Why did Jesus cried out to the Lord on the cross when he knew very well that it had to happen in order that the Scripture could be fulfilled ?

Because he was human. It is not easy to die. He expressed himself as any human would. He also showed us the meaning of surrender when he said "into your hands I commend my spirit." So ultimately he understood that God's plan is the only plan that truly matters.

Yes Rusty answers well.
Also consider this peters01alm... Jesus said "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" See God was with Jesus always during His time on earth. God had to turn away so that Jesus could die. Jesus felt that difference. God was with Him then He wasn't. It's a big difference, one in which Jesus had never felt before and so it is understandable that He felt that way and cried out. Who wouldn't?

The real person that the "Jesus Christ" of Paul and other religious revisionists was modeled after taught that the *Kingdom of Heaven* was on earth! He was a Jewish man, a teacher on spiritual matters TO JEWS. He did not want to start a new religion, Paul did!

His remarks on the cross are of the most poignant in human history...

Because he was human. It is not easy to die. He expressed himself as any human would. He also showed us the meaning of surrender when he said "into your hands I commend my spirit." So ultimately he understood that God's plan is the only plan that truely matters.
Lets break it down into 5 points
1. was Jesus really human in the many senses that we understand humanity today? Is he not a member of the Holy Trinity ? I mean the miraculous events associated with Him should not be only understood as mere symbolism but they could have actually happened in reality... I guess our Saviour had a divine Soul in a Human body.

2. it may be easy to die , it does not have to be a terrible experience.
3. Being the son of a virgin and bred by a carpenter he could have had an opportunity to " express" himself in remarkable human ways - He Himself was a carpenter until 3 years before His death.
4. surrender to whom God or the Roman soldiers ?
5. Jesus knew and understood God's plan even before His mother knew she was pregnant with the Son of God - HOLY TRINITY.

Yes Rusty answers well.
God was with Him then He wasn't. It's a big difference, one in which Jesus had never felt before and so it is understandable that He felt that way and cried out. Who wouldn't?
It is understandable that any normal human being would have felt the pain and asked for God's intervention. That God at any point / rate abondened His only begotten Son to the mercy of the Roman soldiers is a little tricky because He ( God ) and Jesus together planned the events of that day. In order that you and I could be saved from eternal sin. I think Jesus never really told anyone why He said those words. In fact anyone who thought and rightly believed that He was Joseph's son might have not understood the real meaning of the words.

O, now you've got me going (metaphysically speaking).
Jesus quoted prophetic scriptures that he believed he was fulfilling.
On the cross, his 'My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me' is direct
From Psalm 22. It was common practice to refer to the meaning of a
Familiar passage of scripture by means of its first phrase.
In addition, the evidence is that he was reciting the whole Psalm,
Perhaps as a kind of mantra to keep focused on the Father despite
Feeling separated. Matthew 27:45 indicates via 'darkness' the
Commencement of the judgement/separation. Verse 46 is his loud (public)
Utterance, the "My God!...". The next verses indicate a period
Before his physical death. Verse 50 "Jesus cried out again with a loud
voice, and then yielded up his spirit".
I think that is amplified by John 19:28-30. Verse 30 "It is finished"
(tetelestai in greek, could also be interpreted in the middle voice
Rather than the passive, "He has accomplished it Himself, fully")...
Which is quoting the final verse of Psalm 22: 31B. From verse 22
Onward, that Psalm had switched from despair to faith, hope, and
victory.
A curious person might wonder why the full story is split between two
Accounts, Matthew and John. A practical note is that John happened to
Be the closest to Jesus at the cross (John19:26)... so that final
Utterance, perhaps less distinct due to physical exhaustion, might have
Been understood only to him.
Finally, back in Matthew27:51, we see the symbol of separation between
God and man being removed (the curtain in the temple barring entrance
To the Holy-of-Holies). This is the accomplishment of the sacrifice.
And next, resurrection of the dead. Clear enough symbologies.

There are numerous documented examples of humans who have died in what we would assume to be painful ways, yet because of their faith (or some other spiritual grace or ability of which we normals are ignorant) they have not suffered as we would.
I think it is safe to assume that Jesus would be chief amongst this category of saints.

Moreover, an orthodox interpretation assumes that the 'blood of Christ that
Cleanses from all sin' was not his literal physical blood being
Spilled... his throat was not slit like the old jewish animal
Sacrifices, he did not bleed to death... by analogy, his death
Sacrifice occurred on the spiritual level. Blood is a symbol of
Life-Essence, and so his spiritual death on the cross is equivalent to
Separation-from-TheLifeSource, i.e. God-the-Father. (only a minority of
Very literalminded fundamentalists think it is talking about physical
Blood). My contemplations have been to attempt to understand something
More of the meaning/purpose of 'sacrifice' at that spiritual level.

OK, now 'he is finished' :-) . Thanks for your interest!
THOMAS

why did Jesus cried out to the Lord on the cross when he knew very well that it had to happen in order that the Scripture could be fulfilled ?

He was reminding the Jews of the prophecy that the Messiah must die:

Matthew 16 21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

And He did so by quoting a famous Psalm:

Psalms 21 2 O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.

