Quake wrote:
“It doesn't matter if it was necessary or not the point is really moot he was getting crucified anyways and supposedly as the story he goes?? He knew would be.”

That’s the whole point. The story makes no sense. God sent his ONLY begotten son to die a traumatic gruesome death to pay for the sins of man.

What does this mean?

It MEANS that men had not CHOICE but to crucify him otherwise God’s plan (he reason for coming to earth) would have been thwarted.

This seems to go right by everyone. This is so typical of the Bible all the way through. In order for the stories to make sense man has no choice but to act in certain ways. Otherwise the story breaks down and makes no sense. If God sent is “only begotten son” to die on the cross for man’s redemption, then man had no choice but to crucify him, otherwise the reason that God sent his only begotten son for would have been for naught.

In order to believe that stories in this folklore the reader has no choice but to accept that the men in the story never have a choice. They have to do whatever the author writes whether they like it or not.

Spider wrote:
“This has already been answered in my posts in this thread on pages 4, 5 and 6.”



You didn’t even understand the question much less answer it.

"In order to believe that stories in this folklore the reader has no choice but to accept that the men in the story never have a choice. They have to do whatever the author writes whether they like it or not."



hmm kinda like being in a movie huh????....

I think most movies at least have more comic relief in the making of them, i.e. bloopers!

The question was: "Why was all that necessary?"

I have given the Biblical answer. If you don't like it, make up your own answer. But one has to wonder how much sense it makes to make up a non-Biblical answer to a Biblical question.

I'm just a seeker of knowledge looking for clues based on fact.

I do not have much time so this will be a short version. Yahshua was the lamb of Yahweh. $ days before the passover lamb was to be killed he was brought into the house as a pet playing with and such. Yet the Israelites knew that in 4 days they were going to sacrafice this pet that they were getting attached to. That he was going to be killed for thier sins. This made the killing of the lamb a sad event as they knew thier sins was the reason he was going to be killed.

Yahshua entered Jerusalem 4 days before he was to be the lamb of Yahweh to take on the peoples sins. If you look in a red lettered bible Yahshua said way more in those 4 days than he did before he enterened Jerusalem. Now entering and many of the disciples knew he said he was going to be killed but did not understand.

His death fullfilled the passover lamb sacrafice. If you were with a great man who you highly respected and knew he was going to doe i 4 days. You would probally try to learn and be with him as much as possible. Then you yourself may feel great guilt for this man dying for you. But afterwards as you reflected on this mans life you yourself may decide what this great man did you now knew you really have the strength to uphold his faith. Always remembering what this great teacher did for you... May Yahweh of Hosts Bless Your Houses... Miles

Spider wrote:
“The question was: "Why was all that necessary?"

I have given the Biblical answer. If you don't like it, make up your own answer. But one has to wonder how much sense it makes to make up a non-Biblical answer to a Biblical question.”

But the Biblical answer does NOT answer the question of WHY it was necessary.

On the contrary it’s nonsense.

Sin is nothing more than disobeying God. Period. That’s all sin is.

Sin is cleansed by God’s forgiveness. Period. That’s all that’s required.

To begin with, your claim that God had to actually experience what it would be like to be in the human condition is NOT the Biblical answer. Show me where is says that in the Bible?

Secondly, to even imply that God would need to experience such a thing is to imply that he didn’t know what it would be like prior to that experience. But that flies in the face of God being all-knowing.

In short, your explanation is nether Biblical, nor does it hold water.

And finally, while I’m addressing your claim to know everything let me point out that the Biblical stories are so confusing and so ambiguous that they fell into three completely differnet religions. And those religions then went on to continue to fall apart even further. No one seems to be able to agree on anything.

Yet we are bless to have Mr. Spider who knows it all with perfect clarity.

Yeah right.

Cutiful Red wrote:

I understand, from the Christian perspective, that the spirit that is God took human form in Jesus, for the purpose of redeeming our sinful nature.

But when to consider it, if I dare use the word, logically, what was all the drama about. Why was it necessary to create such a division in the poeple, and then to be martyred through torture and death of the body? Why was all that necessary?

Now Im going to answer so no-one bite my head off. And yes this is being answered as told through the Bible by God. If you don't believe the Bible your choice....If you don't like my answer....Your choice again.

