Why did Jesus die?

Harold Richardson said:In the Old Testament, you've got salvation from sin and pleasing God through the sacrifice of pure creatures—like a lamb or whatever 🙂—but in the New Testament, those sacrifices aren't needed anymore because Jesus stepped up and took that burden on Himself. The whole point of His suffering and death was to show just how much humans matter and how much God loves us, by sacrificing the most innocent being imaginable—His own son. Through His sacrifice, Jesus gives people a fresh start...

From my perspective, the New Testament is essentially a continuation of the Old Testament. And, of course, the Old Testament serves as the sacred text of Judaism or Jewish monotheism.

I suppose one might wonder just how accurate that really is. I mean, if we say that Jews have their own distinct faith, then what does the term "Old Testament" even imply? It feels like saying it’s the END OF JUDAISM. That's exactly what we seem to be implying whenever we use the terms Old Testament and New Testament.

To a Jew, there is no such thing as a New Testament. Yet, Christianity firmly maintains that the Old Testament covenant between God and the chosen people has concluded, and that God has now established a New Testament—one where anyone who becomes a Christian becomes part of God's chosen people.

How do we make sense of that?

Drew Reed6 said:From my perspective, the New Testament is essentially a continuation of the Old Testament. And, of course, the Old Testament serves as the sacred text of Judaism or Jewish monotheism.

I suppose one might wonder just how accurate that really is. I mean, if we say that Jews have their own distinct faith, then what does the term "Old Testament" even imply? It feels like saying it’s the END OF JUDAISM. That's exactly what we seem to be implying whenever we use the terms Old Testament and New Testament.

To a Jew, there is no such thing as a New Testament. Yet, Christianity firmly maintains that the Old Testament covenant between God and the chosen people has concluded, and that God has now established a New Testament—one where anyone who becomes a Christian becomes part of God's chosen people.

How do we make sense of that?

God died (on the cross).
The question is about His will... which is being asked by a mourning flock. 😢

Regarding the "Old and New Testament," we're talking about God's commandment, which He decided to change himself. First, He left everything to the Jews (the Tor), then, according to Christians, He got disappointed and changed His mind, leaving it all to the Christians—who basically take the Tor and repackage it into the Old Testament (and then into their version of the New, promising eternal life in Paradise for themselves and Hell for everyone else). Fast forward 500 years, and the Arabs take these "massaged" Jewish writings and decide they're the only ones who actually understood and interpreted God's commandment correctly, somehow claiming it for themselves. Alongside all this twisting of Divine Testaments, you've got thousands of tiny sects all claiming the true interpretation and divine heritage belongs solely to them.

From what I’ve heard lately—the latest word is he passed away from swine flu.

Drew Reed6 said:From my perspective, the New Testament is essentially a continuation of the Old Testament. And, of course, the Old Testament serves as the sacred text of Judaism or Jewish monotheism.

I suppose one might wonder just how accurate that really is. I mean, if we say that Jews have their own distinct faith, then what does the term "Old Testament" even imply? It feels like saying it’s the END OF JUDAISM. That's exactly what we seem to be implying whenever we use the terms Old Testament and New Testament.

To a Jew, there is no such thing as a New Testament. Yet, Christianity firmly maintains that the Old Testament covenant between God and the chosen people has concluded, and that God has now established a New Testament—one where anyone who becomes a Christian becomes part of God's chosen people.

How do we make sense of that?

A synthesis of experiences from all eras is essential..
Everything that has emerged into the world utilizes ..
The bad things serve as lessons, while the good ones provide hope that a person can truly become who they are meant to be..

Alex Ramos91 said:Look, others who were raised—like Lazarus—just ended up dying again eventually. He isn't 😁

The whole point of His resurrection is that it proves His sacrifice was actually complete, perfect, and acceptable to God for the sins of the world. It’s the ultimate proof that He is indeed the prophesied Messiah who was meant to suffer and then rise again, the one who will "strike at the serpent's heel and crush its head."

... By doing this, He stepped into the fray to overcome through Death the one who held power over death—the devil—thereby freeing those who spent their entire lives living in bondage because they were terrified of dying. (Hebrews 2)

Which means He can now say:
"Do not be afraid! I am the First and the Last, and the Living One! I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I hold the keys of Death and the underworld." (Revelation 1)

I guess I remember stories about Jairus' daughter and that widow's son from Nain, right alongside Lazarus. Maybe there are others out there? 🤷
As for whether he actually died or not—prove to me he’s alive, then maybe I'll believe you. 😉

Dennis Moore4 said:If we take the Bible literally and assume Elijah was a real person rather than just some metaphorical figure, then he also ascended into heaven as the scripture states.
Enoch was taken up as well.

Does that make them the Son of Man too???

Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

Drew Reed6 said:Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

I’m sitting here reading Joachim Gnilk, a Christian-oriented biblical scholar. In his book "Jesus of Nazareth," he makes a point that strikes me as perfectly logical: when we approach the Gospels, we have to grasp the context behind every single event or parable. It isn't just about the words on the page; it's about understanding the environment they were born in. The reality is that the Gospels we have today aren't simple transcripts. They are composed of various layers of earlier versions—stylized, categorized, and heavily colored by theological agendas. As for the chronological order? Don't even get me started. You could argue for hours and still be lost. What he's getting at is that a purely literal reading of the Gospels (and the New Testament in general) is essentially redundant. Take the Triumphal Entry on the donkey, for example. Sure, you could interpret it as a literal historical fact, but it's far more likely an illustrative description. Its primary purpose is theological, not necessarily historical. We often mistake symbolism for a news report, and that is where the misunderstanding begins.

