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

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"
i dont want to offend you, just i dont share your belief, i think we still carry our own cross.

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"
i dont want to offend you, just i dont share your belief, i think we still carry our own cross.

reply to post by freedomSlave


I think you are a deceived person in need of a wake up call,

God loves you

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??

Abram had a Hebrew Hey added to his name. Hey is the pictograph of a man with his arms out to God. It means, behold a great work. When God asked AbraHam to sacrifice Issac, he was allowing Abraham to demonstrate faith in God. No matter what it looks like in the world, we can trust God and have hope in his promises. Do not fear. God showed Abraham that his own sacrifice was not the point. God would provide the sacrifice, and indeed, already had. Jesus suffering on the cross is symbolic of the root to the story. The Son gave his existence for us by involution into matter. He will raise again. Immersion into the water is baptism so we can raise to new life. The process allows God to develop our faith. We are all cut from one loaf. The Son of God is that loaf that was given over so that we could have life and have it more abundantly.

1 Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

As you will well know, we cannot worship an image. God is not an image. He is Eternal. The Son is the Image of God and the involution of soul and spirit into matter. We are all part of that first soul as the clay that was stamped by the seal. Was Christ necessary? Yes. He is the Word that produced the image.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Apart from the Word / Wave of collapsing wave function, we would not be here. Also, by that same light, we return to the Father. The Son is the ONLY way and can be demonstrated by quantum mechanics. Faith is the ability to collapse the indeterminate wave back to determined as multiplicity (Son involved into matter) comes back to unity with His Church (Fruit of the experience).

It can be demonstrated mathematically as well. Who was the first image listed above? Who was the first man that fell? Adam. Who was the last Adam?

1 Corinthians 15

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Sin is debt. The debt of Adam was paid by the last Adam. All points in between are you and I, cut from that same loaf (soul).

1 Corinthians 10

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

We are correct not to worship the image. We must see beyond the image to the one casting the image in the mirror. That is God. We are inside the image, and the very image of God Himself in the Son.

Genesis 1

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

When you look in the mirror, you are seeing humanity. Humanity is the image of the Son of God, being raised by God in the wilderness. The prodigal Son will return. We can inherit this with Him as fellow servants. Giving is the point. We must repent of being a thief. The temple is the body our soul occupies. We are baptized into the waters of reality to repent of sin. When we have had enough, we return, but only after we fulfill the law through Christ's example by finding love and mercy for others. They are us as well. We are all here to repent.

Where does the Muslim religion make its mistake? Love for others. Stealing, killing and destroying is the mark of selfishness. Giving is the mark of love. Loving enemies is the mark of fulfilled law. Hate is the mark of separation from God. Primarily, the average everyday Christians love others. I am sure this is true for most of us who know how to love.

God is love. Love gives. Gifts must first be earned. Christ suffered for what was earned and only he could accomplish this.

reply to post by logical7


Here is where mathematics comes in.

Mankind is fallen and in debt to sin. Jesus suffered the cross as a negative multiplied to our negative. This then becomes the positive of our salvation. Jesus paid our debt by walking the debt backwards to positive. Two negatives multiplied make a positive.

Consider this example: In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero. Jesus died a horrible death to pay our debt, walking us back to a positive value.

If you smoke, you get cancer. Debt is caused by taking like a thief. Work out in the gym and build health. Suffering creates reward.

I've seen the events with Abraham and Isaac mentioned throughout this thread so far.

One question remains.

Take a look at Genesis 22.

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

...now tell me... when did God provide a lamb?
Look closely.

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”

The answer is...
He didn't. At least, not that day. God provided a ram. The gift of the lamb was yet to come.

Revelation 5:

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

There is your answer. Yes, the blood of Jesus Christ was required to pay for the sins of mankind. There are parallels to this all throughout Scripture. Hebrews 9:22 says "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins". This picture is present in Scripture from the beginning, where God sheds blood to make clothing for Adam and Eve...

Genesis 3:

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

to the end:

Revelation 7:

14 And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Scripture is consistent.

Originally posted by PuterMan
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.

its applied to all prophets, Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all.

Originally posted by Akragon
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.

so who he was??
They dont believe him yet follow him? what part that they dint believe? Thats a blame on all of them. hope you can tell me a verse where he said "who he was" and the apostles dint believe it.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by MrCobb

 

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.

lol I like how you just quote the first part of the verse: I'll quote the second again:

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.

Can you even begin to comprehend how Paul is plainly saying "just like a woman whose married can't get remarried unless her first huband dies; so, too, Christ (pre-death: old covenant: the law) died so you could marry another" that being Christ (post-death: new covenant: GRACE). No, but I like how you just read half of my response, there, "logical7"

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by Akragon
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.

so who he was??
They dont believe him yet follow him? what part that they dint believe? Thats a blame on all of them. hope you can tell me a verse where he said "who he was" and the apostles dint believe it.

