Maybe it is symbolical. Maybe not.

Finally how can Jesus, who according to you is God, be decribed as God's servant?

Is God God's servant? :tongue:

I think the servant of the prophecy shows one aspect of the savior and that it relates to all suffering individuals who accept their sufferings in a spirit of godliness: I call them "coredemptors". Paul said that he suffered to complete the sufferings of Jesus for his body, which is the Church.

Proof that Jesus' sacrifice was not complete. It was perfect but not total...

[Findo]

The WHOLE passage is in the past tense...

ok.. my bad.. of course it has no correlation to what Jesus went through.. :lol:

Does that mean it is no longer a prophecy? Besides, in the whole scheme of things, it could be asserted that as Christ's death was the plan from the before the world began, the pasasge was reffering to something already done in eternity past... but I don't think that prophecy MUST be in a future tense.. Revelation was in a paste tense.. and I think both Preterists and Futurists would agree that at the time of writing none of had yet come to pass..

sorry.. you'll have to do better than that.