Why did Jesus HAVE to die?

[FK]

maybe i know about the spirit, maybe i dont. but i dont regard believers as stupid. i'd like to see you and FK quote it. you always go this direction because its easier than to give a straight answer to my questions.

since naapil na man sab ako pangalan dinhi. mo apil na lang sab ko.

r/brey you have been given answers... pero either wala ka kasabot or dili ka mo dawat sa answer (kay for you it's funny, it's ridiculous... ingna ko kong sayop ko, and please be honest with yourself, don't try to pretend you don't look down on people). I don't think you considered believers as Stupid, you just consider them blinded fanatics.

so as what vern says... this debate is going no where, coz believers answers are not acceptable/wrong.

hanggang dito na lang... If you really want correct answers, tubaga ang imong kaugalingong pangutana.

r/brey good luck with your boring life.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

this is hilarious. i dont understand why you all take it out on "man" authors. all books in the world are produced by man, not animals or insects. that doesn't really mean they're all wrong. all you're doing is trying to weasle out of defending your most holiest of holies sacred book.

quote me again , since when I defended the BIBLE which is the holiest of holies of sacred book thru its ACCURACY and RELIABILITY . I commented that when you say the BIBLE has a lot of discrepancies , provide a WEBSITE , BOOK , etc that is less than perfect or pefect at all , then I can throw away my BIBLE and start reading your perfect research.

springfield, honestly, i dont understand any of the sentences you've written. they don't make sense, at all...

Not honestly ...but frankly , maybe you dont want to comprehend or understand it because you cant accept it . You asked a question that is neither right or wrong so you expect a right answer ? That answer would also be neither right or wrong also ..... it becomes right or wrong depending how you percept it .

how do you decide which is literal in the bible and which is not? theres a really fine line between em. i've had an argument about this with my re-ed teacher, and she folded, she weasled out...

Then that makes you CLOSEMINDED because you based your understanding on what my opinions are . What I think and not decide the literal parts of the bible maybe factual to n'gel or FK and vice versa . Every person is different physically and mentally and specially spiritually . You are trying to shell out that you being an ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC are right and Christians are wrong . Just because your Re-ed teacher weasled out and folded does not justify you as right nor wrong , have you got a chance a chance to argue with the INC people about the bible?? Partida pa na kay di pa na sila Katoliko if thats the case of your understanding and higher learning .

[gareb]

do you also hate your father?

you assume too much. the answer is no. i love my father and would do all i can to protect him. that applies to both parents.

kids. off with these off topic posts. STICK TO THE TOPIC

consider yourselves warned.

[dexterdal]

A major problem exists today in the doctrine of grace. Perhaps much of the liberal Protestant discomfort with the theology of grace, as it is found in Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, John, Hebrews and so on, is the way it is linked to the teaching that Jesus died for us and for our sins (Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3) and as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 4:10). If we preach the grace of God, and derive our personal and social ethic from it, are we thereby implicated in a “retributive� doctrine about a God who insists on being paid in blood as the price of grace? Does grace, then, cease to be grace?

Without doubt, Jesus died because of the way he lived that is, he died a political death, which was the cost of his loyalty to God and his courageous solidarity with the poor and sinners. It was a vicious and brutal act of political violence. No theory of atonement should be allowed to obscure the human hatred and cruelty that put Jesus on the cross. But just what is the connection between Jesus' cross and the extravagant grace of God about which he spoke with such passion? What does it mean to say that the Son of Man “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many� (Mark 10:45); that God “did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us� (Rom. 8:32)? Is Jesus indeed the “merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, [who made] an atonement for our sins� (Heb. 2:17)? Texts of this kind are so ubiquitous in the New Testament that they cannot possibly be ignored or discarded. Since it is impossible here to offer a detailed exegesis of all these texts, my intention is to consider the basic concept of the sacrifice of Christ, and its viability today.

