But all we see recorded about Jesus (primarily) is him as a 30-year old man. So, the Bible records him being very obedient to God (or at least his vision of God...the Pharisees would disagree). However, it is completely up in the air whether or not he was rebellious or disobedient earlier on. We all go through rebellious phases as teenagers, I'm not sure how Jesus would have been different.
The Bible is not clear exactly about how or when Jesus, as a human, became divine. Most argue that the Christ (or the Logos) is an eternal piece of the Trinity but there is disagreement about when that Lordship or Logos was bestowed upon Jesus as a physical human. It has been argued that this imbuing of the divine upon Jesus occurred at four different times:
1) At creation (John 1:1-18)
2) At his birth (Luke 2:11)
3) At his baptism (adoptionism; Mark 1:10-11)
4) After his resurrection (Acts 2:22-24).
So I think your view is overly simplistic. Jesus may have grown in spirit and love and he may have been rebellious and disobedient at times. He may have spent many years not as a divine creation. The only story in the entire Bible we have that mentions Jesus as a boy has this to say: "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). It also says this: "they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions." (Luke 2:46). He was obviously a very thoughtful and contemplative young boy who had some good questions which amazed the teachers of the day. But he was also growing and learning and asking them questions.
The Bible talks about Jesus never sinning:
Heb. 4: 15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
yet without sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him
who had no sin to be sin (a sin offering) for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God
Knowing what sin is and how hard it would be to never/ever sin tells me Jesus had to be deity from the beginning.
You are right to point out we have very little knowledge of Jesus’ first 30 years of life.
Indeed something may have happened. A vision of some sort perhaps. But, as I have said countless times, a Hindu perspective on this event is that it is not unique. Countless wise men of India have been claimed to be incarnations (or reincarnations) and many have developed a following. Jesus appears, to me, as one among these.
There are lots of claims being made about Jesus recorded when people were still privy to eye witnesses of these happenings. Paul talks about 600 eye witnesses of Jesus resurrected body being seem and most of those people still being alive. To show this was a false teaching someone could just show the grave of Christ and/or others that were in Jerusalem at the time of Passover and Pentecost, just could say: “I was there and saw none of this”. It would have been easy to disprove any of this happened and squelch this whole movement. The movement started in Jerusalem (where all this was to have taken place weeks earlier). If you say: “the story changed significantly from a spiritual incarnation to a physical incarnation”, there would have been lots of different stories running around and people talking about different versions of what happened.
To make this out to be some giant conspiracy put together by people that get nothing financially out of it and will likely be severely persecuted for holding to it, does not seem logical.
Can you clarify why you believe he had to die?
The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry has this to say: "
The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven"
gotquestions.org has this to say: "
Jesus died on the cross, taking the punishment that we deserve! As God, Jesus' death provided forgiveness for the sins of the entire world"
See also: Acts 13:38.
So Jesus was just an example on display for our benefit? A metaphor of just/fair parental disciplining?
This is a huge topic and I am not in agreement with those you quoted:
To begin with:
During the time of Christ, the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem would have had a much better understanding of atonement since atonement sacrifices were going on every hour at the temple, maybe thousands each day. All mature adults would have most likely participated in the individual process of atonement, but this was only for unintentional sins (really minor sins) since intentional sins had no Old Testament system for atonement.
Those only able to afford a bag of flour (Lev. 5) certainly would not have considered that bag of flour to be a “substitute” for them. There is nothing to suggest the Jewish people ever thought of any sacrifices to be substitutes for them. So what did they experience in this atonement process for unintentional sins?
If we could relate to their atonement experience for “minor” sins we might be able to extrapolate to what the atonement process would be like for intentional sins? (Read Lev. 5)
Forgiveness for unintentional sins came after the completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5), but did God need a bag of flour to forgive the person’s sins?
Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the person needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?
Is Christ Crucified described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment)?
I find the ransom description more than just an analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”
(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)
Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:
1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.
2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.
3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.
4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.
5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.
6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.
Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:
Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death? (this is not the way it happened, but the child of the father was kidnapped.)
Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father?
We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?
There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?
Who are the kidnappers?
Looking at verses in particular:
(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).
“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.
A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?
“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).
“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.
“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: “before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross”, but is say they were left unpunished prior to the cross. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross and there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.
Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.
By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.
What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?
What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?
Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?
So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?
This will get us started if you really want to know.
Fair enough. Why does Jesus ask God to remove the cup in Luke 22:42?
The primary reason Jesus doesn't call down a legion of angels is because he wants the scriptures to be fulfilled. But then, on the other hand, he asks God to remove the cup and find some other way (if possible) for this to play out. So in one breath he argues that scripture must be fulfilled and then in the next he prays that scripture not be fulfilled...
These words are the only words we have to the most intense pray Christ made, so it really must be for our benefit to know.
The question is “What alternative could even be considered?”
If I personally lived my life fulfilling my earthly objective without sinning than Christ would not have had to die for me (personally). God could have looked down the corridor of time and seen “I” had fulfilled my objective without needing Christ to go to the cross thus “another way”, so there would be another way. The fact I personally did sin means I did not keep Christ from having to go to the cross, so I personally am responsible for Christ going to the cross, since I personally could have provided that “other way”.