God knew even before he sent his son to live as mortal man that he was going to die for our sins. It was prophecy that was to be fulfilled.....so that all who believe could have everlasting life from our sins. If you read all of Matthew the reasons are pretty clear.

Abra
The scriptures say he was tempted with all that we are tempted with. He lived as a man abd spider is right if Yahshua did not go through the pain and suffering being innocent. I would of been for nothing. He suffered as the Passover lamb suffered. The law was a curse if you broke it because it brought death. Yahshua had to be hung on a tree because the scriptures say cursed is he who hangs on a tree. So hanginging on this tree as sinless was the only way to take the curse away and put the sins of the world on himself... Shalom.. Miles

Miles,

I’m glad you brought up the “Sacrificial Lamb” idea because this is yet another idea that doesn’t hold water.

The Bible is based on ancient superstitious beliefs. One of those ancient beliefs was that God would become angry and one way to appease them was to sacrifice a living animal (or even a human) to the God.

That’s the whole idea behind Sacrificial Lambs. The idea is to appease the Gods.

So now to claim that Jesus was a Sacrificial Lamb from God to man we have a problem. Why would God want to appease man?

Obviously the sacrifice would not be made to man. God would have no need to appease man. The only sense it would make as a Sacrificial Lamb if God was making this sacrifice to appease the devil (second deity in it’s own right).

In fact, there are those who see it that way. However, even then it makes no sense to me, because the check bounced (the sacrifice bounced) when Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later.

No mater how this story is interpreted it always ends up being one where the author of the story has his cake and eats it too. He’s God when it’s beneficial to be God. He just a man when it’s beneficial to be just a man. He dies when it’s beneficial to die. He lives when it’s beneficial to live. Whatever the story needs at any particular point that’s what this God becomes.

Miles wrote:
“Yahshua had to be hung on a tree because the scriptures say cursed is he who hangs on a tree. So hanginging on this tree as sinless was the only way to take the curse away and put the sins of the world on himself... Shalom.. Miles”

Ok so know we’re talking about curses and the ONLY way to take away a curse???

Where do curses come from? Who made the curse originally? Why would God have to bend over backwards to take a curse away? Such a scenario would answer the question because then it would say who was being paid and why it was necessary. Whoever created the original curse was being paid.

So now the question is who created the original curse? The devil?

I’m just trying to understand what the story is suppose to be about. So far nothing I’ve heard make any sense to me. Especially within the context of an all-powerful God. It looks like the premise that God is all-powerful is doomed to not survive this story no matter what the answer turns out to be.

i think that if jesus had not been crucified he wouldnt be a signifigant figure, notice all prophets that have meldramatic (violent) deaths which is the icing on the cake that makes them viewed as "more than man"

Abra
The sacraficial system was both for man to realize his sins. No human was ever saraficed except for Yahshua.Yahweh so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son. The Israelites did not keep the law as it was ratified in Ex. 24. Jeremiah prophisied that Yahweh would put the law upon his childrens hearts and right them in thier mind. After Yahshua assension he went before the father and Yahweh said take those filthy rags off and give him a clean garment. The rags representing our sins. He then as High Priest wave the wave shief offering starting the count to pentecost where when the Holy Spirit cam it changed lives. Now the people wanted to keep the law they had a desire to. Also the law was written in their minds for now those who had recieved the Holy Spirit were housing the spirit of Yahweh. They are the New Temple made without hands.

The reserection had to be 3 days because that is the number that Yahweh uses as demands showing that it is Yahweh who raised Yahshua. Yahshua did not raise himself... Shalom.. Miles

Abra..
Yes satan/helel started the curse when he lied to eve. He is called the father of lies. Going foward to the end of the book Satan/Helel is thrown into the bottomless pit and it says the curse is no more. Adam and Eve accepting a lie started the curse from the lie Satan/Helel told.... Shalom.... Miles

Abracadabra,

Your desire is to take peices of the Bible and claim them to be contradictory, because you exclude other parts of the Bible.

For instance, you said:

"Sin is nothing more than disobeying God. Period. That’s all sin is.

