Death on the cross

[Elijah John]

I keep hearing that God's love is demonstrated to us by Jesus crucifixion. Exactly how is this a demonstration of God's love?

How is God's allowing the torture of "Himself" TO Himself a demonstration of His love for us?

Are there better, more loving ways that God demonstrates his love for us?

I can think of a few, but what do y'all think?

[marco]

My friend, I think you made a technical error. The quote you atrtibute to me, I did not say. Please repair.

Sorry, EJ, I left your signature in when I was replying to bluethread's post to you.

I have repaired it. I knew the quote wasn't yours.

[marco]

I would not use the term "rumor". I prefer to see it as shared cultural context.

Yes, I am using poetic licence to make my point.

Much of the inerrancy discussion presumes that everything in the Scriptures is absolutely true, including everything said by everyone. That is not reasonable. The point of inerrancy is that what is recorded is an accurate represent of events, not that those events are right nor correct. When Yeshua speaks of what is written, or what people have heard, that does not mean that it is true or false,

I've no problem with accepting various sayings could have been written but I'm not sure that when Christ says "it is written" HE would take his statement as a possible falsehood. There would be no point in his saying this were there any possibility that the statement was false. Behind the words "it is written" comes an unstated command. Do what is written.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 10 by dio9]

not to refer to Paul , what do you think about Jesus' death on the cross?

Jesus' death is a big topic. I think it was a disaster, contrary to God's plan for the salvation of mankind. Jesus' death became an alternative plan for the salvation of the human race. All you have to do is study church history to see Christianity is an alternative plan. Jesus wasn't supposed to be crucified. He was supposed to be both the Jewish expectation and the christian Messiah. Does that make sense? There was to be no separation. His death made it necessary for an alternative plan. Which is Christianity.

No, it was not an alternative plan, but the plan made long before his death; in fact before creation.

Acts 2:

22 Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.

23 He was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

1 Peter 1:

18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

[Tetragrammaton]

I would not use the term "rumor". I prefer to see it as shared cultural context.

Yes, I am using poetic licence to make my point.

Much of the inerrancy discussion presumes that everything in the Scriptures is absolutely true, including everything said by everyone. That is not reasonable. The point of inerrancy is that what is recorded is an accurate represent of events, not that those events are right nor correct. When Yeshua speaks of what is written, or what people have heard, that does not mean that it is true or false,

I've no problem with accepting various sayings could have been written but I'm not sure that when Christ says "it is written" HE would take his statement as a possible falsehood. There would be no point in his saying this were there any possibility that the statement was false. Behind the words "it is written" comes an unstated command. Do what is written.

There would be no point in his saying this were there any possibility that the statement was false.

Actually taking statements out of context or inventing falsehoods was very very easy back then especially if you are preaching to illiterate people that have no means or time to verify it.

Behind the words "it is written" comes an unstated command. Do what is written.

That command itself is probably the reason why he would invent falsehood.

If the author of the gospel wants the people to do something, then invoking authority,(like ancient sayings) is beneficial to the command to be recognized and accepted.

This method was heavily used in politics of that period and we still use it to this day.

When was the last time you saw a president mention previously used policies effectiveness to support the new but similar policies he is introducing?
(which end up being a complete failure and so far removed from the ones who were effective)

The authors in the gospels are basically doing the same exact thing.

One example:

Invocation of authority:
"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets"

The new similar command by Jesus:
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

They do appear similar but they are totally different, one is the golden rule which is humanly possible, the other is impossible to do.

No one can love everybody like himself and live.

It is an exaggeration if taken literally and very hard to achieve if one is to assume that it means to just be as friendly as you possibly can with everybody.

Even if it is not to be taken literally you are still left with a saying which is at the very least incompetent and inaccurate, which does not fit a perfect being that should give humanity divine instructions when he cannot even express himself in a clear way.

The actual saying where the author of the gospel twists/misquotes:

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

Your neibour meant only the jews in the Torah.
God in the OT was very strict in keeping the jews unified as a military force to attack other nations.

In the gospels your neibour means everybody because he twisted it by combining it with the golden rule: "Do to others what you want them to do to you."
You would never even imagine that when Jesus says "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." he means love your jewish neibours, because that is clearly not what he meant.

By twisting it he made what was once possible, now impossible, which works perfectly to make the believer feel unworthy and a sinner that needs forgiveness/salvation.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 64 by Tetragrammaton]

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets"

The new similar command by Jesus:
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

You have these two around the wrong way.

