Is actual death of Jesus pbuh necessary for paying the sins??

Just got this thought..
Assuming the theology of Jesus pbuh taking the sins of the world.
Was it necessary for him to actually die?
Compare Abraham pbuh sacrificing his son, he dint had to really do it, as soon as he submitted and had the intention God saved the son.
.
Now God has the intention of saving the world, the son is willing , God knows it. So wouldnt God also save Jesus pbuh?
Doesnt that also fit for the 2nd coming? Bodily saving Jesus pbuh and raising him back alive.
Your thought??

Originally posted by logical7
Just got this thought..
Assuming the theology of Jesus pbuh taking the sins of the world.
Was it necessary for him to actually die?
Compare Abraham pbuh sacrificing his son, he dint had to really do it, as soon as he submitted and had the intention God saved the son.
.
Now God has the intention of saving the world, the son is willing , God knows it. So wouldnt God also save Jesus pbuh?
Doesnt that also fit for the 2nd coming? Bodily saving Jesus pbuh and raising him back alive.
Your thought??

No not when he supposedly think a thought and wipe out all bad things.. he or his son or what ever this schizophrenic person thought ..

I think really people of that time are suffering from cargo cultism and still do suffer from it ..

Its my understanding that Jesus was the fulfillment of the required blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

Since a individual can only sacrifice for himself, Jesus, representing all mankind, gave the blood sacrifice to god to atone for all humanity of all time so that individuals no longer had to do daily/yearly/whatever blood sacrifices to appease the god.

Hense why in the OT, its filled with what animal to kill and how to kill it based on what sin, and the NT, post christ, no more animal sacrifices.

My question then is, do we still have sin? If we do, then doesn't that invalidate the whole concept of christ giving the ultimate blood sacrifice to wipe away all sin?

Its a interesting if a bit confusing bit of theological philosophy really.

Not sure what you mean by Jesus (Pbuh)?....As in regards to your question.....In those times if a man was to knowingly go against the will of Rome or the Caesar.....it usually meant death.He chose to die for what he believed in... the freedom to speak the word of god to man in those time's of famine of the word.Thus giving up his life to free us from our own sin's and lie's against God and ourselves.It was the only profound way to keep the word of God within the hearts and minds of man:Our salvation meant the lords sacrifice.

God is an evil tyrant and likes killing people thats all. pbuh.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its my understanding that Jesus was the fulfillment of the required blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

Since a individual can only sacrifice for himself, Jesus, representing all mankind, gave the blood sacrifice to god to atone for all humanity of all time so that individuals no longer had to do daily/yearly/whatever blood sacrifices to appease the god.

Hense why in the OT, its filled with what animal to kill and how to kill it based on what sin, and the NT, post christ, no more animal sacrifices.

My question then is, do we still have sin? If we do, then doesn't that invalidate the whole concept of christ giving the ultimate blood sacrifice to wipe away all sin?

Its a interesting if a bit confusing bit of theological philosophy really.

interesting question! And ya confusing theology, Jesus' pbuh sacrifice then must be like a black hole sucking up all sins as people commit them. A question then comes very similar to yours, Are all christians Sinless all the time?

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
Not sure what you mean by Jesus (Pbuh)?....As in regards to your question.....In those times if a man was to knowingly go against the will of Rome or the Caesar.....it usually meant death.He chose to die for what he believed in... the freedom to speak the word of god to man in those time's of famine of the word.Thus giving up his life to free us from our own sin's and lie's against God and ourselves.It was the only profound way to keep the word of God within the hearts and minds of man:Our salvation meant the lords sacrifice.

pbuh means peace be upon him.
.
Are you saying that the Roman/Ceasar killed him and it couldnt be otherwise.
Do you mean even if God wanted to save He couldnt? Ceasar more powerful than God?

reply to post by SaturnFX

Its my understanding that Jesus was the fulfillment of the required blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

Since a individual can only sacrifice for himself, Jesus, representing all mankind, gave the blood sacrifice to god to atone for all humanity of all time so that individuals no longer had to do daily/yearly/whatever blood sacrifices to appease the god.

