What was all the suffering of Jesus for?

[Vastator]

There are countless thousands of other people who suffered far more, for a much greater length of time, than Jesus is purported to have. It frankly unimpressive in the least. Crucifixion was a common form of execution for eons before Jesus time. And crucifixion is far from the most suffering of deaths humans have contrived. Let's not blow shit out of proportion.

Jesus sweat great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. That's when the atonement started.
How many do you know that are able to do that?

Hematidrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Been done before Jesus time. And since. Nothing divine about it. Certainly nothing gracious...

 

[alang1216]

A question I've never understood. God sets the rules and the punishment, then he pays the penalty to himself so he can forgive himself?

I don't ever remember ever reading that. The scriptures say he was sinless.[/QUOTE]
Yet he paid the price for others. A price he himself set and that he paid to himself. What am I missing here?

 

[tyroneweaver]

If God the Father is a perfect and upright being, then why couldn't He simply forgive us of our sins as we repent of them? Why was it necessary for him to send his Only Begotten Son into the world to atone for sin? Why couldn't he simply forgive us when we repent? What was all the suffering of Jesus for? Why did Jesus need to die?

I am interested in how others answer this question. What are your thoughts on this subject?

Sins are forgiven, and, Repentance for the forgiveness of sins were revolutionary ideas in Jesus day. Jews were expected to offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins--which put a great burden on the backs of the extremely poor and destitute who lived in Jesus' time. The Temple coffers depended on Temple sacrifice.

In Jesus' day, great teachers stayed put and the people came to them. Jesus broke that tradition as well and was what we would call today, an itinerant preacher. He went from place to place. The good news he preached that sins are forgiven/repentance for the forgiveness of sins was welcomed by the poor, but not so much by the wealthy who depended upon Temple sacrifice for their wealth.

Temple authorities insisted upon knowing by whose authority Jesus preached this message. They knew Jesus could not trace this back to Abraham, Moses, or one of the prophets. Jesus was not disturbed. He said this revelation was given by God Himself, who was his father. Jesus also had this habit of equating himself with God.

Big sticking point: There was no covenant with God where God ever said sins are forgiven/repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Covenants require a blood sacrifice. Temple authorities wanted him to cease and desist, something Jesus was not about to do. He knew he was preaching a very unpopular idea/truth that the rich and powerful would not welcome. He could see the handwriting on the wall--that this message would get him killed. Fine, this would be the blood covenant that proved his authority to announce the forgiveness of sins. Jesus gave up his life for the forgiveness of sins, for the ransom of many.

Many would have decided Jesus lost the battle, that prevailing thought on Temple sacrifice prevailed...except that he rose from the dead, and then a generation later, the Temple was destroyed.

The meaning of Testament is "Covenant". The Christian Bible came to be known as the Old Covenant/Testament and the New Covenant/Testament.

Jesus's geneology could clearly be traced to King David. He repeatedly was called the Son of David
2nd. Allowances were made for the poor.

 

[tyroneweaver]

There are countless thousands of other people who suffered far more, for a much greater length of time, than Jesus is purported to have. It frankly unimpressive in the least. Crucifixion was a common form of execution for eons before Jesus time. And crucifixion is far from the most suffering of deaths humans have contrived. Let's not blow shit out of proportion.

Jesus sweat great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. That's when the atonement started.
How many do you know that are able to do that?

Hematidrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Been done before Jesus time. And since. Nothing divine about it. Certainly nothing gracious...

Ok, then. You claim something and then induce this "rare" hematidrosis on yourself.
I submit you can't.

 

[Vastator]

It never written that he self induced it. That is pure supposition. And you are correct, one cannot induce such a malady at will.

 

[onefour1]

I believe that God is the great law giver in his kingdom. As one who establishes the law, he must also uphold the law. Not only the moral law but also the physical laws of the universe. A scripture regarding this is:

2 Nephi 2:11-13
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

By virtue of the fact that a law is created, there is the opposite of that law. Thus if you establish the law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" you automatically create an opposite to that law. If you establish physical laws that bind matter together, the opposite of that law would be chaotic matter that is disorganized. God has established laws throughout his kingdom to give it goodness and structure. Rewards and penalties also are established otherwise there would be no motivation to keep the law. Who would care if they keep the law if there were no reward or penalty for breaking the law? The establishment of law is necessary for God to have an orderly kingdom and the setting of rewards and penalties is necessary to give meaning and purpose to the law. If there were no law, there would be no creation. if there were no law, there would be no right or wrong. Chaos would reign there would be no happiness nor misery. God has establish a way whereby happiness and joy can be obtained if obedience to his laws are adhered to. For this system to be sustained, God must uphold his laws by being just in his laws. He must hold his laws supreme and mete out rewards and punishments in equity and fairness according to his law. If God were not to be a just God then he would destroy his system of happiness. If his system were destroyed then he would not really be a true and righteous God. We all look to God for equity and fairness in the law and a source of peace and happiness. It is critical that he uphold justice in his system and not violate the confidence of his creations that they have in him.

