Why Did Jesus Have To Die?

[reyb]

History tell us that they are defeated by your early fathers since the next generations of Christians never mentioned (or too seldom to talk) about them. Again, whatever happened to them. Or why they are defeated is not my concern. Again, it is not important in this discussion.

 

What is important to me, is this present generation of Christians who wholeheartedly accepted that this historical Jesus is the Christ of God. They even claimed that this ‘Salvation History’ theory was started and established by Apostle Paul himself. (Please goggle search for ‘Salvation History’)

 

Today, because of this ‘Salvation History’ theory, you now have another form of ‘sacrificial offering’ different from previously Jewish offering of goats and calves and whatever as sin offering, burnt offering and other types  offering. This present offering is what you call, ‘The Holy Eucharist’ (Please see http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm).

 

I know most of you can better explain this Eucharistic offering than me. (Because there are many variations in this Holy Eucharist as sacrament and a sacrifice). So, I will not elaborate it further but, I will post a simple theological presentation of your Holy Eucharist.

 

(Please let me finish first)

Edited April 29, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

The Eucharist is a sacrifice in that it re-presents (makes present again) the sacrifice of the cross.^[18] The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. Christ, of course, is not sacrificed again because the one sacrifice of the Cross was accomplished "once for all" and cannot be repeated. The Mass is a liturgical representation of a sacrifice that makes present what it represents through the action of God in an unbloody manner.^[19] The Eucharist is not merely a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice on Golgotha: it also makes that sacrifice truly present. The priest and victim of the sacrifice are one and the same (Christ), with the difference that the Eucharist is offered in an unbloody manner.^[20]

 

The only ministers who can celebrate the Eucharist and consecrate the sacrament are ordained priests (either bishops or presbyters) acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi). In other words the priest celebrant represents Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and acts before God the Father in the name of the Church. The matter used must be wheaten bread and grape wine; this is considered essential for validity.^[21]

  (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology).

 

(Let me finish first)

Edited April 29, 2014 by reyb

[havok579257]

hey reyb, i see your back.  are you ever going to answer my questions or are you going to continue to duck tough questions?   

[oremus1]

Jesus died in order for divine justice to co-exist with Gods forgiveness. If Gods forgiveness was automatic, indifferent and unprincipled, then that would seem like God was complacent and indifferent to wrongdoing. It would not be possible for wrong to exist. So there needed to be retribution from humanity for our sins. But no sacrifice we could make would be good enough. so Jesus had to become one of us in order to be sacrificed to appease divine justice.

[reyb]

Correction sorry. It should be rumor and not humour 
 

..........
                                              rumor
They say, it comes from a humour during those days. They are practically saying it comes from a ‘word of mouth’ running around the community before, it was literary written. But, Apostle Paul mentioned in his letter in 1 Cor 15:3-8 ‘‘Christ died for our sins according to the scripture’. While your early father said ‘it comes from a humour’. rumor.
 
..................

Edited May 1, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

In these last days as they say, The Holy Eucharist is the only sacrifice acceptable to God since God himself commanded them to do it.  

 

There are parallelisms in theological arguments in both Jewish offering (The Karbanot)₁ and Christian offering (The Eucharist). Karbanot and Eucharist are both ‘sacrifices offered by men to God’ claiming that their respective offerings are required by God so that sins will be forgiven. The  Karbanot was required according to Moses’ Law (Heb 9:20) while the Eucharist was commanded by Jesus in remembrance of him. (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:23).

 

I know you will not agree with me that both of them are useless sacrifices since you hardly see that this Eucharist is just a piece of bread and the narrative in the Gospels are not historical reality. Of course, who am I to be followed by hundreds if not thousands of billions of believers?

 

But, I think we have a common ground to start on this issue because, if you will listen carefully to the testimony of the writer of Hebrew. He is actually saying, although the offering of bulls and calves are required by law (Heb 10:8) but still, it is a useless offering.

 

It is possible that someone who has common sense will realize that the substitution between offering and offerer never really worked in Karbanot. In the same way, that someone among you may realize that the Eucharist remain just a piece of bread even after prayer. But this is not reason why he said Karbanot is a useless offering. Rather, he gave his testimony about a different kind of sacrifice, a much better sacrifice because, it is offered and made in heaven.

 

He is testifying that Christ offered himself in heaven (Actually, Apostle Paul called it third heaven i.e.Paradise) and not here on earth.

 

He said, (Please see  Hebrew 9:11-14).

 

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

 

And if you will continue in Heb 9:24-27

 

24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

 

 

Now, why then the writer of Hebrew never mention of anything about Golgotha? I mean, why he never mention anything that Jesus gave himself in Jerusalem (a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea),  which is of course, here on earth and part of this creation? (Considering the Book of Hebrews was written in circa 50-95AD).