Note how the Psalm goes on to describe Jesus' passion:

17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. 19 They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. 20 But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me; look towards my defence.

Sincerely,

So , the physical death was not important but the purpose thereof ?

O, now you've got me going (metaphysically speaking).
Jesus quoted prophetic scriptures that he believed he was fulfilling.
On the cross, his 'My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me' is direct
from Psalm 22. It was common practice to refer to the meaning of a
familiar passage of scripture by means of its first phrase.
In addition, the evidence is that he was reciting the whole Psalm,
perhaps as a kind of mantra to keep focussed on the Father despite
feeling separated. Matthew 27:45 indicates via 'darkness' the
commencement of the judgement/separation. Verse 46 is his loud (public)
utterance, the "My God!...". The next verses indicate a period of time
before his physical death. Verse 50 "Jesus cried out again with a loud
voice, and then yielded up his spirit".
I think that is amplified by John 19:28-30. Verse 30 "It is finished"
(tetelestai in greek, could also be interpreted in the middle voice
rather than the passive, "He has accomplished it Himself, fully") ...
which is quoting the final verse of Psalm 22: 31B. From verse 22
onward, that Psalm had switched from despair to faith, hope, and
victory.
A curious person might wonder why the full story is split between two
accounts, Matthew and John. A practical note is that John happened to
be the closest to Jesus at the cross (John19:26)... so that final
utterance, perhaps less distinct due to physical exhaustion, might have
been understood only to him.
Finally, back in Matthew27:51, we see the symbol of separation between
God and man being removed (the curtain in the temple barring entrance
to the Holy-of-Holies). This is the accomplishment of the sacrifice.
And next, resurrection of the dead. Clear enough symbologies.

There are numerous documented examples of humans who have died in what we would assume to be painful ways, yet because of their faith (or some other spiritual grace or ability of which we normals are ignorant) they have not suffered as we would.
I think it is safe to assume that Jesus would be chief amongst this category of saints.

Moreover, an orthodox interpretation assumes that the 'blood of Christ that
cleanses from all sin' was not his literal physical blood being
spilled... his throat was not slit like the old jewish animal
sacrifices, he did not bleed to death... by analogy, his death
sacrifice occured on the spiritual level. Blood is a symbol of
Life-Essence, and so his spiritual death on the cross is equivalent to
Separation-from-TheLifeSource, ie God-the-Father. (only a minority of
very literalminded fundamentalists think it is talking about physical
blood). My contemplations have been to attempt to understand something
more of the meaning/purpose of 'sacrifice' at that spiritual level.

OK, now 'he is finished' :-) . Thanks for your interest!
THOMAS

Excellent! Is there a book to which you could refer me?

Sincerely,

God spared Abraham of sacrificing his son. Maybe Jesus thought they He too would be spared.

That 's possible , if your jesus was just another jewish preacher who did not descend onto this earth with a special divine mission - to save all humanity from eternal sin.

Jesus was still human in earthly form. He was suffering from all the sin, every sin we have and every sin not even committed yet were all put upon him, The pain must have been unbearable. And in the end, we can try to over think and study things, the fact we should remember is that he did die and rise from the dead, and that it was that event that has saved us from our sins by our trust and faith in him. So often we have to remember the event, not worry about how it could have been or try to anything more than having faith in it.

Jesus was still human in earthly form.
He could still have looked , acted , behaved - did He marry anybody/anything ?- and of course died human to humans who witnessed it all. Some sources , the Bible in particular , teaches us that He did not have a human father. Furthermore , certain critics claim that Mary was and remained a VIRGIN after Jesus's birth:confused:

Because he was human. It is not easy to die. He expressed himself as any human would. He also showed us the meaning of surrender when he said "into your hands I commend my spirit." So ultimately he understood that God's plan is the only plan that truely matters.

I thought Jesus was God?

[QUOTE= Furthermore , certain critics claim that Mary was and remained a VIRGIN after Jesus's birth:confused:[/QUOTE]

Mark 3:31-32
Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call Him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

He also had sisters, I'll look for the scripture.

Mark 6:1-3
Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples... Many who heard Him were amazed.

"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given Him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

He cried out when God had removed His presence from Jesus and placed our sins full on Him.

[QUOTE=Choux]The real person that the "Jesus Christ" of Paul and other religious revisionists was modeled after taught that the *Kingdom of Heaven* was on earth! He was a Jewish man, a teacher on spiritual matters TO JEWS. He did not want to start a new religion, Paul did!

I have seen this before, but is is simply not so.
1. Jesus did not say that the Kingdom of Heaven WAS on Earth. If so, why did He teach to pray for that Kingdom to come? That Kingdom will be on Earth when Jesus returns and rules as King.

Here is what He said:

Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Not within the Pharisees, but within the believers.)
(KJV)

2. Paul did not start a new religion.

Gal 2:1-2
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
(KJV)

Gal 2:6-7
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(KJV)

Paul had a conference with the Elders at Jeursalem to determine if he was preaching the same gospel that they were. He was!

Even the Apostle Peter recognized the writings of Paul as being "scripture".

2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

Note the comparison that Peter makes between Paul's writings and "OTHER scriptkures.

It is absured to claim that Paul was a revisionist and detached from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now how did that smiley get in there?