I also believe that if there were no opposition in things, there would be little to no free will to choose. If all physical and moral laws did not exist, what would there even be to choose from?

To me this is the first principle in understanding the answer to the main question of this thread. (to be continued...)

 

[hobelim]

A question I've never understood. God sets the rules and the punishment, then he pays the penalty to himself so he can forgive himself?

I don't ever remember ever reading that. The scriptures say he was sinless.

Yet he paid the price for others. A price he himself set and that he paid to himself. What am I missing here?[/QUOTE]


Confusion?

The confusion resulting from "just believing" that God diddled a virgin to become fully human without a human father so that he could be tortured and killed because he loved the roman world so much?

 

[Mudda]

Jesus suffered for being a Liberal.

 

[alang1216]

The confusion resulting from "just believing" that God diddled a virgin to become fully human without a human father so that he could be tortured and killed because he loved the roman world so much?

Diddling virgins was a common pastime for Zeus. Prometheus got the torturing for mankind, eternal in his case so Jesus got off lucky. I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths. Especially for Christians trying to convert Pagans, speaking their traditions/language and showing how powerful their god was.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths.

there is no answer to exactly what Jesus was accused of or why he was crucified - the only reason there is any mention of the individual thought history pertains directly to a single publication of unknown authorship that essentially manifests their own brand of morality being branded as supernatural and unequivocal that has been proven false by history by every generation since its publication. christianity in particular is the antithesis to the actual religion it shadows.

.

 

[hobelim]

The confusion resulting from "just believing" that God diddled a virgin to become fully human without a human father so that he could be tortured and killed because he loved the roman world so much?

Diddling virgins was a common pastime for Zeus. Prometheus got the torturing for mankind, eternal in his case so Jesus got off lucky. I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths. Especially for Christians trying to convert Pagans, speaking their traditions/language and showing how powerful their god was.

I agree. Yet given the timing when the gospels were written, having just seen Judea decimated, the temple and their way of life destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed maimed enslaved or exiled, I suspect the authors were not trying to convert as much as deliberately curse the nations.

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword"

"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15

"Take this cup of wine and drink of it. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou, in these thy judgments, thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink" Revelation 16:6





I will force your oppressors to eat their own flesh and make them drunk on their own blood as if with new wine. Then all flesh shall know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. Isaiah 49:26
.

 

[alang1216]

.

I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths.

there is no answer to exactly what Jesus was accused of or why he was crucified - the only reason there is any mention of the individual thought history pertains directly to a single publication of unknown authorship that essentially manifests their own brand of morality being branded as supernatural and unequivocal that has been proven false by history by every generation since its publication. christianity in particular is the antithesis to the actual religion it shadows.

.

My $0.02: Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, who preached to his fellow Jews about the imminent end of the world. He angered the local theocrats and they silenced him, or tried to.

 

[hobelim]

.

I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths.

there is no answer to exactly what Jesus was accused of or why he was crucified - the only reason there is any mention of the individual thought history pertains directly to a single publication of unknown authorship that essentially manifests their own brand of morality being branded as supernatural and unequivocal that has been proven false by history by every generation since its publication. christianity in particular is the antithesis to the actual religion it shadows.

.

My $0.02: Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, who preached to his fellow Jews about the imminent end of the world. He angered the local theocrats and they silenced him, or tried to.

Looks like you are right. So was Jesus. The world in which he lived ended only a few years after he died and remained a wasteland until only recently..

Still, the bloody history of the church seems to contradict the claim that drinking the blood of Jesus brings peace and salvation...

 

[alang1216]

I agree. Yet given the timing when the gospels were written, having just seen Judea decimated, the temple and their way of life destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed maimed enslaved or exiled, I suspect the authors were not trying to convert as much as deliberately curse the nations.

I don't agree. I think these early Christians where Hellenized and likely didn't support the rebellion.

 

[alang1216]

.

I think a lot of Biblical stories come from local cultures and their myths.

there is no answer to exactly what Jesus was accused of or why he was crucified - the only reason there is any mention of the individual thought history pertains directly to a single publication of unknown authorship that essentially manifests their own brand of morality being branded as supernatural and unequivocal that has been proven false by history by every generation since its publication. christianity in particular is the antithesis to the actual religion it shadows.