Sin is cleansed by God’s forgiveness. Period. That’s all that’s required. "

In the Old Testament, a sacrifice was always required for forgiveness. So to receive God's forgiveness, you had to...have a sacrifice. NO SIN GOES UNPUNISHED. That's made clear in the Old Testament. God promised to supply a sacrifice and He did. Jesus has offered to take the punishment for all of your sins. Someone must be punished and God's mercy offers you the chance to avoid punishment, because Jesus has already paid the price for your sins. Please, you don't have to be honest to us, but be honest to yourself.

Abra wrote:

I’m glad you brought up the “Sacrificial Lamb” idea because this is yet another idea that doesn’t hold water.

The Bible is based on ancient superstitious beliefs. One of those ancient beliefs was that God would become angry and one way to appease them was to sacrifice a living animal (or even a human) to the God.

Answer: It really wasn't so much a superstitious belief as it was more so old testament beliefs....Mosiac law....and with Christ that no longer was the case, as Christ was the glorious Sacrificial Lamb. And it had nothing to do with appeasing Gods as you say.....because their is only one GOD....Who brought his son to earth to make him the sacrifice for our sins that we may have everlasting life.

Abra says:

So now to claim that Jesus was a Sacrificial Lamb from God to man we have a problem. Why would God want to appease man?

Answer: It was not to appease man but a gift from God as it was written in order that man can have a second chance. The reason for this is due to the promise that God made to Noah with the coming of the rainbow that he would never again destroy the earth nor man......This was God's sacrifice to all of the Humanity....pretty selfless and loving if you ask me.

Abra says:
Obviously the sacrifice would not be made to man. God would have no need to appease man. The only sense it would make as a Sacrificial Lamb if God was making this sacrifice to appease the devil (second deity in it’s own right).

Answer: God did it for man.....not to man......And God reigned over satan.....he owned satan and owed him nothing....and would not care to appease him for anything. second deity... not

Abra said:

In fact, there are those who see it that way. However, even then it makes no sense to me, because the check bounced (the sacrifice bounced) when Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later.

Answer: I thought your read the Bible many times.....If you have then this question would not even be here. It again was within God's Prophecy for Jesus to rise to show the glory of God and then God His Father took him home.....

Abra said:

No mater how this story is interpreted it always ends up being one where the author of the story has his cake and eats it too. He’s God when it’s beneficial to be God. He just a man when it’s beneficial to be just a man. He dies when it’s beneficial to die. He lives when it’s beneficial to live. Whatever the story needs at any particular point that’s what this God becomes.

Answer: God has a reason for everything the same is the case with Jesus...Jesus was sent to earth for very specific reason and very specific prophecies that were to be fulfilled. And remember if you read your Bible that this prophecies were made 2000 years before Christ even came....

The story is far to petty for me. All the romance and drama that is attached to it doesn’t help it one iota. The bottom line is that it’s all about a God that is supposed to be all powerful but is obviously not.

The bottom line is that other views of god (such as the pantheistic view) simply aren’t riddled with all this high-school drama and ignorant crap. Every question is answered intelligently and it all makes sense. There is no need to have faith in any stories. What you see is what you get.

It’s even explains how god was able to implement free will. It isn’t focused on blood, guts, gore, sin and salvation. The picture of a God who is obsessed with these things is despicable. It’s not a picture of a God who “so loved the world”. If God loved the world so much she would have become a pantheistic god.

And I believe that’s precisely what she did.

“The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical.” – Carl Sagan

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” – Albert Einstein

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” – Albert Einstein

“When we take the leap from intellectual understanding to superstitious blind faith we reduce ourselves from the sentient beings we can be, to become nothing more than mindless amoebas swimming in a murky sea of unsubstantiated myth” - Abracadabra

I make no apologies for quoting Einstein several times. He was obviously a very wise man. People should consider his words.

Feral wrote:
“And remember if you read your Bible that this prophecies were made 2000 years before Christ even came.... “

I have read the Bible. I find more contradictions in it with every read though. The so-called “prophecies” are totally ambiguous at BOTH ENDS.

First, the original prophecies are quite vague and unclear. Obviously the Jews and Muslims didn’t buy into them. Neither have they impressed many men like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Isaac Newton, etc.. If you think these men didn’t give the Bible a chance you are sadly mistaken. They looked at it very closely and had no choice but to reject it because it was ultimately nonsensical.

What most people aren’t even aware of is that Isaac Newton studied the Bible in extreme detail. He believed that the key to spirituality could be found in the text. Near the end of his life he denounced the Biblical picture as being mythology. It’s clear that this was his conclusion, but because he was the headmaster of the college of the Holy Trinity he could hardly make anti-Trinitarian statements there.

