why was there Jesus

kidsagainstkows · #11 5th November 2009, 05:24 PM

thank you for your thoughtful response.

in reguards to your first paragraph i was referring to behavior related rules that God gave people (specifically animal sacrifice). also im not sure why we have the ability to do bad things if God doesnt want us to, but thats for another thread.

the reason why i talked about abolishing the rule without consequence is analogous to if i created my own game, and when i decided that a rule didnt work or was unnecessary, i just abolish the rule without consequence.

i dont understand what the resurrection has to do with it except for that that is the actual loophole god used to get around the animal sac thing. i understand that the resurrection is the most important thing to the Christian belief (i highly encourage you to read the passion story in columns i.e. read gethsemine (sp) in the four gospels and move on reading each section in each gospel) . what i do not know is why that means anything. Jesus certainly wasnt the first person to be resurrected, nor was he the last.

ebia · #12 5th November 2009, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

thank you for your thoughtful response.

in reguards to your first paragraph i was referring to behavior related rules that God gave people (specifically animal sacrifice). also im not sure why we have the ability to do bad things if God doesnt want us to, but thats for another thread.

the reason why i talked about abolishing the rule without consequence is analogous to if i created my own game, and when i decided that a rule didnt work or was unnecessary, i just abolish the rule without consequence.

1. A game needs a set of rules. One can tweak those rules, but as a set they are necessary to make the game the game.
2. You are still looking at the thing the wrong way around. The resurrection didn't happen to abolish the rules, the rules were there to get the people of God to the resurrection.

i dont understand what the resurrection has to do with it except for that that is the actual loophole god used to get around the animal sac thing. i understand that the resurrection is the most important thing to the Christian belief (i highly encourage you to read the passion story in columns i.e. read gethsemine (sp) in the four gospels and move on reading each section in each gospel) . what i do not know is why that means anything. Jesus certainly wasnt the first person to be resurrected, nor was he the last.

Um, yes he was. Other people raised from the dead were not resurrected; they came back from death to die again. Jesus came through death once and for all, defeating death and anticipating and making possible the final resurrection of all at the end of the age. It's not by accident that John's account emphasis the garden and says twice that it's the first day of the week - Easter morning was the first day of New Creation, the course of everything has changed. Death and suffering is still hanging on until the final completion of that New Creation, but it's power has been defeated.

The whole purpose of keeping the Jewish people separate up to that point was to bring things to a climax in Jesus' death and resurrection - that's what all the Torah was about. Everything having narrowed down onto Jesus, and him having died and risen, the object is to open that out, to draw everyone into him and his resurrection, so Torah would actually be counter-productive.

Joveia · #13 5th November 2009, 07:12 PM

Let's say you have a thief who keeps stealing some guy's stuff. The guy is so nice that whenever the thief steals from him, he forgives the thief. But the thief never changes his behaviour. This nice guy can forgive the thief all he wants, but it doesn't deal with the thief's wrongdoing. Forgiving the thief doesn't make the thief a better person.

In the same way, without Jesus dying for our sins, God's forgiveness wouldn't have made us much better people. It would have been like the guy forgiving the thief who keeps stealing.

Because going to heaven involves meeting God's standards, then God's forgiveness without Jesus dying for us would have been useless. And we can't repent and meet God's standards on our own, because we always fail to repent perfectly.

Somehow, Jesus dying for us makes Christians perfect in the life to come. I'm not exactly sure how. I think if one looks at Romans 6:3-10 one can get some ideas. I think that through a mystical union the believer and his/her sin was made to die on the cross with Jesus. And in the life to come believers will be 'clothed' with the perfect intentions towards others that Christ had, so they will meet God's standards by being 'in' Christ. I think something like this might be how it works.

kidsagainstkows · #14 5th November 2009, 07:13 PM

Buddah did not die, he achieved nirvana and left the world in a ball of light

neither did Mohammad, he rode a winged creature (similer to a griffin from greek mythology) straight to heaven.

many religions have someone ascending directly to their version of heaven, why do reject these claims but accept the Jesus one.

also to jovia, do you think that we are better people? there are still thieves who steal repeatedly and other sinners.

i, for example, do believe that we are better people today than we were in the bronze age, but thats not because of Jesus, its because we as a society have been better able to discover what is right and wrong. if the day after jesus came back everything was rainbows and sunshine it would be different, but thats not how it was. it wasnt until the renaissance (the first rise of secularism) that things became markedly better for people.

ebia · #15 5th November 2009, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

Buddah did not die, he achieved nirvana and left the world in a ball of light

neither did Mohammad, he rode a winged creature (similer to a griffin from greek mythology) straight to heaven.

From my limited understanding Mohammed did die - his ascension was not at the end of his life.

many religions have someone ascending directly to their version of heaven, why do reject these claims but accept the Jesus one.

Because the Resurrection is different - it's a unique idea, not a common one like ascension and therefore not one that would be made up, and because it is central. The resurrection is something completely unexpected and something that caused, in less than 20 years, the first of Jesus followers to completely change the way they thought about everything else and the way they lived their life in its light. Resurrection in early Christianity isn't just a happy ending to Jesus story, its the event on which everything else is built.

