That is very shallow thinking, you have got to look deeper. The ‘choice’ to go to work was a result of hundreds of other factors beyond your control. The fact that you think you ‘chose’ is itself but a link in the causal web.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but an opinion supported by logical reasoning and evidence.
But uhhh…ya…let’s not let this turn into freewill vs determinism part 6 million…
Just pointing out that ‘freewill’ is far from a given.
And for the record there is no evidence ‘jesus’ ever lived in the first place, much less died. It is a bit like asking ‘Why did obi-wan kenobi have to die in return of the jedi?’
Answer - It was in the script.
the evidence outside of the bible shows that there were several thousand yeshua. It was a popular name being named after What in the old testament is Joshua.
I could say the same thing to you. How deeply have you examined your choices?
Next your gonna tell me you can tell me with certainty what the weather will be because you are able to factor in all of the possibilities. Chaos rules and something will be overlooked, or something will change the model.
I’m not “caught in the web” of causality.
Newtonian physics only goes so far to explain the world. And to apply such a model to human behavior… ludicrous over simplification.
Actually there is a lot of evidence Jesus existed, aside from just the Christian scriptures. I wouldn’t go into detail right now, I’m not here to argue that. Even though I’m a pure math and physics major, I’ve taken enough of biblical studies courses to know that there is. But I only want to give a theory as to why Jesus HAD to die (apart from dying for sins and all that spiritual stuff).
First off, I remember reading in John that the High Preist that year told the pharisees that it would be better for one man to die for the nation than for the whole nation to perish because of him.
Jesus was getting popular. And the rebels of the day were following him probably because they thought he would bring the ‘kingdom of heaven’ in a forcful manner. The Romans were the enemies of the Jews during the time, and the Jews were waiting for someone to come and free them from the tyranny of the Romans. They thought Jesus was this messiah. However, according the New Testament, they had the wrong idea of how the messiah would free Israel and what he would free them from.
So the pharisees thought Jesus may be trying to plot political rebellion against the Romans. If this were the case, the Romans could have grounds to completely obliterate Israel. So, instead of Israel dying for Jesus, Jesus had to die for Israel.
It’s only one theory remember, and it is supported well by the scriptures, so you may want to look into it.
I believe, for the most part, that Jesus may have been a character created for the formation of a cult. Scientology has done something like that in the modern era and to a degree it has been believed.
However, when tentative started the thread I think that he was looking for a mystical answer to the question. In other words, did Jesus have to die for our sins.
Ok, this will be my last post mentioning ‘freewill’…it’s been done to death and it’s off topic.
It comes down to this. Nothing, thus far, when examined to the point of understanding, is without cause. Not event, not action, not behavior.
Freewill implies chaos, a floating action attached to nothing. Being that nothing like that has been shown to exist yet, the whole concept is without precedent.
Now, back on topic…assuming ‘biblical jesus’ lived (Yes there were many ‘yeshuas’ but I am speaking purely of the biblical personality) he would have been just another religious zealot among many…religious zealots create disorder, which is disadvantageous to running an empire. I would say…yes…yes he did ‘have’ to die because the ones weilding the power at the time said so.
yeah I assume that the truth is closer to Life of brian, that there were alot of “messiahs” in those days.
I don’t think Christs death was necessary in the grand scheme of things, because I don’t believe that we are capable of sin.
Well, I didn’t factor in ‘sin’ because to me the concept is erroneous.
I mean, who defines what ‘has to’ happen anyway? If you believe in a deity, you put it on him.
Me, I think the one with the power decides what ‘has to’ happen, because it is they that can make it happen.
Factoring an unknown(unknowable) X factor into the question really makes the whole issue unneededly complicated if you ask me.
In my studies, I have found that ALL Gods prophets were killed that warned of Gods anger at their dealings. Who likes to have their dirty little secrets made known to everyone? Would these people search for or want to hear the truth? Would they today? The dummies killed their early warning radars. Then they would wait awhile, and start worshipping them, twisting their words to fit their personal agendas. Dead men don’t argue. However, If we were to start imitating what Jesus did, NOT just what he said, I think you would see that he paved the way for us. To do so would expose all the corrupt people, who are twisting his words to fit in with their personal agendas. Basically, tricking them. Example: My Witness mother believes that she goes door to door trying to convert people to her 144,000 gods, because she believes that all who don’t worship them God is going to destroy. When someone is not interested at her message and “truth”, she simply goes to the next door. She believes in all her heart that person is doomed. Yet she does not go to the bible to search for more “truth” to save this person, convince them somehow to save their life. Why not? They have brought nothing new to light in a hundred years? IF I knew I was going to die, you better believe I would be searching my ass off. Is she, by her actions “loving others as she loves herself”? Is her gods? Another point… She says I am wrong for talking to “worldly” people, that “bad associations spoil useful habits.”
