# Hey Art



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Hey Art, you have been studying the different theorys of Jesus's death. Sorry, but I did not read all those different theorys. Do any of them overlap with what I am saying here???? Or do I stand alone on this.

Hey Art, Been pondering. God declared that "you will surely die" to Adam. Adam was created to be eternal but lost this due to the curse. Not just Adam, but mankind. From the beginning, God used a substitute. Thus he clothed them. This substitute sacrifice has been in place since the very beginning. Jewish sacrifice was a constant reminder of a substitute and was unable to clear the conscience. The priest were also substitutes. Originally the firstborn sons were to serve God in the temple but the Levites were given this role because they did not worship the golden calf. The firstborn had to be redeemed from this role by a sacrifice paid to the Levitical priesthood. It was a constant reminder of another substitute. So to clarify, priest were substitutes and the sacrifice was a substitute. the required ritual was only a reminder of the substitute. Now, to believe Jesus is the Son of God carries an unspoken foundation. That he is the firstborn, that he is "our high priest in service to God". No more substitutes. He is now our true high priest, able to enter the Holy of Holys, and that he is our true sacrifice when he offered himself. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, this meaning not that he is God but rather that there is no more need for substitutes. It is finished, those believing having a clear conscience before God.
__________________


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Jesus was obedient to the role of firstborn/son of God. Abraham offering Issac was a test of Abrhams faith. God had worked in Abraham to increase his faith. Originally Abrham had great faith by agreeing to "go". God had said I will show you but did not tell him where, did not give him the details for him to decide if it pleased him, Abraham just agreed to go. He left from what? What was God lleading him from. The tower of babel? He called him out from religion. He said, I will make a name for you.. as opposed to them making a name for themselves by building an impressive tower. He said, I will be with you... as opposed to them trying to reach God by the height of their works. And he said, I will build you a city... as opposed to the city that would naturally evolve being centered around all the work, everyone speaking the same language. God called him out of "religion". Abraham went, by faith.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Abrham wavered in his faith. On one hand, he had great faith, on the other, much to learn. During a drought, Abraham "went back" after being told not to go back that way. He feared starvation. But this was a lack of faith. He was invinciable. He had within him the promise of the seed. In his lack of faith, he almost lost his wife. She should have been defiled, but God interveined, allowing Abraham to leave against all odds, inspite his reckless choice. Through many circumstances such as this, God working in Abraham. Abraham's realizing himself being "carried", his faith grew. God tested Abraham, told him to offer his one and only son, his treasure, no substitute. By faith, Abraham reckoned that God would raise him from the dead, seeing that the promise was to come through Issac.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 8, 2014)

Ya'll are making my brain hurt.  No wonder folks default back to "I don't know but I trust John 3:16."

Does faith require this much thought and... uh... words???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Issac, submitted to what was about to happen to him. Rather than run, or argue, he submitted to his Father. Picture of Jesus, being "obedient to the cross"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Ya'll are making my brain hurt.  No wonder folks default back to "I don't know but I trust John 3:16."
> 
> Does faith require this much thought and... uh... words???


LOL, we are trying to hash out why Jesus had to die. I'm thinking out loud, Hopeing Art and others will help me fine tune my thoughts. Until Art brought it up, I never realized that I had no answer. Nor does it seem anyone else had it. And as Art pointed out, Lots of Theorys out there. What a shame that we as Christians are not on the same page on this, LOL, any page. I can no longer accept that we assume things "by faith". Even John 3:16 does not answer the question it begs. Why kill him


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Ya'll are making my brain hurt.  No wonder folks default back to "I don't know but I trust John 3:16."
> 
> Does faith require this much thought and... uh... words???


You might say that there is a lot of work/words in trying to dig up under a structure to see what the foundation is bearing on


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 8, 2014)

Problem is, I don't think there is a foundation.  There will never be a good answer to "why did Jesus have to die" other than "the bible says so" or " That's what God wanted".  I think you are trying to break this down logically, and logic don't jive with faith.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Problem is, I don't think there is a foundation.  There will never be a good answer to "why did Jesus have to die" other than "the bible says so" or " That's what God wanted".  I think you are trying to break this down logically, and logic don't jive with faith.