Notice i said they didn't Fully believe who he was.... until he returned.

Read John 6... You'll see most of his followers "turned from him"... the twelve stuck it out... Yet peter still says this...

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

But if this 'belief" was so strong... why would he deny him?

The obvious answer is fear of losing their own lives... but that would mean they wern't listening to Jesus either way...

The point of him returning was undeniable proof he was who he said he was... And the verse in my previous reply conferms that they did not fully believe in him until after his return... Otherwise there would be no reason to write that passage in the first place

reply to post by Awen24


Let start with the basics for you, whats a sacrifice?
giving up something/someone you love with the knowledge that its not coming back.
Now God or Abraham pbuh killing His/his "son" knowing that he'l not remain dead is not sacrifice.

This picture is
present in Scripture from the
beginning, where God sheds blood to
make clothing for Adam and Eve...
Genesis 3: 21 The Lord God made garments
of skin for Adam and his wife and
clothed them. 22 And the Lord
God said, “The man has now
become like one of us, knowing
good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand
and take also from the tree of life
and eat, and live forever.” 23 So
the Lord God banished him from
the Garden of Eden to work the
ground from which he had been taken. to the end:
Revelation 7: 14 And he said, "These are they
who have come out of the great
tribulation; they have washed
their robes and made them white
in the blood of the Lamb. Scripture is consistent.

Genesis speaks of God making clothes with skin period.
Revelation is written when the idea of Jesus pbuh as lamb has already taken roots.
These two verses are completely separate unless you want to grasp at twigs.

reply to post by MrCobb

lol I like how you just quote the first
part of the verse: I'll quote the second again: 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.
Can you even begin to comprehend
how Paul is plainly saying "just like a woman whose married can't get
remarried unless her first huband dies;
so, too, Christ (pre-death: old
covenant: the law) died so you could
marry another" that being Christ (post-death: new covenant: GRACE).

i dint read half reply, my "come on!" was to you and paul for that 2nd verse. They dont prove anything, it just tries to compare two similar things.
Just like my saying "just as we change clothes, soul changes bodies" is that a proof that reincarnation is true?
And you say Jesus Christ pbuh killed the law by dying himself!! How do you do that?? Did he made the law die with him?? Maybe! then who had said that not a single dot can be changed from the law till heaven earth pass away, and whoever breaks the least commandment would be least in the kingdom. Earth is still there i guess, so if i have to choose who among Jesus pbuh and paul is lying, i dont have a difficult choice.

You asked a question, I'm
bound to give you the answer. And you got it. NEXT!

answer this, why God dint let Isaac pbuh die? If Abraham pbuh believed that and God could raise him, it would be more proof for "Jesus' resurrection"
a sacrifice as i said in previous post is true when it will lead to a terrible loss and still Abraham pbuh got ready just for God, ya knowing that his son would be gone but just from the world.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by Akragon
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.

so who he was??
They dont believe him yet follow him? what part that they dint believe? Thats a blame on all of them. hope you can tell me a verse where he said "who he was" and the apostles dint believe it.

Notice i said they didn't Fully believe who he was.... until he returned.

Read John 6... You'll see most of his followers "turned from him"... the twelve stuck it out... Yet peter still says this...

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

But if this 'belief" was so strong... why would he deny him?

The obvious answer is fear of losing their own lives... but that would mean they wern't listening to Jesus either way...

The point of him returning was undeniable proof he was who he said he was... And the verse in my previous reply conferms that they did not fully believe in him until after his return... Otherwise there would be no reason to write that passage in the first place

but again his dying isnt necessary for them to believe more strongly, actually his remaining alive would strengthen the faith more in God. And destroying temple/body doesnt have to mean death, it could be just breaking/wounding.
And i asked you "who he was?" what more they believed later that they dint believe 1st? Jesus'pbuh divinity? or that God will save him?

I always found a whole lot wrong with the concept of Jesus's sacrifice, which, being such a central tenet of traditional christianity, is probably the reason I never really approached it.

First off, the very idea that God would require a human sacrifice for the expatiation of sins is abhorrent to me.

Second, even if one accepted the concept of such a sacrifice, Jesus didn't really sacrifice himself, considering he knew he'd be coming back, so the "sacrifice" would be meaningless (in the same way the sacrifice that Abraham made would be meaningless if what MrCobb's interpretation was correct).