Ok Mom, WHY DID JESUS DO IT THEN? She had no answer. I think that for real SHE and her gods are the “bad associations”. They judge a person everytime they walk away without searching for a answer or knowledge to convince that “lost sheep” to repent. In effect, leaving that person to die in their sins. If you talk to one, see if they can answer this, and let me know what they say.
To move this a bit further, Adlerian was right when he pointed out that behind my obscure first post, I was asking why the bible almost suggest’s that Jesus of Nazareth was ‘born to be sacrificed’. That he was put on earth by God to be sacrificed for the sins of man. Other than after-the-fact reconciling events with a man made explanation, what is there but the authority of biblical text (granted by the text itself) to suggest that Jesus had to die?
That his life and his sacrifice carries a spiritual message is not denied, but foretold? Was it truly a self-fulfilling prophesy?
JT
another question I’ve had about this cycle of events, is why does god demand the sacrifice of blood for sin?
Either way you look at it, god sacrificed himself or his son, for sin he created.
?
Most of the so called “prophesy” of the old testament is a “hindsight is 20/20” sort of thing, they look at what happened, and with their beliefs about the situation interpret scripture incorrectly (IMO). a few of the “prophesies”:
“god will provide the lamb”
This was immediately self fulfilling as god provided the lamb for the sacrifice.
“A ‘virgin’ will bear Immanuel”
Only matthew referred to christ as Immanuel, and probably because the writer was trying to make jesus fit the mold.
And the translation ‘virgin’ is incorrect (if we are to believe that jesus was born of a virgin), it is a “young maiden”.
IMO, christ became the “savior” of prophesy only through redaction of prophesy. Mark, doesn’t talk about John the baptist being “elijah” or about jesus’ virgin parenthood. While that may seem trivial, Mark is the oldest of the 4 gospels and the source for the other 2 synoptic gospels.
Hi JT,
most scholars point to Isaiah 53 where the “suffering servant” is described. There has been some consideration given to the idea that Jesus saw it as an unavoidable consequence of standing up against the false “Shepherds” and giving the people hope. Judging by history, this seems to be right. It also seems to be the main motivation to not follow suit … 
Shalom
that would go back to determining what the persons true motivation is. How can we find out?
Perhaps, like with so much, we must assume. It is clear that the prophecy of Judaism had both the triumphant Messiah and the Suffering Servant to offer. Assuming the Suffering Servant was Christ, the triumphant Messiah remains to be fulfilled - in whatever way that may come about. I believe that Prophecy is a challenge to believers, not a “roadmap” into heaven.
Shalom
I’m reading an interesting book on the development of the early christian church;
Jesus - one hundred years before christ
He implies that Jesus became Christ, hundreds of years after the actual event. It’s a good read, and he goes through his evidences pretty well.
The problem with scripture is that it age, an example that the author uses is the belief that Paul had, that jesus would come (not return) down from heaven, within most of their lifetimes.
I’m surprised that this sentiment doesn’t create more problems for the christian (or all of it’s sects) teacher.
Hi MB,
There have been numerable attempts to analyse the beginnings of Christianity, I think I have about ten here. They all have valid points but all have one weakness (to my mind) – they are only collecting evidence for the prosecution, not for the defence. Rarely do you find that someone has weighed both sides of the story. Of course, I accept the valid points made – I believe that Christianity in particular and religion as a whole is of a different nature than Fundamentalists would have us believe.
In fact, Fundamentalists and Critics give support to each other when they claim that God is “some-thing or no-thing†- but God is not a “thing†that I can analyse. Nor does the “Realm of God†manifest itself in a way that we can say it is “here or there†- but it manifests itself nonetheless “in our midstâ€. Clearly, from the Gospels, this understanding has been around since the beginning of Christianity – it would be time to rediscover it.