Jesus was still human in earthly form.
He could still have looked , acted , behaved - did He marry anybody/anything ?- and of course died human to humans who witnessed it all. Some sources , the Bible in particular , teaches us that He did not have a human father. Furthermore , certain critics claim that Mary was and remained a VIRGIN after Jesus's birth:confused:


We do not know if he got married or not, there is no mention of him getting married, so it is doubtful, If he did, that would not change his purpose and message.

True he had no human father, we also do not know for sure if Mary and Josehp ever had sex after Jesus birth, one would assume ( guess ) that they did, as it does speak of Jesus brothers and sisters, ( some say this was Josephs childrn from an earlier marriage, but they are not mentioned in the early stories of jesus birth either.( But in the aspect of the bible, it does not matter if she did or if she did not, since it is not her but Jesus that the message is about

We do not know if he got married or not, there is no mention of him getting married, so it is doubtful, If he did, that would not change his purpose and message.

True he had no human father, we also do not know for sure if Mary and Josehp ever had sex after Jesus birth, one would assume ( guess ) that they did, as it does speak of Jesus brothers and sisters, ( some say this was Josephs childrn from an earlier marriage, but they are not mentioned in the early stories of jesus birth either.( But in the aspect of the bible, it does not matter if she did or if she did not, since it is not her but Jesus that the message is about

Are we talking about a historical Jesus or a hypothetical one here. If you answered historical then why would the information surrounding such a respectable man's daily life be so sketchy ? We can't just assume premises for the sake of a desirable conclusion ! I mean only the intellect like yourself seem to understand the HIDDEN messages that form the bulk of the 4 Gospels. HELP me TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS SO ? I should or at least anyone should be able to understand everything that's in the Bible without having to got to college first. Paul does not seem to refer to Jesus as a historical fact but only that God showed him His Love for mankind through the Spiritual Jesus. I stand to be corrected on these folks !

Jesus after his birth to a virgin was in human form, he felt pain, he felt hunger, and he felt all the temptations man feels.

So on the cross while his spirit was God, his body was human. And the Romans were very good at their jobs at giving pain, and I understand from science studies, death on a cross would be a hard death.

Also what those non or anti christian forget is that beyond the earthly pain of death, his death also took on all of the pain of all of the sins of all people, not just those of that day but all sins forever.
So he felt the pain of murder, pain of the theft all the pain of ever sin.
The horror of that pain is not even possible to imagine.

The reason for his death is the need to sacrifice for our sins, in the old testement the need was for a bull or a lamb or a bird to die for the sins we did that year. But now because of Christs dead for us, all we need to do is claim his death for our sins.

The reason for his death is the need to sacrifice for our sins, in the old testement the need was for a bull or a lamb or a bird to die for the sins we did that year. But now because of Christs dead for us, all we need to do is claim his death for our sins.

Serious question, because I know believers always think us non-believers are being sarcastic. But I don't mean this as disrespectful at all.

Why do you suppose God has such a fixation with blood, torture and sacrifice? Doesn't that seem a little morbid to you? I mean, why not just forgive our sins? He's God after all. Do you think that's beyond His capabilities? Why send Himself down to earth to be tortured?

Also, if Jesus HAD to be tortured so we could be forgiven, then what do you suppose would have happened if Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be spared instead of executed? Now would the entirety of humanity be unable to go to heaven? Or do you think Ponius Pilate was set up by God? Lastly, I'm genuinely curious if you think about any of this stuff at all, or just believe it carte blanche?

Lob,
God does not have a fixation with blood, torture or sacrifice, he just does nothing about those things (okay so that was a cheap shot) truth is, man has the fixation. God never required sacrifice, he required mercy, those were Jesus’ words not my own. Jesus quoted the Hebrew text of Hosea where God supposedly demands acknowledgment instead of sacrifice. It is absolutely absurd in the light of Jesus’ words and use of that scripture to place Jesus as a sacrifice for sin. Truth is they do not know their bible well, they use it to defend their beliefs instead of trying to understand them. Jesus is in there but badly misrepresented by the Apostolic processes.

Most Christians whether Protestant or Catholic have been sold a bad bill of goods, they have turned their brains off and accepted dogma for truth, they are good at justifying what they believe despite the truth. They truly think about these things but have been conditioned, and socialized into their religion. Believing the right thing is made conditional upon their acceptance from their families and social groups. It is dysfunctional as all get out and hypocritical to the bone but they cannot see it. I have met a few Christians who have taken the time to deconstruct and reconstruct, those guys are good. I have learned a lot from them. Jesus is pretty cool once you get to know him, and I don’t mean that in some weird holy spirit/metaphysical way. You just have to learn to read between the lines.

Peace.

Relevant good questions there! I was bothered by the one about the crucifixion because I think it also forms one of the pillars of modern christianity

So on the cross while his spirit was God, his body was human. And the Romans were very good at thier jobs at giving pain, and I understand from science studies, death on a cross would be a hard death.
.

The Romans did not like the trouble makers either especially in an important city like Jerusalem. Some scholarly sources tell us that the Romans would respond with extreme violence to anyone who seemed to disrupt public peace and that's what happened to Jesus when He visited the temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus is pretty cool once you get to know him, and I don’t mean that in some weird holy spirit/metaphysical way. You just have to learn to read between the lines.