You simply do not get that kind of thing - a central claim that is an historical event and is completely incongrous with all the contemporty thinking - in other religions. Ascension of Elisha, Mary, Mohammed, Budda ... are not central events in the way Resurrection is, do not overturn all current thinking about death in the way resurrection does, and for the most part took a heck of a lot longer than 20 years to develop and become widespread in their faiths.

also to jovia, do you think that we are better people? there are still thieves who steal repeatedly and other sinners.

i, for example, do believe that we are better people today than we were in the bronze age, but thats not because of Jesus, its because we as a society have been better able to discover what is right and wrong. if the day after jesus came back everything was rainbows and sunshine it would be different, but thats not how it was. it wasnt until the renaissance (the first rise of secularism) that things became markedly better for people.

From the very first Greco-Roman critics of Christianity noted how insanely moral the Christians were. Comments about how they not only looked after their own sick (itself unheard of) but actually looked after other people's sick as well! One of the big attractions that drew people to early Christianity was precisely the different way that they lived that was so much at odds with the norms of the world in which existed.

Jazmyn · #16 5th November 2009, 10:25 PM

God put the tree in the garden and said to Adam and Eve, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17) So Adam and Eve knew that the wages of sin was death.

Eve was tempted by the devil, who came in the form of a serpent, and ate of the tree, then persuaded her husband to eat of it.

Because God being God in His very nature cannot lie or be unjust, Adam and Eve had to receive the penalty for their sins - death.

Before Jesus came, God set up an illustration of the future, where for the forgiveness of sins, an animal could die in the place of the sinner, the animal had to be blemishless (representing sinlessness), this fulfilled the requirement of the penalty of sin - which is death. Although these sacrifices could not clear the conscience of the worshipper.

When the time was right, God sent His Son into the world, Jesus, to pay the penalty for our sins once and for all, by dying in our place, so that through Him we might obtain forgiveness. He went into heaven itself, to appear for us in God's presence, just like the high priest entered the Most Holy Place once a year, to offer the blood of animals for the sins of himself and of the people. Christ only had to die once to take away our sins.

All this only made the people ceremonially clean, but Christ's blood cleanses our consciences of acts that lead to death, so that we might serve the living God! He died to set us free from sin.

"Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:28)

Also, Jesus has a resurrection body, where the mortal is clothed with immortality, other people who were raised from the dead only had their mortal bodies back again.

-----------------------

Also, I know this isn't to do with the OP, but you posted some questions in Christian Apologetics and it was unfortunately deleted, I was going to reply but as I was about to hit the button, the thread got locked. Forgive me, if it helps I'll post you the answers here,

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

what was the fate of Judas?

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

Is it as matt says where he commits suicide, or is it as Acts says where he buys a field with the money

"(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field;"
The Greek verb ktaomai, rendered purchased, has the form that means caused to be purchased.
In the original Greek it is this:
oun outos ektēsato chōrion misthou adikias genomenos prēnēs elakēsen mesos panta splanchna exechuthē
Literally rendered:
And so this to acquire a place wages unrighteousness to happen headlong to crack noisily in the midst all the inward parts to pour out.
In the original language it doesn't mention that Judas bought the field, only that his money acquired one.
"there he fell headlong,"
From a tree projecting over the the precipices of the Valley of Hinnom where he was hanging. http://bibleencyclopedia.com/places/Hakeldema_from_Hinnom_Valley.htm

"his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
He probably hung there for days, after "Then he went away and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:6) since it was before the Sabbath and the place was secluded. The process of decay causes gases to build up in the gut, so the impact from the fall would cause a corpse to burst open. It famously happened to the body of a sperm whale in Taiwan:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4096586/. [warning, contains picture of exploded whale!]
Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)" (Acts 1:18-19)

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

Was Jesus killed before or after passover?

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

John claims it was the day of prep where all others say it was the day after the feast.

"Amid conflicting views, I can only give what seems to me the best solution: (1) It is certain that Christ ate a meal the evening before in the Upper Room which was called a passover. (2) It is certain from Joh 18:28 that the Jews had not eaten the passover at that time. (3) It seems clear to me that Christ, anxious to eat this passover (see Lu 22:15), ate it in advance of the usual time, in order that he, the true Paschal Lamb, Our Passover (1Co 5:7) might be offered on the same day that the passover was eaten. The priests hurried the trial and execution of Jesus so that they might proceed to the preparation of the passover that evening. As the Lord's supper was anticipatory of the suffering on the cross, so was the Lord's last passover. The question has difficulties, but this view has fewer than any other." People's New Testament

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

what happened after the supposed resurrection?

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

Who went to see Jesus, one woman? two women? more? who did they meet? one angel? two? two soldiers?