Thirdly, it seemed obvious that this "Sacrifice theology" was something built by people, around the events that those people perceived at that time, rather than something that came from Jesus or God. They had a religious leader they thought was executed, so they had to explain it somehow.
If Jesus's mission was simply to be the scapegoat for man's sins, instead of all this extra drama involving romans and jews and such, he would've just called all his followers, prepared himself, and killed himself (or asked John the Baptist). Think about it...the way Jesus did it caused 2000 years (and counting) of more suffering (rightly or wrongly) for the Jews, culminating in millions of deaths.

reply to post by logical7

but again his dying isnt necessary for them to believe more strongly, actually his remaining alive would strengthen the faith more in God.

That would depend on your view of the matter...

And destroying temple/body doesnt have to mean death, it could be just breaking/wounding.

Possibly...

I've heard lots of explainations about him not actually dying on the "stake"... Pretty hard to believe though...

Either way his death wasn't important....

his life was...

And i asked you "who he was?"

Who did HE say he was?

what more they believed later that they dint believe 1st? Jesus'pbuh divinity? or that God will save him?

Well... they wern't willing to die for him until after he was gone...

reply to post by Akragon

Well... they wern't willing to die for him
until after he was gone...

what do you say of the incidence just before Jesus pbuh was taken into custody and he had told them to have swords and even a disciple cut a ear which he healed, and agreed to go, the incident showed that they were ready to kill and die if Jesus pbuh wanted it that way.
The apostles left their families, their trade to follow Jesus pbuh, who does that without having a strong belief?
The verses in John makes us feel that they doubted but when he came back they believe him to be divine or that he came from dead. But is coming back from dead so special? Jesus pbuh actually raised other from dead with the authority of God. wouldnt God do it for him too?
So my question is, did they believe anything extra(more) after his return which they dint believe before?

reply to post by logical7

what do you say of the incidence just before Jesus pbuh was taken into custody and he had told them to have swords and even a disciple cut a ear which he healed, and agreed to go, the incident showed that they were ready to kill and die if Jesus pbuh wanted it that way.

Of course they were willing to kill... They are follwers of the OT God... He demands it...

The apostles left their families, their trade to follow Jesus pbuh, who does that without having a strong belief?

Soldiers leave their families to go to war...

One tends to do what their leader tells them...

The verses in John makes us feel that they doubted but when he came back they believe him to be divine or that he came from dead.

Both i suppose...

But is coming back from dead so special? Jesus pbuh actually raised other from dead with the authority of God. wouldnt God do it for him too?

Apparently he did...

So my question is, did they believe anything extra(more) after his return which they dint believe before?

Well the idea that he was God didn't come from his mouth... So it had to come from somewhere...

I would assume they started believing he was God in the flesh after he died... and returned.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Jesus is the sacrifice blood offering to remove sin

Looking at this quote from your post, you could take it to mean that: somehow, what Jesus did, including his dying, brought into existence a process that is ongoing, and working to eventually rid the people of Earth of their sinfulness.
What is not explicit in the New Testament descriptions of this process is the idea that all the past sins of the world had to be paid for, and that payment was made by Jesus' blood.
There is an analogy implicit (made in the Book of Hebrews, in the N.T.) between the salvation brought about by Jesus, and the role of the High Priest in the Israelite annual "Judgement Day" observance. And it does say (letter of Peter) that we were redeemed with a price, which was Jesus' blood, but that is a long ways away from saying that the price was applied to a demand made by a law or some unnamed entity.
The price, or the sacrifice by God, was the offering up of His son to the forces of evil to expose them for what they were, and to have that revelation create an impetus to make a clean break out from that system based on vengeance, not to feed it by giving into it.

reply to post by MrCobb

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.

I think you may be picking up ideas from the messianic cults rather than from the New Testament.
Jesus, despite claims by the cults, was not the Torah incarnate. Jesus was a person who became incarnate, who existed in a form of god and could have happily stayed in that form forever, but took the opportunity to become one of us to impart the truth that brings life, rather than the old written law which only has death to offer.

reply to post by Awen24

There is your answer. Yes, the blood of Jesus Christ was required to pay for the sins of mankind.

The quote you gave from Revelation 5 does not say that.
First off, it does not say that the lamb with seven eyes is Jesus.
Obviously it is some kind of metaphor for something, so it is not necessary to relate it to Jesus being a Passover lamb. It is using the lamb as a sort of victim, and the thing in question which is the theme central to the book is the persecution and martyrdom of the saints.
With the price the saints paid, a great congregation was won from the Earth by their example of faith in Jesus and God.
There is nothing in there about paying for sins. In fact you will find nothing of the kind period in the New Testament and the idea of penal substitutionary atonement is the product of the fertile minds of people like Augustine in the Dark Ages.