Drew Reed6 said:Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

Exactly. No more talking needed.

Drew Reed6 said:Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

Elijah and Elisha from SZ serve as the direct blueprint for John the Baptist and Jesus.
They come, one after another.
When people claim that Jesus couldn't have accomplished anything without Elijah, they’re missing the point entirely. What they’re actually talking about is Elisha—someone who received portions of the spirit from Elijah and carried the work forward after he was gone.
These narratives operate on a cosmological level, where the Sun rules the day and the Moon governs the night as its direct reflection.
In the writings of Clement of Rome, there's a specific breakdown regarding discipleship: John the Baptist had followers totaling the number of the Lunar month 29, whereas Jesus had disciples numbering the months in the Solar 12.

Most of the confusion surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from one core issue: Christianity emerged directly from another faith—Judaism. When you actually sit down and study the Bible, it becomes pretty clear that Christians claim their faith is the starting point, effectively treating Judaism as something that simply concluded.

.
Christianity isn't some new invention; it’s a reformation.

The Gospels go out of their way to document the lineage of King David. There’s really only one reason for that: they wanted to establish that Jesus had the legitimate right to rule as the rightful king of Israel. But then you look at how he actually behaves—he flatly refuses to step into that role. That’s the narrative the Gospels present, along with various other works that function more as apologies than actual history. We have to face the reality that these accounts might be more about defending a position than recording historical facts.

.
The rabbis and the Ebonite both imply two.
There is one king from the Lineage of David who will hold secular power, while another from the lineage of Ephraim will wield spiritual authority. This second one corresponds to Christ, who didn't come to rule the world with an iron rod—unlike the ruler from the Lineage of David, who will govern the earthly realm.

The soul doesn't die

boldgull19 said:The soul doesn't die

Exactly. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say Jesus died. After his body passed, he went down to the Underworld to preach the Gospel....

Understanding his sacrifice—the actual way he was sacrificed—is this incredibly intense initiation. Out of a thousand people on this forum, maybe three or four actually get it.

steelgardener22 said:Exactly. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say Jesus died. After his body passed, he went down to the Underworld to preach the Gospel....

Understanding his sacrifice—the actual way he was sacrificed—is this incredibly intense initiation. Out of a thousand people on this forum, maybe three or four actually get it.

The Underworld? I wonder how far beneath the surface that actually is. 😁
Technically, the term "Underworld" isn't really a part of Christian belief; it’s more rooted in Ancient Egyptian or Greek mythology.

steelgardener22 said:Exactly. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say Jesus died. After his body passed, he went down to the Underworld to preach the Gospel....

Understanding his sacrifice—the actual way he was sacrificed—is this incredibly intense initiation. Out of a thousand people on this forum, maybe three or four actually get it.

Would you mind listing those three or four users? Thanks! 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:The Underworld? I wonder how far beneath the surface that actually is. 😁
Technically, the term "Underworld" isn't really a part of Christian belief; it’s more rooted in Ancient Egyptian or Greek mythology.

Would you mind listing those three or four users? Thanks! 🙂

The Underworld is basically just Heaven’s prison cell—and we’re the ones living in the basement. It's the bottom of the barrel. You look at someone like Muhammad, for instance—he went straight to the absolute bottom to wait for his inspiration.

rowdyhawk10 said:The Underworld? I wonder how far beneath the surface that actually is. 😁
Technically, the term "Underworld" isn't really a part of Christian belief; it’s more rooted in Ancient Egyptian or Greek mythology.

Would you mind listing those three or four users? Thanks! 🙂

Everything basically traces back to Egypt...
When ideas emanate from a source, they don't just vanish; they get refined, developed, and evolved.
So, Osiris—the god of the Underworld who holds the keys—becomes someone else under a different name, like the one in Revelation who holds the keys to Death and the Underworld.

18 And He lives! I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of Death and the Underworld.
Revelation chapter 1

steelgardener22 said:The Underworld is basically just Heaven’s prison cell—and we’re the ones living in the basement. It's the bottom of the barrel. You look at someone like Muhammad, for instance—he went straight to the absolute bottom to wait for his inspiration.

If Muhammad is indeed in the Underworld, then he isn't far from the one who holds the keys to that realm, just as it’s written in Revelation.
So, you really have nothing to worry about..

Dennis Moore4 said:If Muhammad is indeed in the Underworld, then he isn't far from the one who holds the keys to that realm, just as it’s written in Revelation.
So, you really have nothing to worry about..

Does anyone actually know what the Antichrist will look like when he shows up right before the end of the world?

Rachel Taylor2 said:Does anyone actually know what the Antichrist will look like when he shows up right before the end of the world?

So, is it a one-eyed monster or what???
And did you even grasp what I was getting at with my previous point??
The Underworld and the gatekeeper??

Dennis Moore4 said:So, is it a one-eyed monster or what???
And did you even grasp what I was getting at with my previous point??
The Underworld and the gatekeeper??

If that’s where you're headed with this, then it can't be Muhammad, right?😁 Or am I missing something?

Rachel Taylor2 said:If that’s where you're headed with this, then it can't be Muhammad, right?😁 Or am I missing something?

You clearly haven't read the material properly...

Dennis Moore4 said:You clearly haven't read the material properly...

Look, I'm not trying to read your mind here, just explain yourself.😁

Rachel Taylor2 said:Look, I'm not trying to read your mind here, just explain yourself.😁

I actually included specific page references in the Bible above when I was responding to another user earlier in this thread.
If you actually want to understand the point, just follow the logic from the very beginning...