This has been done by others more thoroughly than I can,
http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

Pleased to help

- Jazmyn

kidsagainstkows · #17 6th November 2009, 01:41 AM

firstly i would claim that resurrection is not a unique idea. it takes place in Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and greek and roman mythologies which predate Christianity. you act as though the ressurrection is important because people made it important after the fact. It seems clear to me that the followers of Jesus truly believed that he was resurrected, what is not clear is if Jesus was resurrected.

also the reason that society shunned early Christianity is because they were thought to be cannibals who "ate of the body and drank of the blood", not because they didnt leave their sick out to die.

also thanks jazmyn for uploading my first post ever

i didnt realize at the time that that part was Christians only

reguarding Judas i usually call "errors in translation" cop outs but i use them to (Job didnt repent) so ill take it, thats also very interesting as i had never heard that before.

reguarding jesus' death i think that they specifically talk about the day of prep in the synoptics where Jesus sends the deciples to find a place for the meal. I know for certain that Jesus died on a friday (in all books) so he could not have died on the day of prep and the day after passover. alot of people give me the answer that the day is counted from sundown to sundown but that isnt correct either becuase the account is two days off.

i confess i have not read the last part yet

but thank you for your response

for more contradictions i recommend profMTH's channel on youtube. he has several good series', one being called "brief bible blunders" they arnt all contradictions but they are pretty good.

ebia · #18 6th November 2009, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

firstly i would claim that resurrection is not a unique idea. it takes place in Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and greek and roman mythologies which predate Christianity.

No it doesn't. That claim is often waved around, but what those other mythologies have is usually a cyclic death and rebirth, which is very different from resurrection, usually of a god not a human, and always in 'a land far, far, away', not "to this real, identifiable, human being at this identifiable place on this identifable date in the recent past witnessed by these people who are still hanging around'. The only religion that had an idea of resurrection was Judaism, and that understood it to be something that could only happen to all God's people at the end of time.

A cycle of death and rebirth of an Egyptian god (for instance) is different from resurrection in every way that matters.

you act as though the ressurrection is important because people made it important after the fact. It seems clear to me that the followers of Jesus truly believed that he was resurrected, what is not clear is if Jesus was resurrected.

As N.T. Wright has shown, there is no where for them to get the idea from if it didn't happen. They must have experienced both an empty tomb and encountered what they believed to be the physical Jesus walking, talking and eating with them to get that idea.

also the reason that society shunned early Christianity is because they were thought to be cannibals who "ate of the body and drank of the blood", not because they didnt leave their sick out to die.

They did sometimes make big deal out of that, but there are many quotes of astonishment about how moral they were as well. Their real reason for shunning them was neither, but because they were, like the Jews, "atheists". But that's another question. The point is that there are comments about how moral early Christian behaviour was, and that was a major draw-card. As it still is - churches that live as Kingdom communites grow.

catzrfluffy · #19 6th November 2009, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

firstly i would claim that resurrection is not a unique idea. it takes place in Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and greek and roman mythologies which predate Christianity. you act as though the ressurrection is important because people made it important after the fact. It seems clear to me that the followers of Jesus truly believed that he was resurrected, what is not clear is if Jesus was resurrected.

Resurrection is in a few other religions, but was it taken as far, and was so central and important, as it was in the spread of Christianity?

"For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.'" (Acts 17:31)

I think the acts of the apostles after His death and the accounts given in the gospels can't really be explained any other way, it would be insane to profess such a thing under sentence of death.

There is a difference between Jesus' resurrection and other resurrections, I found this article analysed them: Didn't Christianity Borrow From Other Religions?

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

also the reason that society shunned early Christianity is because they were thought to be cannibals who "ate of the body and drank of the blood", not because they didnt leave their sick out to die.

The view of cannibalism was more slander to try and give extra reason for putting early Christians to death in horrific ways, see "justification" for persecuting anyone.

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

also thanks jazmyn for uploading my first post ever i didnt realize at the time that that part was Christians only

That's ok quite a few people make that mistake.

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

reguarding jesus' death i think that they specifically talk about the day of prep in the synoptics where Jesus sends the deciples to find a place for the meal. I know for certain that Jesus died on a friday (in all books) so he could not have died on the day of prep and the day after passover. alot of people give me the answer that the day is counted from sundown to sundown but that isnt correct either becuase the account is two days off.

The day of preparation before the Sabbath is given in all books, no Fridays.

There were two Sabbaths, a High Sabbath and a normal Sabbath, it mentions the special one in John,

"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down." (John 19:31)

Day of prep. for the High Sabbath on a Wednesday, - death and crucifixion
then the special Sabbath on a Thursday,
then the day of preparation Friday,
then the normal Sabbath Saturday,
then the first day of the week Sunday.

It was a view held by the apostles and passed on to the early church in Judea till Rome's take on it won out.

"And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter (the days and dates of the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection). For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him."
CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book V (Eusebius)

kidsagainstkows · #20 6th November 2009, 03:29 AM

that's very interesting, you still say that because resurrection is important, it happened when this is not necessarily true. as i stated before it seems clear that the deciples believed christ rose, its not clear that he actually did it. keep in mind that the bible was not written by eye witnesses it is all hearsay in regards to christ (some of the letters are verified to be written by paul). in fact, matt and luke used mark as a source.

i had never heard your explanation of that so i thank you for showing it to me.