So the original prophecies were quite ambiguous and could have applied to almost anything a person cared to associate them with.

Secondly, the people who wrote the account of Jesus’ were not unaware of those prophecies. They wanted to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah so they made the story fit. There’s nothing surprising in that. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, that most likely wasn’t actually fulfilled anyway.

You can’t use the story to support itself. The only way that you can validate it is to appeal to rational that goes beyond the story itself. We that’s done the story breaks down.

In short, it simply makes no sense that the creator of this universe somehow became obsessed with the behavior of humans on earth. Not only did in only focus on ONE planet in this vast universe, but he wasn’t even a BIG enough God to focus on the whole planet simultaneously. He focused on one little tiny spot in the Middle East. He focused on one man named Abraham and his descendents. He focused on one people, the Jews, and one nation, Israel.

That’s absurd. It was either Richard Feynman, or Carl Saga who said that the stage (the universe) is far to big for the drama. Why bother creating such an immense universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of start and planets. All just to focus on a handful of people in the Middle East?

Now what would have been REALLY impressive is if God had inspired a book to be written world-wide simultaneously from all four corners of the globe. Back in a time when that kind of informational transmission simply wasn’t available. THEN we’d KNOW the book had to be from God.

See, even a little pea-brained idiot like me could think of that. Yet an all-wise all-powerful all-knowing God couldn’t figure out who to really get his message across?

It just doesn’t pan out. The story is mythology started by a handful of people in the Middle East. It’s crystal CLEAR what it is. It’s REGIONAL Mythology.

In another thread you ask how God could allow a book to be written about his laws if it wasn’t from him?

Well, he allowed Greek Mythology to flourish. He allowed Hinduism to flourish. He allow many differnet religious beliefs to flourish. Why should anyone believe that Middle Eastern mythology is any more valid than any other mythology?

I see a lot of ‘separation’ here. Let me point them out.
We have God – the only way to describe this God in any terms a human might understand is
God the feminine, God The Spirit and God the masculine (which gets interpreted Father)

Then we have Satan who, although a creation of God, somehow found a way to control and take over the ‘spirit’ part of a human (spirit as in some part of the spirit of God), against the will of God.

Then we have Jesus, born of the flesh of Mary as, of course God has no flesh. So Jesus was totally the flesh of Mary and her heritage. But the Being born of Mary is not God, but only part of God ( as God can be separated as noted earlier) But this is confusing because if we all, already have the ‘spirit’ in us, than we are all part of God. Except of course Jesus – well wait a minute, ok, so Jesus is human, but does Jesus have a soul? Of course he does, God is the soul, “the Spirit” within us all. Ok – wait, so Jesus just had more spirit than the rest of us, Oh yea to make up for not having a human Father. Is that right?

The only ones in all these equations who have no power are humans. Like toys we are thrown about, from hand to hand. First we are led to believe that it was our fault that we have sin on our heads.
That from the pre-Christian era. Then we are given a whole set of rules to follow, from God, which include sacrifice and all manner of really strange concepts. But then it all that changes. God makes an appearance in the flesh.

Now this is where is gets difficult – because if God is a single entity, even though comprised of three personalities, than where is the separate nature of Father and son? (See argument above Under Jesus Born of Mary)

To go on, suddenly all the sacrifices we were doing, and all the strange rituals we followed and all those dictates that were meant to keep us ‘clean’ or as holy as can be, are not necessary, because God - - - did… what?

See to me the point was to tell us we didn’t have to follow the old rules. I guess the way I see it is that God felt bad for creating a less than perfect creature. And when God realized that no matter how hard we tried to follow all those really strange rules, we never would. So the whole crucifixion was just to say, I’m sorry; here, let me punish myself so that you can see, I won’t hold your nature against you.

That almost makes sense, except that God knew it was God and that it be God still, and of course there’s still the matter of satan. And then – well I’ll just Abra’s list, it covers the rest.

“Abra
Where do curses come from? Who made the curse originally? Why would God have to bend over backwards to take a curse away? Such a scenario would answer the question because then it would say who was being paid and why it was necessary. Whoever created the original curse was being paid.

So now the question is who created the original curse? The devil?”