This is very exiting! I do not mean this in a disrespectable manner or anything of that sort but does he drive a sexy sports car and maybe smokes Cuban cigars ? Did you also went to go college to learn the art of reading between the lines. I wish I could see the world through your eyes ! Can you please elaborate on this as its sounds pretty cool ! :cool:

Serious question, because I know believers always think us non-believers are being sarcastic. But I don't mean this as disrespectful at all.

Why do you suppose God has such a fixation with blood, torture and sacrifice? Doesn't that seem a little morbid to you? I mean, why not just forgive our sins? He's God after all. Do you think that's beyond His capabilities? Why send Himself down to earth to be tortured?

Also, if Jesus HAD to be tortured so we could be forgiven, then what do you suppose would have happened if Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be spared instead of executed? Now would the entirety of humanity be unable to go to heaven? Or do you think Ponius Pilate was set up by God? Lastly, I'm genuinely curious if you think about any of this stuff at all, or just believe it carte blanche?

No problem I love serious questions and to be honest, it is merely because that is the way God is. Sorry, part of the issues is that belief and accepting God is done by accepting God. The bible only tells us what God requires, not why. I do beelive that all things were made to happen, the bible tells us that the blind man was blind so that the glory of God would be shown. So I believe this time and place ( why was it not 1000 years earlier, or 1000 years latter ) so the time and place in my opinoin ( and again it is merely mine) is that yes, all things were put into place so that it would all happen according to scripture.

I don't believe there was the actual need for the torture of Christ, that sadly was just part of the way Romans did things at the time. But then do our or other governments do a lot less in their own ways today to political or army enemies?

The real issue was that the punishment was to be death, and perhaps it was done as a way that people of that time could and would understand.
As it was all under the old testement ( remember Christ came during the old testment law and it was only after his death that the issues charged from the agreement of the old testment to a new agreement)

So by sending his Son, he did not require the death of any other person or our own for it.

The Romans did not like the trouble makers either especially in an important city like Jerusalem. Some scholarly sources tell us that the Romans would respond with extreme violence to anyone who seemed to disrupt public peace and that's what happened to Jesus when He visited the temple in Jerusalem.

My understanding is that the Romans were very very good at torture and death. And to control the population punishment was fast and hard.

I think Jesus would have drove a compact if he were here today, not one to go to the extreme.

I think Jesus would have drove a compact if he were here today, not one to go to the extreme.

You mean He is not HERE today ? Wow this is something else now ! Lets get it on!

Yes, Satan as the prince of the earth has his way with most so that is why many today do have an attitude to "get it on" and don't want to follow the morals of God's law.

He is here in Spirit with all the beleivers, even the beleivers that do drive sports car

Seriously ? I hope the Spiritual part is true because then I can see why so many wannabe christians go through all the pain to try and understand the man Jesus. Is it not possible then that the story of crucifixion is only a parable like so many others and that we should not crack our brains but just go with the real meaning thereof ?

The story of the crucifixion is not a parable, it is the main theme of the entire bible, the OT builds up to it, and the NT proclaims it.

But now since Christ lives in and with all of us beleivers, you can buy me that convertible and I will drive it, so Christ can be in it also,

Why do you suppose God has such a fixation with blood, torture and sacrifice? Doesn't that seem a little morbid to you? I mean, why not just forgive our sins? He's God after all. Do you think that's beyond His capabilities? Why send Himself down to earth to be tortured?
You're spot on here. The whole idea of sacrificial death as being necessary for reconciliation with God is perverse. It was Jesus' LIFE that showed us the Father and reconciled us to him. His death was the natural result of human cruelty and hate, nothing more.

You're spot on here. The whole idea of sacrificial death as being necessary for reconciliation with God is perverse. It was Jesus' LIFE that showed us the Father and reconciled us to him. His death was the natural result of human cruelty and hate, nothing more.

Any sources you consulted that you could refer me to ? It seems we are dealing with dimensions here. If Jesus really asked God to rescue Him from these acts of human brutality then it is safe to conclude that He was not a descendant of God and could only have been a prophet like many who came before Him. My goodness I'm not saying that He prophecised about the messiah or anything , I heard HE mentioned some stuff about the end of the current epoch ! Mind boggling stuff I mean, or yes maybe the messiah will descend from the heavens in our lifetime! 2012 , yes the well informed say THINGS unseen in this world before will happen , coincidence ?

The story of the crucifixion is not a parable, it is the main theme of the entire bible, the OT builds up to it, and the NT proclaims it.


I've always suspected that the crucifixion was indeed the main theme and set out to try and gather the whole truth around that crucial event in Jesus life. If the Roman soldiers acted otherwise and saved Him , would we even be having this thread ? What would have happened to all those prophecies we find in the OT ?


But now since Christ lives in and with all of us beleivers, you can buy me that convertable and I will drive it, so Christ can be in it also,


MARK . MATTHEW, LUKE AND JOHN 'S Jesus would have refused such luxury since He was a man with a humble disposition and always stood by the poor and oppressed.