You are correct, the bases of faith being "the bible says so" is not much of a foundation,  but maybe look at it like Bart Erhman, even though he does not believe it, he loves to study to underlying theme of what does the bible say. I'm searching for continuity. Trying to see if their is an overlooked continuity from the beginning. It would not be acceptable to just pull the gospel out as if it were a new story. It has to have had continuity from the beginning or otherwise, it would be proved as a false religion.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> You are correct, the bases of faith being "the bible says so" is not much of a foundation,  but maybe look at it like Bart Erhman, even though he does not believe it, he loves to study to underlying theme of what does the bible say. I'm searching for continuity. Trying to see if their is an overlooked continuity from the beginning. It would not be acceptable to just pull the gospel out as if it were a new story. It has to have had continuity from the beginning or otherwise, it would be proved as a false religion.


The bases of faith, being the bible says so, might gain some merit, or at least gain more respect if it is shown to have continuty from the very beginning. Regardless if Christians understood it, could express it or even knew it, the fact that hundreds of years pass and the writings carry the same continuty, this is valuable. This is why I thinking out loud, looking for it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 8, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> You are correct, the bases of faith being "the bible says so" is not much of a foundation,  but maybe look at it like Bart Erhman, even though he does not believe it, he loves to study to underlying theme of what does the bible say. I'm searching for continuity. Trying to see if their is an overlooked continuity from the beginning. It would not be acceptable to just pull the gospel out as if it were a new story. It has to have had continuity from the beginning or otherwise, it would be proved as a false religion.



I'll have to ponder your thoughts. I'm searching for continuity too. My mind has been overloaded from the curse of my free will. Let's start here: Why was Adam suddenly aware of his nakedness and what did the skins God clothed them with represent? Why is it considered the first blood sacrifice? If it was then would that be the moment God knew he would eventually send Jesus? Maybe the nakedness was related to knowledge/awareness and the skins helped to cover this. Maybe the skins covered their sins? Why didn't God cover them in blood or even mention the blood at this point? I'm not sure if this was the first sacrifice.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'll have to ponder your thoughts. I'm searching for continuity too. My mind has been overloaded from the curse of my free will. Let's start here: Why was Adam suddenly aware of his nakedness and what did the skins God clothed them with represent? Why is it considered the first blood sacrifice? If it was then would that be the moment God knew he would eventually send Jesus? Maybe the nakedness was related to knowledge/awareness and the skins helped to cover this. Maybe the skins covered their sins? Why didn't God cover them in blood or even mention the blood at this point? I'm not sure if this was the first sacrifice.


Whew, all good questions. I don't put much emphasis on the "blood". I think that this is over emphasized from the original intent.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 8, 2014)

How about if what makes the death of Christ so significant is not the death itself, but the resurrection. 

Jesus had to willingly suffer and die for the old paradigm of the fall, but show-teach life again in the flesh as per the new paradigm of redemption. 

So our Lord lived the life of Adam fallen and for the cross and resurrection he lived the life of Adam restored from the fall.

No other sacrifice did this. Whereas sacrifice and resurrection talks to Christians of the new life in Christ with God, and the hope of their possible resurrection as per our Lord, the former sacrifices spoke to man of his sin nature, of his rebellions to God and the need to be purged and cleansed before approaching the Holy. 

Possibly.

I take the view that the original sin is a rebellion, a rebellion that caused man to dig many rabbit and fox holes for himself. And anyone knows that our bare skins can't take all the chafing of such enterprises. Today CVA hydrocortisone 1%  to a groin rash from the sweat of a good days work is what a few leaves were back when this new chafing for fox hole digging appeared. Rabbit fur and cotton eventual helped ease the problem... but still the rashing persisted, the balance being upset.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 8, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> How about if what makes the death of Christ so significant is not the death itself, but the resurrection.
> 
> Jesus had to willingly suffer and die for the old paradigm of the fall, but show-teach life again in the flesh as per the new paradigm of redemption.
> 
> ...



Adam's sin separated us from God. Jesus' victory over death after the resurrection reunited us with God.
It's beginning to look like "reasons" instead of "reason."


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 8, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> So our Lord lived the life of Adam fallen and for the cross and resurrection he lived the life of Adam restored from the fall.


Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 8, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Can you elaborate on this?



Yea. He lived the life of a man and with man before redemption was offered.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 9, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Ya'll are making my brain hurt.  No wonder folks default back to "I don't know but I trust John 3:16."
> 
> Does faith require this much thought and... uh... words???



God draws us to Jesus. He even gives us a measure of faith. If we believe, we are saved. This is the bare minimum of salvation and a new beginning for the person born again. 
This should be the start of a new interest in knowledge. It doesn't in any way remove his faith. It should reinforce his faith as he gains knowledge. I'm not sure how much knowledge is "required" by God for a Christian to learn. Some are happy with just the basics, other want to know more. I don't believe it is necessary to go as deep as most on these forums go.