Right. So we have to wonder, why did GOD decide that his son should be murdered by an unjust secular "death penalty" law and not as an unblemished, fatted calf, killed in the sacred manner of sacrifice as outlined by religious tradition?

If I was a GOD, what kind of accolades would I receive from my fellow GODs for spending a few seconds of my eternal being as a human, destined to die anyway, only to regain immortality, as if it was all just a dream?

reply to post by logical7

Was it necessary for him to actually die?

I would say no...

Unfortunatly what he preached was against the laws of the OT God... the penalty for which is death...

So he didn't have to die...

but

His followers wouldn't stand up for him....

And he broke OT Gods laws.... so his death was inevitable

reply to post by logical7

pbuh means peace be upon him.

I think we knew this from the use along with the name of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) but tell me, when was that epithet applied to Jesus and Abraham.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by logical7

 

Was it necessary for him to actually die?

I would say no...

Unfortunatly what he preached was against the laws of the OT God... the penalty for which is death...

So he didn't have to die...

but

His followers wouldn't stand up for him....

And he broke OT Gods laws.... so his death was inevitable

thats very odd, his followers died for him later, i dont think you are right when you say they "wouldn't" he told them to keep teaching, he sent them away.
.
he was blamed to break them, you know my other thread,"you say i am"
jews wanted him dead and blasphemy was good enough a blame, they tried before by bringing the adultress and wanting him to judge her by OT law and become a rebel to romans by going against roman law and be killed, he was smart enough to uphold both OT and roman law.
.
My point in this thread is not what is historically known, its was it necessary for him to die and you have answered it.

reply to post by logical7


You might notice his followers didn't actually believe who he was until after he returned.... And the one he called the rock... likely his most loyal follower denied him 3x...

They were killed for believing in him... but didn't fully believe until after he returned...

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

reply to post by Akragon


I think it likely that the Roman's looked upon the followers of Jesus as rebels and the very scallywags that stole the body of their, now godly, teacher. Now, they were claiming that they didn't "steal" the body, but that the dead body got up and walked away, mocking the Roman's for thinking they killed a man, and blaspheming not only the Roman Gods and deities, but the Hebrews' as well, and committing the sin of necromancy.

Whether not their faith endured, their heads were already marked and their fate sealed, even if they subsequently denied their faith.

Originally posted by logical7
A question then comes very similar to yours, Are all christians Sinless all the time?

Thats where a paradox comes in.

Jesus is the sacrifice blood offering to remove sin
Which means then that we do not need jesus to bridge the gap to god for the original sin, or really anything else we do (I say we because Jesus never stated you have to be a christian..matter of fact, he ultimately said "forgive them, for they know not what they do"..meaning he knows we are morons who don't know what to believe/accept/etc...but we recieve the benefits anyhow even though we are stupid children...so christianity, or religion in general is redundant considering we already have the forgivness.

And forgivness (already given) absolves us of sin, period. Not to say intentionally rejecting a god (to reject, you must first know and believe, not to simply not believe, but to overtly believe and refuse) will absolve you...that is specifically denying absolving.

So, an atheist would therefore be forgiven by words of christ
however, say, a satanist, or someone whom does believe in God, and purposefully rejects the deity, well..arguably thats free will..however, there is no scripture I am aware of that confirms this...simply using a logical conclusion based on words and the concept of (some) free will to reject.

So, not just christians, but all save those whom overtly believe and reject God seem to be ultimately covered..

However....

Now this is where the literal translation comes into play..Jesus never said for all time, or even for everyone. literally he could have simply been speaking of the group in front of him, covering the people in attendance..he didn't speak of future generations, It is assumed he meant everyone and not just those specific people he addressed..

Jesus does contradict himself though...where he states whomever believes in him will basically be good for life, but then his final moments he forgives even the numbskulls who don't get/believe/understand...so, is believing in christ/accepting/whatever a requirement? depends on which statement you go by I guess.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Its my understanding that Jesus was the fulfillment of the required blood sacrifice to atone for sin.

Since a individual can only sacrifice for himself, Jesus, representing all mankind, gave the blood sacrifice to god to atone for all humanity of all time so that individuals no longer had to do daily/yearly/whatever blood sacrifices to appease the god.