Needs to put more details thanks

I have no doubt that if there were cigars in the first century Jesus would have been a smoker of the best cuban cigars hand rolled off the thighs of the finest Cuban women... Only, it wouldn't have been Cuba back then:D

Jesus would have ridden a horse like John Wayne, ride a motorcycle like Steve McQueen, and driven a car like Morgan Freeman.

Smiles everyone, smiles!

Scotty

any sources you consulted that you could refer me to ?
Yes, there are sources that support this view e.g. The Urantia Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book), but that's not why I believe it. There are sources to support all kinds of views. What it comes down to for me is what kind of God am I willing to believe in. A God who demands the suffering and death of an innocent being in order to be reconciled to His children is not one I am willing to accept. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I can live with that.

That God would demand sacrifice is absurd, not to mention biblically inaccurate. The Abramic tradition in which the sacrificial paradigm emerges is challenged early on in the Hebrew Scriptures and is echoed in the person of Jesus.

First in Hosea where God “says”, “ I desire mercy and acknowledgement not sacrifice.” (and you should hear the justifications Christians to ignore this obviousness), then when Jesus tells the Pharisees to go learn what that saying means in the Matthew text, I think (it may have been Mark. I get the M's confused from time to time).

The religious have always struggled to give up sacrifice to the divine throughout history and Christians both Protestant and Catholic are severely behind the times in their theology and understanding of their own Scripture. Jesus as a sacrifice is another example of how his apostles tried to make sense of his death, and give it more meaning. We do this at every funeral, we make a person into something bigger than life in the retelling of their life story. Why is it so surprising that the apostles would do the same? The answer is, because it conflicts with what people WANT to believe.

Ordinary, it seems you are heading down a similar path, it is just a different road, one of your own choosing. Determining what kind of God one is willing to believe in, is no different than what the Christians are doing.

One does not get to pick the aspects of God in which they accept and do not accept. It is the same mistake that most religious people make when they make belief synonymous with faith. Believing that something is true, doesn't make it true, just like you can't accept a thing into truth. God is what it is, the best we can do is learn as much as we can about it, live according to that understanding and deny the absurdities. There is the truth and the rest is all speculation.

For what it is worth (admittedly little) I have found that intuition is a good tool to use when attempting the consideration of the otherness (divine/God) of our physical universe.

Peace,
Scotty

That God would demand sacrifice is absurd, not to mention biblically inaccurate. The Abramic tradition in which the sacrificial paradigm emerges is challenged early on in the Hebrew Scriptures and is echoed in the person of Jesus.
Yes, for example:

What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? Says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation-- I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. -- Isaiah 1:11-17
And,

I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. -- Amos 5:21-24
And,

"With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? -- Micah 6:1-4, 6-8
And,

[Jesus said,] "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless." -- Matthew 12:7

Jesus as a sacrifice is another example of how his apostles tried to make sense of his death, and give it more meaning.
And to make Jesus' life and mission fit within the limits of the Old Testament idea of "The Messiah" in order to make his teachings and mission more acceptable to and compatible with the culture of his birth. Unfortunately, this ploy failed to convince the Jews and misrepresented his mission to the rest of the world.


Ordinary, it seems you are heading down a similar path, it is just a different road, one of your own choosing. Determining what kind of God one is willing to believe in, is no different than what the Christians are doing.
You're absolutely right. The difference is that they usually deny that the choice is theirs. They'd rather feel compelled by the Bible.

One does not get to pick the aspects of God in which they accept and do not accept.
Oh, but one does. One not only GETS to choose, one MUST choose. Choose your inspiration, choose your vision, choose your holy book, choose your interpretation. It's unavoidable.

For what it is worth (admittedly little) I have found that intuition is a good tool to use when attempting the consideration of the otherness (divine/God) of our physical universe.
Why would you say that what you have found is worth little? I agree that intuition is a useful tool, but I don't understand what you mean by "the otherness (divine/God) of our physical universe".

Yes, there are sources that support this view e.g., The Urantia Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book), but that's not why I believe it. There are sources to support all kinds of views. What it comes down to for me is what kind of God am I willing to believe in. A God who demands the suffering and death of an innocent being in order to be reconciled to His children is not one I am willing to accept. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I can live with that.

The question of suffering. It is truly an important question. Why does a good God permit the suffering of innocent beings?

Like you, I once rejected God because of this idea, that God should not permit any innocent people to suffer. However, I had to face facts.

1. I became convinced that God exists.
2. I am convinced that God is good.
3. It is obvious that suffering exists.

Therefore, either God exists, He is good and there is no meaning to suffering in the world or...

God exists, God is good and there is meaning to suffering in the world.

If there were no meaning to suffering in the world, if suffering were useless, then I could not see God being good. But if suffering is useful, if suffering is not without meaning, then it must be because God is good.

1 Peter 4 1 Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sins:

Note the goodness of God. Not only does He instruct us to suffer to do away with sin, but He also suffered to give us an example to follow in His footsteps:

1 Peter 2 21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

How many times have you met people who tell you that you must give 110% for their project, but they themselves don't get dirty at all for the same cause. But God is not that way.

So why do we suffer?

Well, our parents rejected God's goodness. Everyone seems to forget that Adam and Eve were born with every privilege. But they decided to accept Satan's word over God's Word. And Satan is not good. He doesn't care if we suffer needlessly. He wants us to suffer needlessly. Those who are under his influence frequently do suffer needlessly and if they don't turn to God during that suffering, they lose their soul as well.