My analogy of knowledge is my love of music. Most people buy a CD and listen to it. Some even throw the case away. They love & enjoy the lyrics & vocals. They might have bought it on faith. They could even be a big fan of the band.
Me on the other hand want to know everything possible about the album; who the session musicians are, were there any guest on the album, where was it recorded, what genre is it classified, any unusual recording processes, and what instruments are used for the recording? 
I'll enjoy looking at the album jacket and art work reading all of the notes & credits. I'll immediately grade the quality of the recording, mentally the first time I play it and compare this with other albums I have.
I'd like to know if there is any historical significance associated with the album and where it was in the charts.
Most listeners are just listeners. None of what I do is of any benefit to enjoying the album. None of what I do will de-value the quality or importance of the album. It will be what it will be.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 10, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, we are trying to hash out why Jesus had to die.  Why kill him



New evidence points to money as being the reason he had to die.


----------



## Four (Feb 10, 2014)

What was the point of the resurrection?.. according to the story he didn't even stick around on earth.. He went to heaven, but did he need a body for that? Why not go straight to heaven, vs. having the body come back to life.. you'd think if the story involved him rising from the dead, he would keep preaching for a while longer, or doing more of anything really... seems like an unnecessary step between death and ascension.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 10, 2014)

660griz said:


> New evidence points to money as being the reason he had to die.


Never heard this before


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 10, 2014)

Four said:


> What was the point of the resurrection?.. according to the story he didn't even stick around on earth.. He went to heaven, but did he need a body for that? Why not go straight to heaven, vs. having the body come back to life.. you'd think if the story involved him rising from the dead, he would keep preaching for a while longer, or doing more of anything really... seems like an unnecessary step between death and ascension.



I've often wondered why Jesus went away only to have to return again 70 years later or 2,000 years later. Some say he's waiting for all of the Elect to be saved. Then he'll return.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 10, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Never heard this before



It's news to me too.

"Jesus was killed for the same reason that most people are killed. Usury."

http://theredpillradio.com/jesus-killed-money-changers-usury.html


----------



## 660griz (Feb 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Never heard this before



Cause it is new. 
The Real Reason Jesus Died

Among Jesus' followers, none but he were executed. His speech on the portico after his attack on the profiteers there earlier in the day, sealed his fate. The turning point was his mention of the YEAR OF THE LORD disguised to mean THE JUBILEE YEAR in the New Testament. Apparently, some Herodian Priests were buying and commercializing land against Jewish Law, they claimed they could own, but not work land. 
Therefore, they had to get rid of Jesus before his next opportunity to speak, the next day or there might have been a riot turning the Zealots to assassination of Chief Herodian Priests instead of Romans. The Romans agreed with the idea of eliminating Jesus in a hurry because many lower level Roman officials were joined in the land commercialization scheme thus were "skimming' on the take to Caesar, a no-no for sure. Rome would only tolerate corruption at the top.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's news to me too.
> 
> "Jesus was killed for the same reason that most people are killed. Usury."
> 
> http://theredpillradio.com/jesus-killed-money-changers-usury.html



Yea. Money.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Cause it is new.
> The Real Reason Jesus Died
> 
> Among Jesus' followers, none but he were executed. His speech on the portico after his attack on the profiteers there earlier in the day, sealed his fate. The turning point was his mention of the YEAR OF THE LORD disguised to mean THE JUBILEE YEAR in the New Testament. Apparently, some Herodian Priests were buying and commercializing land against Jewish Law, they claimed they could own, but not work land.
> Therefore, they had to get rid of Jesus before his next opportunity to speak, the next day or there might have been a riot turning the Zealots to assassination of Chief Herodian Priests instead of Romans. The Romans agreed with the idea of eliminating Jesus in a hurry because many lower level Roman officials were joined in the land commercialization scheme thus were "skimming' on the take to Caesar, a no-no for sure. Rome would only tolerate corruption at the top.



That article not only makes claims but backs them up with detailed explanations of why and then gives examples. Very informative.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Cause it is new.
> The Real Reason Jesus Died
> 
> Among Jesus' followers, none but he were executed. His speech on the portico after his attack on the profiteers there earlier in the day, sealed his fate. The turning point was his mention of the YEAR OF THE LORD disguised to mean THE JUBILEE YEAR in the New Testament. Apparently, some Herodian Priests were buying and commercializing land against Jewish Law, they claimed they could own, but not work land.
> Therefore, they had to get rid of Jesus before his next opportunity to speak, the next day or there might have been a riot turning the Zealots to assassination of Chief Herodian Priests instead of Romans. The Romans agreed with the idea of eliminating Jesus in a hurry because many lower level Roman officials were joined in the land commercialization scheme thus were "skimming' on the take to Caesar, a no-no for sure. Rome would only tolerate corruption at the top.