Right. So we have to wonder, why did GOD decide that his son should be murdered by an unjust secular "death penalty" law and not as an unblemished, fatted calf, killed in the sacred manner of sacrifice as outlined by religious tradition?

Well, the difference here would be how to do a human sacrifice verses a cow or whatnot. The OT has only a few examples of actual sacrifices..first of course being Cain, who simply shivved his brother. Next would be Abraham whom was told to bind up to some wood on a alter his son for sacrifice..
But context may also be important. God commanded a sacrifice to abraham..but ultimately didn't go through with it (he said lul: just kidding right at the end)...so there is no official way on how to sacrifice humans to god (or many different ways depending on your view of god itself killing humans through warfare and plagues and such).

Also, Jesus wasn't sacrificed for someones specific sin, but rather, the concept is for all sin of all mankind, therefore perhaps it would be fitting to be executed by humanity..before, its been god will demanding and judging humans, this is turnabout where a avatar of god was judged and sacrificed by humans will..which would make it then fit.

Just some random thoughts on the matter. I am sure some biblical "scholar" will have a different view.

If I was a GOD, what kind of accolades would I receive from my fellow GODs for spending a few seconds of my eternal being as a human, destined to die anyway, only to regain immortality, as if it was all just a dream?

edit on 17-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Can't anthropomorphise god...simply by it being a deity, we as simpleton mortals cannot by nature understand its motivations...would be like a fruit fly trying to understand why humans smoke cigarettes.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Thats where a paradox comes in.
Jesus is the sacrifice blood offering to
remove sin
Which means then that we do not
need jesus to bridge the gap to god
for the original sin, or really anything else we do (I say we because Jesus
never stated you have to be a
christian..matter of fact, he ultimately
said "forgive them, for they know not
what they do"..meaning he knows we
are morons who don't know what to believe/accept/etc...but we recieve the
benefits anyhow even though we are
stupid children...so christianity, or
religion in general is redundant
considering we already have the
forgivness.

i like the way you think! But can you see that you think around some held conviction, namely "Jesus pbuh died for the forgiveness" although you do look at all possibilites and then think about them but when it comes to the paradox you dont think, "what if its not true that he died for sins rather just died or even dint die at all" "what if he just forgave them for what hurt they caused him not all their sins."
i dont want to offend you, just i dont share your belief, i think we still carry our own cross.

Originally posted by logical7i like the way you think! But can you see that you think around some held conviction, namely "Jesus pbuh died for the forgiveness" although you do look at all possibilites and then think about them but when it comes to the paradox you dont think, "what if its not true that he died for sins rather just died or even dint die at all"
i dont want to offend you, just i dont share your belief, i think we still carry our own cross.

I don't have a belief, no worries. I simply read the account and consider implications overall.

To me, the story is on the same level as discussing the role of the ringwraths from lord of the rings...a simple philosophical discussion and hypotheticals about a story.

Now, according to the book, he died, he resurrected after 3 days, and ascended into heaven (I guess as a resurrected living person verses dying again..which would indicate that heaven is an actual physical place...perhaps a different planet. thread about it Here )
So, the consideration of him not dying at all doesn't play part in the same way Salron may have been in fact a spider doesn't play part in lord of the rings...it is specific..therefore you can't really add or subtract from that...dead is dead when the narrator says so..from there you can speculate on what it means.

Originally posted by logical7
Just got this thought..
Assuming the theology of Jesus pbuh taking the sins of the world.
Was it necessary for him to actually die?

Yes because Jesus (pre-death) is the perfect embodiment of THE LAW: that is to say, Jesus is the one and only man who ever successfully approached God through the old covenant: His "death and sacrifice" was the DEATH OF THE LAW in relation to the Christian. In other words, LAW sacrificed itself in order to allow us to appraoch God in a BETTER way- grace. So you see, it is necessary for us to be released from "marriage to the law" by DEATH, this is why this is written:

Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Ro 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

For the "lawless" to be "freed from the curse of the law" they can either become immediately perfect (not possible yet, as we are imperfect in this world) or we can kill the law.