2 Timothy 2 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.

Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.


Sincerely,

De Maria

seriously ? i hope the Spiritual part is true because then i can see why so many wannabe christians go through all the pain to try and understand the man Jesus. Is it not possible then that the story of crucifixion is only a parable like so many others and that we should not crack our brains but just go with the real meaning thereof ?

No, it is not a parable. But it is an "archetype".

An archetype is a:
A symbol, usually an image, which recurs often enough in literature to be recognizable as an element of one's literary experience as a whole.
A Glossary of Literary Criticism (http://www.sil.org/~radneyr/humanities/litcrit/gloss.htm)

The first sin by Adam and Eve was their rejection of eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and preferring the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Tree of Life is, of course, a symbol of the Cross wherein the Son of God was hung. It is this fruit which we eat:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Melchizedek served a sacrifice of bread and wine to Abraham:
Genesis 14 18 But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

Jesus also provided this sacrifice:
1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Abraham offered his son as sacrifice to God, but God did not permit it. God then prophecied that He would provide the sacrifice:
Genesis 22 6 And he took the wood for the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son: and he himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. And as they two went on together, 7 Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust? 8 And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.


John 1 29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

Note how the son carried the wood of his own sacrifice on his back:

John 19 17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha.

Note that God would not permit Abraham to sacrifice his son...

Genesis 22 9 And they came to the place which God had shown him, where he built an altar, and laid the wood in order upon it: and when he had bound Isaac his son, he laid him on the altar upon the pile of wood. 10 And he put forth his hand and took the sword, to sacrifice his son. 11 And behold an angel of the Lord from heaven called to him, saying: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. 12 And he said to him: Lay not thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou any thing to him: now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake. 13 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. 14 And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.


But God so loved the world...

John 3 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

And the blood of the lamb marks the doorposts of those whom God will save:

Exodus 12 6 And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce.... 13 And the blood shall be unto you for a sign in the houses where you shall be: and I shall see the blood, and shall pass over you: and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I shall strike the land of Egypt.

And God still marks us with the Blood of the Lamb:

1 Corinthians 5 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

So, the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is not a parable. But God prepared His People for this sacrifice a long time ago:

1 Peter 2 24 Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

Isaias 53 5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The question of suffering. It is truly an important question. Why does a good God permit the suffering of innocent beings?
I suppose the question of why God permits suffering is important, but the present discussion is about whether God requires either suffering or death as a condition of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Like you, I once rejected God because of this idea, that God should not permit any innocent people to suffer.
I don't "reject God" because he permits innocent people to suffer. I reject the idea that God requires either death or suffering as a condition of reconciliation.

scottyv agrees: Ordinary, you can choose but it doesn't change the nature of God and when you choose you only accept certain aspects of God while closing off the avenues of the divine experience
Yes, it's true that I only accept certain aspects of God as described in the Bible or any other holy book. I'm quite willing to live without the "avenues of the divine experience" that depend on the death of an innocent being as a condition of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I suppose the question of why God permits suffering is important, but the present discussion is about whether God requires either suffering or death as a condition of forgiveness and reconciliation.

So, are you saying my input is not welcome?

Yet it seems to me my response is a direct answer as to "whether" God requires either suffering or death as a condition of forgiveness and reconciliation.

My response is that, "No God does not require it. Satan does. But God permits it in order to bring about a greater good."

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? "I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution", said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For "the mystery of lawlessness" is clarified only in the light of the "mystery of our religion". The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 385 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/385.htm)


I don't "reject God" because he permits innocent people to suffer.

That is wonderful. I'm sorry that I insinuated that you rejected God. It was simply the way I phrased the statement. The main reason for the statement was to reveal that I was once atheist and that was the main reason I turned to atheism.


I reject the idea that God requires either death or suffering as a condition of reconciliation.

So do I. I believe it is Satan who requires our suffering. I believe God permits it to bring about our salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,

This is not an attack;

No problem. I'm used to people disagreeing with me.


I truly have great respect for those who think about such things.

I'll take that as a compliment. I also have great respect for those people. I assume you are amongst them.


However, it is a criticism and a challenge to your thought process.

I love a challenge.


(I will probably have my post removed for saying this by the censorship Nazi’s, but…)

Lol!! Are you kidding. This is probably the nicest criticism I've received on this forum and none of the others have been censored. In fact, I believe they tried to censor me, but their appeals backfired because, thanks be to God, the moderator to whom they addressed their concern is a reasonable man.


Your logic seems a bit flawed.

Just saying so, doesn't make it so. I hope you have some evidence to back up your contention.


(Is flawed too harsh of a word for this forum? Did the preface sneak me by?)

No.


If you literalize the story of the Garden of Eden it is problematic and to do so is to miss the intended meaning but for the sake of getting to the flaw of your reasoning let’s see where it takes us?

OK.


God created the Garden and everything in it including the serpent (which you presumed is “Satan” despite the fact that it is never mentioned).

Without going into a great Bible study, although the book of Genesis does not say that the serpent is Satan, it is revealed in other parts of Scripture:

Apocalypse 12 9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.