Enjoyed the read, always interesting to see different views. Did I miss it or did they not actually say what was said on the tablet or rock that lead them to believe this was evidence for this view. I did agree with most all that was said except the money thing. I did find it interesting and may consider a second look if someone could point out the evidence, whether proven or speculative. Modern religion, or should I clarify, orthodox Christianity has them killing Jesus because he claimed to be God. No evidence in the scriptures except that a last resort after all else failed, they said "we have a law that he must die because he claimed to be the son of God". This means nothing, because they had no such law nor does being son of God make Jesus God. But the bible, not just one book but verified by several NT books shows that Jesus highly offended the religious leaders. These leaders were the equivalent of Michael Jordan in their day. They had made quite a name for themselves through their socalled godliness. And Jesus had the nerve to offend them, when all else treated them like royality. So they devised a plan to kill him. Not finding anything they could use against him, they eventually declared that he blasphemed Ceasar by his statement of "Rulership" by his quoting of Daniel 7. They declared, we have no King but Ceasar. So they handed him over as one starting a revolt, a common thing, in which the Romans dealth with quickly.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 12, 2014)

Four said:


> What was the point of the resurrection?.



The simple answer to this is to be a proof to us that his sacrifice for our sins was acceptable to God. He told his disciples that he would rise BODILY on the third day.  He did.   Many have claimed to be the Messiah(David Koresh, Jim Jones), yet only Christ was resurrected as proof that he was exactly who he claimed to be.  Billy Graham said that without the resurrection there is no Christianity.  He's correct.


----------



## Four (Feb 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The simple answer to this is to be a proof to us that his sacrifice for our sins was acceptable to God. He told his disciples that he would rise BODILY on the third day.  He did.   Many have claimed to be the Messiah(David Koresh, Jim Jones), yet only Christ was resurrected as proof that he was exactly who he claimed to be.  Billy Graham said that without the resurrection there is no Christianity.  He's correct.



Hmm, to me it seems like a resurrection would invalidate a sacrifice, rather than cement it. Like as if you gave a vow of poverty, but accepted a million dollars from someone three days later.

edit: although i kinda get that coming back to life is another miracle, something that would lend credence to something supernatural, on top of the other reported miracles (water to wine, healing, etc) It just seems in the grand scheme of things, from Yahweh's perspective, the whole birth, death and Resurrection thing seems like a lot to go through, and i dont see the connection with the forgiveness.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 12, 2014)

Four said:


> Hmm, to me it seems like a resurrection would invalidate a sacrifice, rather than cement it. Like as if you gave a vow of poverty, but accepted a million dollars from someone three days later.



I will do my best to give a simple explanation to a very complex concept.

On a physical level, it doesn't negate the experience no more than child birth negates the labor pains.  He was beaten, tortured, humiliated and then crucified with all the pain and suffering entailed in that act until death.  That's the physical, existential explanation, but 
it' a lot deeper than that.  

On the spiritual level when he died he was purely Holy suddenly having all our our sins and their punishment being laid on him and he was then separated from God.  




Four said:


> edit: although i kinda get that coming back to life is another miracle, something that would lend credence to something supernatural, on top of the other reported miracles (water to wine, healing, etc) It just seems in the grand scheme of things, from Yahweh's perspective, the whole birth, death and Resurrection thing seems like a lot to go through, and i dont see the connection with the forgiveness.



Yeah.  I agree was a lot to go through.  The point is God did it out of love.  He always has a will to forgive.  This was the way.  Maybe I could give a better answer if you can be more specific regarding your not seeing the connection with forgiveness.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The simple answer to this is to be a proof to us that his sacrifice for our sins was acceptable to God. He told his disciples that he would rise BODILY on the third day.  He did.   Many have claimed to be the Messiah(David Koresh, Jim Jones), yet only Christ was resurrected as proof that he was exactly who he claimed to be.  Billy Graham said that without the resurrection there is no Christianity.  He's correct.



Just show us a source outside of the Bible that validates the resurrection. You speak of proof........where is it?


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Just show us a source outside of the Bible that validates the resurrection. You speak of proof........where is it?



Would this work for you?
Websters Dictionary--
easter

E'ASTER, n. A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews,


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Would this work for you?
> Websters Dictionary--
> easter
> 
> E'ASTER, n. A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews,



I don't think you have an understanding of what a dictionary is.


----------