The "new" command is "Do to others".

Both are advocated, and said to sum up "the Law and the Prophets".

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 65 by Checkpoint]

The golden rule predates jesus/hebrews himself, you have it the other way round.

The first idea of it comes from the Egyptians, Jesus mainly uses it to promote the misquotation of loving others like yourself.

Taking: "Love your neighbor as yourself." from:  Leviticus 19:18 is taking it out of context.

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

Here it means to love your fellow jew as yourself and you can do whatever you want with the rest.(which they did a lot of slaughter)

It was NOT a Jewish law to love your neighbor as yourself if your neighbor means everybody, so you are incorrect there.

The NT author/Jesus is misquoting on purpose.

What I am saying is glorified in Luke 6:35 just after Luke 6:31.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Again using "Love your neighbor as yourself." as a way to promote the idea to love even those that don't deserve your love.

Again using "Love your neighbor as yourself." as a way to justify why god allows good things to happen to evil people.

This is perfect propaganda for a slave to be happy and proud of being a slave in misery.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 10 by dio9]

not to refer to Paul , what do you think about Jesus' death on the cross?

Jesus' death is a big topic. I think it was a disaster, contrary to God's plan for the salvation of mankind. Jesus' death became an alternative plan for the salvation of the human race. All you have to do is study church history to see Christianity is an alternative plan. Jesus wasn't supposed to be crucified. He was supposed to be both the Jewish expectation and the christian Messiah. Does that make sense? There was to be no separation. His death made it necessary for an alternative plan. Which is Christianity.

No, it was not an alternative plan, but the plan made long before his death; in fact before creation.

Acts 2:

22 Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.

23 He was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

1 Peter 1:

18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

do you really believe God spent the whole of salvation history from Noah to Abraham Moses David good and bad kings and prophets just to have his chosen savior crucified? Goodness , if all God needed was a sacrifice He could have sent Jesus to an unprepared people who surely would have killed him. Why send him to a prepared people, that He had invested so much in? Just to have him killed , makes no sense.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 67 by dio9]

Even more ridiculous is the fact that he died and went to hell only for 3 days which is an insignificant sacrifice considering all the people who died and went to hell for eternity before god decided to send his son/himself.
Is human pain really painful to god anyway?

Why did it take 100 000 years of sending people to hell for eternity before god made up his mind?

Divine plan indeed.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 67 by dio9]

Even more ridiculous is the fact that he died and went to hell only for 3 days which is an insignificant sacrifice considering all the people who died and went to hell for eternity before god decided to send his son/himself.
Is human pain really painful to god anyway?

Why did it take 100 000 years of sending people to hell for eternity before god made up his mind?

Divine plan indeed.

Who fooled you into thinking that God has been "sending people to hell for eternity"?

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 69 by Checkpoint]


Well the NT said so in Luke.

Jesus tells the parable of what happens to the rich man who did not believe the scripture and not listen to the prophets(Jesus included).

Jesus says quite clearly that it is in a very hellish place with fire and pain and that god would only send in heaven those that believed like Lazarus.

= the rest that do not believe will share the same faith as the rich man.

Now you can have a different interpretation then mine but you cannot deny that my interpretation is a valid one.

Why else would Jesus talk about hell in that manner if not to address the unbelievers like those who did not receive scripture/prophets message?

+ did not Jesus entire mission on earth suppose to be to open the gates of heaven to the people, why else did he come if not to save our soul from hell?

Are you actually implying that without Jesus coming on earth, no one would have gone to hell?

Did Jesus come to give god the excuse to send people to hell then?

As far as I know Christianity is about salvation of the soul.
If that is not the case then enlighten me because your version of Christianity must be radically different then most.

Salvation from what?
Most Christians and myself think it is from eternal hell.
You might have another interpretation but clearly most Christians share my conclusion.

Now if there was no eternal hell before Jesus came along then it makes Jesus just an excuse to send people who disobey god/lack belief sent to hell.

Which makes god more evil then I gave him credit for.

It is much more likely that Jesus came to save us from eternal hell then to start sending those who don't believe his message in hell.

This means that before Jesus came there was eternal hell and when Jesus arrived he gave us a way out, he payed the price for god's forgiveness.

If you have another interpretation please present it since I see no other way to describe the christian theology without falling to obvious contradictions.