See there? When you see this "the Father" what it is talking about is the OLD COVENANT through LAW of sin and death; and "the Son" is the NEW covenant through grace and truth. Jesus being the "only begotten of the Father" means that the man just is the one and only "begotten" of the Sinai/Law covenant. Now, by perfectly fulfilling this covenant, Jesus gained all the promises of that "unattainable" covenant. Jesus then turns to us and says, "Now that I have all power THROUGH "the Father" I am making a NEW covenant with you, and if you fulfill this new covenant, then I will give you everything I have"- thereby, we can "receieve" all of the blessings of the LAW covenant without actually ever having to DO those things written therein because Jesus has become our "mediator" or "middle-man"; you see?

It's all about the covenants. And for any of you more keen of mind, you may be beginning to see a coming THIRD covenant; one in which the elect turn to the rest of humanity and say, "Now, as Jesus inherited, and turned to covenant with us a new covenant, so we are turning to you to make a THIRD covenant: this is why you'll see "good; better; best" replayed through scripture. Some bringing in 30-fold (good), some 60-fold (better), other 100-fold (best)

Compare Abraham pbuh sacrificing his son, he dint had to really do it, as soon as he submitted and had the intention God saved the son.

Qucik note here most aren't aware of (again, lack of Word of God in their minds to be able to correlate: but Abraham didn't think Isaac was going to be permanently dead in that account. Abraham knew of the Messianic promise THROU ISAAC that the Lord had made with him. He then BELIEVED that God was about to make Isaac the Messiah: in other words, God promised that the Messiah would come through Isaac; then God said "sacrifice Isaac" so Abraham deduced: "God promised the Messiah would be through Isaac- therefore Isaac cannot permanently die- else the promise is wrong: therefore, God is about to have me kill Isaac and then he is going to raise Isaac from the dead to become the Messiah.

So, people often wonder what Abraham was thinking when this "sacrifice your son" was going on, and "How could Abraham so willingly do such a thing?" Well, now you know what he was actually thinking. Isaac was about to become the resurrected Messiah of the human kind. Note, if God wouldn't have stopped Abraham, then Isaac WOULD have become the Messiah.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

So wouldnt God also save Jesus pbuh?

Already did:

Acts 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

reply to post by SaturnFX

I don't have a belief, no worries. I
simply read the account and consider
implications overall.
To me, the story is on the same level as
discussing the role of the ringwraths
from lord of the rings...a simple philosophical discussion and
hypotheticals about a story.

Great!! It would be interesting to talk with you.

Now, according to the book, he died,
he resurrected after 3 days, and
ascended into heaven (I guess as a
resurrected living person verses dying again..which would indicate that
heaven is an actual physical
place...perhaps a different planet.
thread about it Here )

as a muslim i do have a belief in a physical heaven, by the way even Jesus' pbuh age fit with the belief, he acscended at about age 33, and in islamic details, age of people will be 33.

So, the consideration of him not dying
at all doesn't play part in the same way
Salron may have been in fact a spider
doesn't play part in lord of the rings...it
is specific..therefore you can't really
add or subtract from that...dead is dead when the narrator says so..from
there you can speculate on what it
means.

agreed! Btw the resurrection happened after 2 nights and 1 days, Friday night into the cave and Sunday morning back. Counting "3days & 3nights" between friday and sunday is impossible. Could be stretched to 3days though.

reply to post by MrCobb

Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband
liveth, she be married to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress: but if
her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,
though she be married to another
man.

come on! That cant be used to justify that theology. its a simple verse to say that woman should be faithful and can have just one husband.

Jesus then turns to us and
says, "Now that I have all power THROUGH "the Father" I am making a
NEW covenant with you, and if you
fulfill this new covenant, then I will
give you everything I have"

what the new covenant asks you to do?

Abraham didn't think Isaac was going
to be permanently dead in that
account.

this is new and a bit offending to Abraham pbuh, it means he knew God was kidding.
But it does open another question, what if the son was Ishmael pbuh? If God wants to test him,He wouldnt make a blunder and tell that Isaac pbuh would have kids, now kill him!