 

The reason is simple. This is the true sacrifice - the ‘sacrifice offered by God to man’ I am referring in the beginning of this deliberation. 

 

(to be continued).

Edited May 1, 2014 by reyb

[RC Patriot]

I can guarantee you that I am for the truth.

 
Prove it.
 

You must remember Muslims and many people in this entire world are not ‘Christian in your likeness’. So how they will accept your theological reasoning in the same way you believe that these reasons are the correct and ‘logical’ reasons.
 
Actually, these things you narrated above are not rational or logical reasons because, the bottom line of all these narrations is a belief that your sins are forgiven thru his death. And because, it is a belief – therefore, the nature of this reason is ‘theological’ rather than ‘logical or rational’.
 
What they expect from you is the rational explanation behind the idea;  Meaning, they do not need to become Christian but still, they will understand that your reason is a clear reasoning or in accordance with formal argument rather than belief.
 
Actually, in that kind of belief, God’s righteousness is missing. Because, where is God’s righteousness if somebody will die in your place? While  it is already written in Ezek 18:20 ‘The soul who sins is the one who will die.’ Meaning, you yourself must pay for your sins. 
 
So, again, can you explain ‘logically’ Why God couldn’t forgive sins without Jesus’ death?

 
Quidquid recipitur, ad modum recipientis recipitur.
At what point should we begin? If you disagree with any of the premises I've presented, then tell me which one. I assumed we had that common ground… so sorry. If I was talking to a Muslim, I would not start with the Crucifixion of Christ. I have to know what our common ground is before I can answer your question. But, we are literally not speaking the same language if you draw some distinction between "the Historical Jesus" and "the actual Jesus."
 
Belief vs. logic?
Your assumption that belief is necessarily not based on logic is not true. You believe that there is a force in the world called "gravity", don't you? You believe that we landed on the moon, don't you? Are these beliefs based on logic? Your rejection of objective truth certainly isn't.
 
Proxy Justice
If I steal something and my mother repays what I stole, you are right, that does not fully pay for what Justice demands. However, it still fulfills part of the requirement of Justice, the actual price of the sin. What is missing is the contrition of the thief, even if the thief cannot repay what was stolen. Those two parts together fulfills the requirement of Justice. That is why a proper understanding of Christian redemption requires both contrition and the acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.
 

Thus, they are now asking (even other Christians are curious about it), Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t God forgive sins without this? Of course, God can forgive sins without any ‘atoning sacrifice’ from man. Actually, God hates them. So, Why did Jesus have to die?

 
I answered this. NATURAL LAW DEMANDS JUSTICE.
 
What is SIn?
Sin is a archery term which means "off the mark". If you were to draw sin on a graph as a straight line approaching a target (God), and you were "off the mark" (slope of the line) by a degree of .001. As X approaches infinity, what does Y do? It is also INFINITY. It doesn't matter how small a sin you commit, the damage to your soul, the part you owe to God, is INFINITE. Only God, being infinite, can close this gap. Jesus had to die.
 

It is true that ‘Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for forgiveness of sins’ but, not in a way you think it was. There is a big difference between sacrifice offered by men to God and sacrifice offered by God to man. Later, I will go back in this issue.

Now, If Apostle Paul is truly referring to your historical Jesus as the sacrificial offering for forgiveness of sins. Then, I will admit you are correct and I am wrong. But, before I continue my deliberation, please bear in mind that my intention in doing this is not to shame or insult anybody. Neither, I am discouraging anyone to continually believing in God and his Christ. But to remind you once again that you must seek the truth from God himself if you really wanted to be a true disciple of Christ or to be truly equal with us as Apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 11:12.

 
Eh?
Your understanding of scripture is beyond help. You must discard what you think you know and be humble in your search for truth. It is like a glass of water half full of molasses. No additional amount of pure water is going to turn your glass into pure water.
 
Remember Humility, brother. Paul was an apostle taught by those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection. That is the historical Jesus Paul was speaking of.
 

Apostle Paul was definitely not referring to the bible we know today.

 
In the words of GEICO, "Everybody knows that." Paul was a Jew. Jews had scripture. Christ died in accordance with the prophecies presented in the Jewish Scripture. Why is this confusing for you?
 

Today, because of this ‘Salvation History’ theory, you now have another form of ‘sacrificial offering’ different from previously Jewish offering of goats and calves and whatever as sin offering, burnt offering and other types  offering. This present offering is what you call, ‘The Holy Eucharist’ (Please see http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm).

"Salvation History" is not a theory. It's a term to describe the story from the fall to the redemption of humankind.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

The important thing at this point, reyb, is to forget what you think you know and start fresh with a rational understanding of faith in HUMILITY. Even Doubting Thomas, who swore to not believe until he felt the wounds of Christ, believed when he was face to face with Christ. I worry that you would doubt even your own senses to your eternal peril.