God also created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and told our two protagonists not to eat of it or they would surely die.

That is true.


In the literal version of the story, it is the serpent that tells the truth and God that lies.

I can see how you could interpret it that way. However, we don't interpret God's Words as a lie in the literal version. But simply as a double entendre. They literally did "die" when they ate of the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil". But it was a spiritual death.

Anyway. Lets continue your view.


The serpent tells them they will not die, that God doesn’t want them to have the knowledge.

And therein is the lie. God does want them to have the knowledge, but not the experience.
Therefore, the Serpent, the Devil or Satan, the Father of Lies, did lie.


This is the truth as god forbade the eating of the fruit. They eat of the fruit, they do not die, and are now fully aware of good and evil.

No. The Devil lied, God did forbid the eating of the fruit, but to keep them from experiencing sin and death of the soul, not to keep them from knowing about good and evil. And Adam and Eve never become fully aware of good and evil. Their nature is fallen and their intellect darkened. That makes it easier for Satan to have influence over their deeds.


It is God who lies because they do not die, instead God casts them out and punishes them for disobeying him just like any good father would. He doesn’t just banish them from paradise, but punishes billions of people for the sins of the original.

But they did die. Their soul died, they become as living dead. God does cast them out because they have cast Him out of their soul, that is the dying death. They have chosen to no longer live with him and God permits them to leave.

And God does not punish their progeny, they have punished their progeny. Look at it this way. Lets say you inherit 1 Billion dollars. Then Satan comes along and tricks you into giving him those billions. You have nothing. Then you get married and raise children. Which of your children will inherit your billion dollars? Answer: None of them.

You have nothing to give. Your billion dollars have been taken.

The same happened to Adam and Eve. They gave away their inheritance. Their children can only inherit what they now have. A fallen nature.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.


Before you consider that God did not lie, that it was a metaphorical death let’s keep in mind the problematic difficulty of reading a story literally and then imposing our metaphorical preferences.

The Israelites claimed a god of justice and mercy but you describe a god who has condemned all of humanity to suffering because of a single act of disobedience. That is not a God of goodness, that is a harsh task mater.

Please quote me where I describe God as one who condemned all of humanity for a single act of disobedience?


This logic is not new, it has been the basis for the foundations of orthodox religion for some time and has been used to justify doctrines of purity, perfection, suffering, sin, disobedience and much, much more. This characterization however, is not consistent with the God that Jesus describes and there is where the problem really lies within the tradition of Christianity. You can not have it both ways. You can not have the God of the literal Garden and the God of love and mercy that Jesus promotes. It is a square peg and a round hole but that doesn’t stop people from trying to force fit the peg.

You have mischaracterized the logic. The logic is true and wise. It is beautiful to behold. However, your twist upon it is false.

You want to put the blame on God. And that is fine. God is ultimately the Creator of everything.

Ecclesiasticus 11 14 Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God.

But God gave all of us a choice. He gave all of us free will:

Deuteronomy 30 19 I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

But that does not lessen the fact that it was the creature who denied the Creator. It was man who chose to do Satan's will rather than to do God's will. Therefore it was man who chose to suffer and to experience evil.


I too have been convinced that there is a god (I am willing to bet we have had different epiphanies). As to whether God is good or not is still up for debate as far as I am concerned. But I am a fan of the story so far. I truly appreciate being a character in this grand epic and will continue to try to play my part. However, to say that God is good and try to prove it with your logic, you have come up a bit short. It is going to echo ominously empty when you are speaking to people who have actually suffered, and you seem to be a person who really wants to share God.

That, unfortunately, is true. People who have not converted to a love of God beyond love of self do not respond well to that doctrine. That doesn't invalidate the doctrine.

And there are many people who suffering learn to embrace God all the more, understanding that unless they do so, their suffering is all for naught. Better to suffer and to thereby help others spiritually, then to suffer and to help no one, not even yourself.

Colossians 1 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:



Here’s something that might be worth your time and experience. Go to the Museum of Tolerance, go on a weekend and listen to one of the child survivors as they tell of their experience. Then afterwards if you are still convinced that there is good in suffering, take the tissue from your pocket (Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, bring tissue!), wipe your eyes, blow your nose and demonstrate to them the that God is good and there is goodness in suffering. Pay special attention to their eyes, if you look real close you will see the haunted empty chasm from the rent in their soul. Watch how they react, and take note of how they tolerantly allow you to justify this goodness, watch how they allow you to keep your beliefs, as they realize that like the garden of Eden and the point of the Garden of Eden story is, Ignorance is Bliss and they wish that life wouldn't have forced them to bite from the fruit. They will smile politely and thank you for listening and hope (because they have learned that prayer is futile) that the horrors of their lives, the nightmares of their waking dreams do not revisit and present themselves upon you in your life time.

I don't know where the Museum of Tolerance is, but I'd like to go sometime to give the message of Jesus Christ.

As for you, do me a favor. Read the stories of the Saints. You might want to begin with Mother Theresa. See how the doctrine of suffering is so beneficial to those who suffer and realize that their suffering is not for naught. See how they light up when they are told that their suffering is a sign of predestination. See how they light up when they are told that their suffering indicates that God loves them as his own children.