To appreciate these texts, we must know something of their conceptual background for the early Christians. First, it is evident that the earliest Christians interpreted the event of Jesus in terms of the categories available to them, and sacrifice was a major part of their tradition. Blood sacrifice was part of many ancient religious traditions as a means of “propitiation� (appeasement) of an angry deity and of “expiation� (cleansing the stain or impurity of sin). For the Jews, blood had the power of expiation “because the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement…for, as life, it is blood that makes atonement� (Lev. 17:11-12). The causal connection between sin and resulting calamities was thought to be broken by the bloody sacrifice of animals, and sometimes other offerings as well. In addition to blood sacrifices, the scapegoat ritual of the Day of Atonement symbolically placed the sins of the people on the head of a goat, which was then driven into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the people (Lev. 16: 20-22). Sacrifice could be a sacramental indication of moral seriousness, expressing thanksgiving (Lev. 7:11-15), or genuine repentance and commitment to God's will. Or it could be part of a taboo mentality, a system of self-protection for the individual or the community from the effects of defilement.

Aside from ritual sacrifice as such, but closely related conceptually, was the belief that innocent suffering and death had atoning power for the people. This concept appears in the famous servant song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12: “He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole…he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.� We need not enter the long debate about the identity of the servant. The text was used by the first Christians to interpret the death of Jesus (for example, Matt. 8:17; Luke 22:37; 1 Pet. 2:24; Acts 8:32). We also find background to New Testament concepts of atonement in Jewish literature contemporary with Paul (first century CE). In 4 Maccabees, a dying martyr prays: “Be merciful to your people and let our punishment be a satisfaction on their behalf. Make my blood their purification, and take my life as ransom for theirs� (4 Macc. 6:28-29). “Through the blood of those righteous ones and through the propitiation of their death, the divine Providence rescued Israel� (4 Macc.17:22). Such concepts provide the conceptual equipment for Paul's declaration that we are “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith� (Rom. 3:25) and the teaching of Hebrews that “Christ…through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God� (Heb. 9:14).

These thoughts are not without human nobility of spirit. But what do they say about God? Is God pleased and satisfied by human violence? Will God forgive only if someone dies?

[FK]

do you also hate your father?

you assume too much. the answer is no. i love my father and would do all i can to protect him. that applies to both parents.

kids. off with these off topic posts. STICK TO THE TOPIC

consider yourselves warned.

O.T. sorry sir og medyo na OT... wa ko ni assume (mura ikaw moy ni assume nga ni-assume ko), if ni assume pa ko, wala na lang onta ko nangotana.

yup... we should stick to the topic, why Jesus have to die... dili kong ni exist ba siya o wala.

[r/brey]

Not honestly ...but frankly , maybe you dont want to comprehend or understand it because you cant accept it . You asked a question that is neither right or wrong so you expect a right answer ? That answer would also be neither right or wrong also ..... it becomes right or wrong depending how you percept it .

springfield, no offense, but its your grammar. duh?

FK, you generalize way too much. you cant answer the questions because you cant. pure and simple. maybe you can answer it with the cliches like "faith" and "miracles" and all those stuff you throw around. but as i said, thats not how you argue with non-believers. we DONT CARE about that. we don't think your god exists or any other religion's god for that matter. so you gotta step out of the dogmatic way and go back to the roots...

but then again, maybe i ask questions that cant really be answered. the biq questions in life. i dont expect any of you to answer it or know it even. questions i cant even answer myself.

[tarsus]

died to unite his people against rome.

[tolstoi]

^pathetic

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

springfield, no offense, but its your grammar. duh?

That just proves that you cant stick to deal w/ it because you rely on excuses like GRAMMAR and PLAYING with WORDS for the simple reason of refusal and cannot accept what was thrown back to you .

Remember when I quoted you about " how about the reliability of the website ? " You ended up into a long journey of bullcrap then finished it with GRAMMAR and PLAYING with WORDS .... how exciting of a " good " AGNOSTIC / ATHEIST arguing machine that toppled the re-ed teacher .




Going back to the topic ..... My answer would be , REDEMPTION from SINS .

[r/brey]

its not an EXCUSE. arguing with bad grammar is BAD. it doesnt present yourself well, and with that comes your credibility.

what was thrown back at me? really? faith and holy spirit and all that usual stuff you always use? hit me with something hard and then maybe i'll move a bit, but that? forget it.

Remember when I quoted you about " how about the reliability of the website ? " You ended up into a long journey of bullcrap then finished it with GRAMMAR and PLAYING with WORDS .... how exciting of a " good " AGNOSTIC / ATHEIST arguing machine that toppled the re-ed teacher .

quote it first before making useless statements. hahahha. GRAMMAR and PLAYING with words? hahaha. i'm certain i only used GRAMMAR once in this thread, and that was when i was insulting your mediocre GRAMMAR.