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by RC Patriot

[KnightofChrist]

Visual repsentation of a debate with reyb... Comes at you with a question, you answer question, he dodges, historical jesus. repeat infinite loop...

 

[RC Patriot]

Alright, alright... I get it. I'm outta here, too. I'll still pray for his conversion, though.

[reyb]

I was about to explain my side why I said.... 

Credo, Thank you for posting these verses again for our ready references and (add) I will explain too why I said your ‘atoning sacrifice’ was not from God but, from the Spirit of this world.

But, I was interrupted.

 

So, I decided to listen to him first. (Because, my deliberation will touch this issue anyway ,that is about, ‘God’s righteousness thru faith’. )

 

 ..

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

The important thing at this point, reyb, is to forget what you think you know and start fresh with a rational understanding of faith in HUMILITY. Even Doubting Thomas, who swore to not believe until he felt the wounds of Christ, believed when he was face to face with Christ. I worry that you would doubt even your own senses to your eternal peril.

Since you think you are humble enough (I was once like you a truly humble Catholic too)  because you easily accepted your early fathers' belief (meaning that this historical Jesus is the same Jesus  Apostle Paul is preaching to all of us). And since you said you are a theologian. I think it is not bad to learn something from you.

 

Can you please tell me, Where is God’s righteousness if somebody dies for you because of your sins?

 

He said in Heb 5:11-14

 

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

 

I hope you are no longer an infant since you are already a theologian.

 

So, can you please explain to us how ‘God's righteousness comes through faith in Christ' as it is written in Phil 3:8-9

 

I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Edited May 2, 2014 by reyb

[RC Patriot]

Can you please tell me, Where is God’s righteousness if somebody dies for you because of your sins?

 
 

Proxy Justice
If I steal something and my mother repays what I stole, you are right, that does not fully pay for what Justice demands. However, it still fulfills part of the requirement of Justice, the actual price of the sin. What is missing is the contrition of the thief, even if the thief cannot repay what was stolen. Those two parts together fulfills the requirement of Justice. That is why a proper understanding of Christian redemption requires both contrition and the acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

I hope you are no longer an infant since you are already a theologian.

I do not consider myself in such high regard. I am an infant, a needy child of God.

[reyb]

 
 Proxy Justice
If I steal something and my mother repays what I stole, you are right, that does not fully pay for what Justice demands. However, it still fulfills part of the requirement of Justice, the actual price of the sin. What is missing is the contrition of the thief, even if the thief cannot repay what was stolen. Those two parts together fulfills the requirement of Justice. That is why a proper understanding of Christian redemption requires both contrition and the acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.


 

Your example give emphasis on repentance rather than justice, and even if you are deeply remorseful, it is still not in-tune with your theological principle. Because, in your little story the owner of that thing you stole is not you mother. (I mean, the owner from whom you steal it, is not the same person who pays for it in your behalf). While in your story of redemption, you commit sins against God and God himself pays for it for you.

 

This is actually our main topic. Why will your mother need to pay herself? Why not just say ‘forget it’?

 

My question in my previous post is.....

 

Where is God’s righteousness if someone pays for your sins? Why not you yourself must pay for it? If it is punishment for all eternity. So be it but, you are one who must pay for it and not anybody else.  Thus, I am asking where is God’s righteousness in that kind of redemption. 

 

I will wait for your answer.

Edited May 3, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

 

Quidquid recipitur, ad modum recipientis recipitur.
At what point should we begin? If you disagree with any of the premises I've presented, then tell me which one. I assumed we had that common ground… so sorry. If I was talking to a Muslim, I would not start with the Crucifixion of Christ. I have to know what our common ground is before I can answer your question. But, we are literally not speaking the same language if you draw some distinction between "the Historical Jesus" and "the actual Jesus."
 
 

Yes, from the very beginning I joined in this forum. I already said, that there is another Jesus different from this historical Jesus. (see 2 Cor 11:4). 

[reyb]

 
 

 

What is SIn?
Sin is a archery term which means "off the mark". If you were to draw sin on a graph as a straight line approaching a target (God), and you were "off the mark" (slope of the line) by a degree of .001. As X approaches infinity, what does Y do? It is also INFINITY. It doesn't matter how small a sin you commit, the damage to your soul, the part you owe to God, is INFINITE. Only God, being infinite, can close this gap. Jesus had to die.
 

 Let us define Sin in an ordinary way,  That sin is transgression against God in violating his laws.

[reyb]

You said...

 

 Paul was an apostle taught by those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection. That is the historical Jesus Paul was speaking of.

 

 

 

Who are these witnesses  (Who taught Apostle Paul about Jesus) you are referring above? Are you referring to the like of Peter, John, James...etc  in the Gospel?

Edited May 3, 2014 by reyb