Of course, in keeping with this, the Mythos Christ is a mystical figure which is rooted in Jesus of Nazareth combined perhaps with the vision of Daniel 7:13-14 and/or other prophecies. It is important to understand that, like the Realm of God, he is neither “here or there†but is manifest wherever people gather in his name. This isn’t unimportant, because as soon as you are talking about some-thing that is a physical entity, you then require the laws of physics to be overcome by some kind of miracle. The miracle of Christianity is the resurrection of an idea, of a vision, of a humble Lord of Mercy who became manifest among his followers after his brutal death.
The problem with Thessalonians is in the fact that it is probably the earliest Christian writing we have, but one that was written by someone who translated the message of Christ to the Greeks with a certain eschatological expectancy. Secondly, I think you would have to look into the translation you quote. It was 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 and I have a slightly different reading which attempts to console widows of those Christians who have died, telling them that at the end of the age, the dead will not be missing but in fact ahead of those now living.
If it was indeed consoling, which I have no reason to doubt, we must read all eschatology with critical eyes today, since a new cosmic age was clearly expected within the lifetime of those people Paul was writing to. I interpret prophecy as a challenge to believers inasmuch as it tells us how God will manifest himself amongst us. Interestingly, this is a thought that has been expressed in many hymns of Advent – especially in Germany during and after the thirty-years-war.
Shalom
scythekain,
One of the ideas there is that Greek Jews invented Jesus, I suppose, in order to start a cult. I have no idea if it is was for the purpose of reform or some other sinister reason. I don’t find this explanation to be too wild, as the story of Jesus is very calculated and attacks a variety of Jewish principles and Roman ones for that matter. Basically, it’s a great story and that’s why it’s so suspicious.
However, a believer might say that it’s a great story because god wrote it. So, I think that you either have to look at the whole thing as a fiction and enjoy that or not. I do think that exploring this kind of information publicly is good for the illumination of “believers†out there.
Hi Bob,
Well, it is true that if I knowingly stick my head in the lions mouth long enough, often enough, bad things are going to happen. Still, even as I applaud the courage of knowingly placing himself in a position where death is inevitable, it still doesn’t answer the bible accounts of his miraculous birth, the Mary and Joseph journeys, three wise men, and all the rest of the stories that set Jesus apart as THE ‘son of God’ whose mission was to be sacrificed for the sins of man. I can well understand the concept of dieing for one’s beliefs, but the biblical account of the lamb born to be slaughtered comes from somewhere - and where is that?
It seems to me that the clarity of vision, the message brought, and the courage to face known death is obscured by the presentation of Jesus as an actor in a play directed by God. From the biblical account, Jesus wasn’t a rare man with a vision of God who brought a message to those who suffered and was willing to die for his convictions, but was simply playing out his ‘role’ in God’s theatrical production. Was something lost there?
JT
Hi JT,
You might find it comical, but I think that Luke said to himself, “This isn’t a story befitting our hero, I must give the story a classical framework†and he then exaggerated the recorded memories of Mary, basing his story on a historical background from Flavius Josephus, in order to give his work influence in literature circles. It is as people have said, the Christmas story is too well told to be a genuine historical account.
That is a biblical theme that runs throughout the Tanakh, the sacrifice in the temple was not to be the worst, but the best in the flock. This was to be an expression of trust in the leadership of God. Just the same, the followers of Jesus said that God too gave his best as a final sacrifice, and Jesus went to slaughter with as little opposition as an innocent lamb, close enough to Pesach to associate him with that sacrifice in memory of liberation from Egypt.
I think that this drama has something existential about it that reminds us of other theatrical dramas, and of course, that is something that was probably played on in the Greek society as a means to transport the message. On the other hand, the strategy of Paul seems to have been to “plant†Churches all over based on a very simple theological structure with extensive social implications. The theology we have today is built upon 2000 years of apologetics and dogma – something which Paul would not easily understand.
It is the basic structures that the Church is going to have to return to. The rest must be put aside as interesting information, but not necessary for Salvation, which generally requires me to put my faith in the Tao of Christ.
Shalom
Interesting, I don’t see anything about widows in the translations I’ve looked at…
The important verse in question, what does it say for that?
NIV:
I think the intent is the same, he was speaking for those who would still be alive during the coming of christ. (as within recent years, not thousands.)