.

My $0.02: Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, who preached to his fellow Jews about the imminent end of the world. He angered the local theocrats and they silenced him, or tried to.

Looks like you are right. So was Jesus. The world in which he lived ended only a few years after he died and remained a wasteland until only recently..

Still, the bloody history of the church seems to contradict the claim that drinking the blood of Jesus brings peace and salvation...

The bloody history of the church has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity, it is the inevitable result of mixing religion, any religion, with political power.

 

[hobelim]

I agree. Yet given the timing when the gospels were written, having just seen Judea decimated, the temple and their way of life destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed maimed enslaved or exiled, I suspect the authors were not trying to convert as much as deliberately curse the nations.

I don't agree. I think these early Christians where Hellenized and likely didn't support the rebellion.

Being hellenized doesn't mean they didn't want to smite the nations. What else were they going to do? Throw stones?

 

[alang1216]

I agree. Yet given the timing when the gospels were written, having just seen Judea decimated, the temple and their way of life destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed maimed enslaved or exiled, I suspect the authors were not trying to convert as much as deliberately curse the nations.

I don't agree. I think these early Christians where Hellenized and likely didn't support the rebellion.

Being hellenized doesn't mean they didn't want to smite the nations. What else were they going to do? Throw stones?

Jews had it relatively good under the Romans, they didn't all want out. They paid taxes like all the conquered nations but were exempt from military service (I believe) and enjoyed the Roman peace.

 

[hobelim]

I agree. Yet given the timing when the gospels were written, having just seen Judea decimated, the temple and their way of life destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed maimed enslaved or exiled, I suspect the authors were not trying to convert as much as deliberately curse the nations.

I don't agree. I think these early Christians where Hellenized and likely didn't support the rebellion.

Being hellenized doesn't mean they didn't want to smite the nations. What else were they going to do? Throw stones?

Jews had it relatively good under the Romans, they didn't all want out. They paid taxes like all the conquered nations but were exempt from military service (I believe) and enjoyed the Roman peace.

What Jews had it relatively good under roman rule,? The one percent who profited by submission and treachery?

Weren't we speaking about the authors of the gospels which were put to paper after the destruction of Judea?

you really think they were trying to convert pagans into what? worshiping and eating a jewish mangod to receive eternal life?

How is that not a curse?


"This, he told me , is the curse which goes out over all the land; for by the writing on one side every thief shall be swept clean away, and by the writing on the other, every perjurer shall be swept clean away. I have sent it out, the lord of hosts has said, and it shall enter the house of the thief and the house of the man who has perjured himself in my name. It shall stay inside that house and demolish it, timbers and stones and all."

 

[alang1216]

What Jews had it relatively good under roman rule,? The one percent who profited by submission and treachery?

Weren't we speaking about the authors of the gospels which were put to paper after the destruction of Judea?

you really think they were trying to convert pagans into what? worshiping and eating a jewish mangod to receive eternal life?

How is that not a curse?

I live in the USA and Jews here have it pretty good. They don't control the government but they are free to travel, trade, work, and worship as they please. The Jews under the Romans had it just as good.

The gospels existed for decades before they were put to paper so the destruction of Judea was only a postscript and, to the newly converted pagans, a minor one at that.

There were some Christians, most notably Paul, that believed you could be a Christian without first becoming a Jew. That and the promise of an afterlife in heaven was plenty of motivation for pagans.

 

[hobelim]

What Jews had it relatively good under roman rule,? The one percent who profited by submission and treachery?

Weren't we speaking about the authors of the gospels which were put to paper after the destruction of Judea?

you really think they were trying to convert pagans into what? worshiping and eating a jewish mangod to receive eternal life?

How is that not a curse?

I live in the USA and Jews here have it pretty good. They don't control the government but they are free to travel, trade, work, and worship as they please. The Jews under the Romans had it just as good.

The gospels existed for decades before they were put to paper so the destruction of Judea was only a postscript and, to the newly converted pagans, a minor one at that.

There were some Christians, most notably Paul, that believed you could be a Christian without first becoming a Jew. That and the promise of an afterlife in heaven was plenty of motivation for pagans.

Early last century the Jews had it fairly good in Europe too, until they didn't.

If the gospels existed for decades then the destruction of Judea was a fulfilled prophecy and the consequence for failing to heed the teaching and warnings of Jesus to the ruling elite about false roman security and the illusion of prosperity at the expense of setting aside their professed dedication and allegiance to God and truth and abandoning the majority of the flock to the enemy for slaughter.