Hebrews 12 6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? 8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. 9 Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? 10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.

Luke 16 20 And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, 21 Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. 23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. 25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.


I say this to challenge your thought process not to be antagonistic, (though sarcasm often seeps in). If I come off jaded, please accept my apologies because the medium of posting lacks the nuances of sincerity that I truly have for all that try to figure these things out.


Have no fear. I tend to be very up front. People seem to consider my words rude. I echo your sentiments however. If I seem to be offensive, I don't intend to be so. I am simply telling you what I believe:

Matthew 5 37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.


Peace, Go with God,
Scotty

You also,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Scotty:The religious often blame Satan.

That is true. Because that is where the blame lies.


God created Satan, therefore it created suffering and evil and hold the responsibility of the responsibilities therin.

That is true also. Everything. Absolutely everything ultimately comes from God. But God did not intend evil for us. Satan did and does. God now uses Satan's evil to bring about a greater good. Nor even for Satan. But God gave us all free will and we are not required to accept His goodness unless we want it.


If you want to believe in Satan, you must do so with him being in part of gods grand plan.

That is true. God did create Satan. But God created Satan as good. Satan himself decided to become evil. It is Satan who chose to become God's enemy.

And so, God uses Satan within His master plan to bring about a greater good. God is vastly greater than Satan.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So, are you saying my input is not welcome?
No, just that you answered a different question.

Yet it seems to me my response is a direct answer as to "whether" God requires either suffering or death as a condition of forgiveness and reconciliation.

My response is that, "No God does not require it. Satan does. But God permits it in order to bring about a greater good."
So God allows Satan to dictate the requirements for our forgiveness? Although I don't find it convincing, I will say that it's a theory of salvation that I've never heard before.

No, just that you answered a different question.

I don't think so. I guess I answered it in a way you didn't expect.


So God allows Satan to dictate the requirements for our forgiveness? Although I don't find it convincing, I will say that it's a theory of salvation that I've never heard before.

Lol!! Neither have I. There must have been something lost in the translation. Satan does not dictate the requirements for forgiveness. Satan simply causes suffering and pain. It is his specialty.

Job 1 1 And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight, 2 That the Lord said to Satan: Whence comest thou? And he answered and said: I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it. 3 And the Lord said to Satan: Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a man simple, and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil, and still keeping his innocence? But thou hast moved me against him, that I should afflict him without cause. 4 And Satan answered, and said: Skin for skin, and all that a man hath he will give for his life: 5 But put forth thy hand, and touch his bone and his flesh, and then thou shalt gee that he will bless thee to thy face.

6 And the Lord said to Satan: Behold be is in thy hand, but yet save his life. 7 So Satan went forth from the presence Of the Lord, and struck Job with a very grievous ulcer, from the sole of the foot even to the top of his head:

Satan desires our suffering without reason or cause. God permits it to bring about a greater good.

Job 42 12 And the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning. And he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. 13 And he had seven sons, and three daughters. 14 And he called the names of one Dies, and the name of the second Cassia, and the name of the third Cornustibil. 15 And there were not found in all the earth women so beautiful as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

16 And Job lived after these things, a hundred and forty years, and he saw his children, and his children's children, unto the fourth generation, and he died an old man, and full of days.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't think so. I guess I answered it in a way you didn't expect.

Lol!!! Neither have I. There must have been something lost in the translation. Satan does not dictate the requirements for forgiveness. Satan simply causes suffering and pain. It is his specialty.

Satan desires our suffering without reason or cause. God permits it to bring about a greater good.
You have obviously devoted a lot of thought to the question of why God permits suffering. But the question at hand is whether God required Jesus' death as a condition of our salvation. What do you think about that?

You have obviously devoted a lot of thought to the question of why God permits suffering. But the question at hand is whether God required Jesus' death as a condition of our salvation. What do you think about that?

And I answered that question. Twice. But if you are referring to the question in the opening post. I answered the opening post back in message #8. Here it is again:


Originally Posted by peters01alm
Why did Jesus cried out to the Lord on the cross when he knew very well that it had to happen in order that the Scripture could be fulfilled ?


He was reminding the Jews of the prophecy that the Messiah must die:

Matthew 16 21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

And He did so by quoting a famous Psalm:

Psalms 21 2 O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.

Note how the Psalm goes on to describe Jesus' passion:

17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. 19 They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. 20 But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me; look towards my defence.


My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh and Scotty, it is Psalm 21 in the Douay Rheims Bible.

Book Of Psalms
< prev | Psalm 21 | next >

Deus Deus meus. Christ's passion: and the conversion of the Gentiles.

1 Unto the end, for the morning protection, a psalm for David. 2 O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins. 3 O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me. 4 But thou dwellest in the holy place, the praise of Israel. 5 In thee have our fathers hoped: they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them.


Douay-Rheims Bible, Book Of Psalms Psalm 21 (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/21021.htm)

There are slight differences in ennumeration between Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Originally Posted by De Maria
He was reminding the Jews of the prophecy that the Messiah must die:

So is the reason that "the Messiah must die" that God required it as a condition for forgiveness of sin?

So is the reason that "the Messiah must die" that God required it as a condition for forgiveness of sin?

The verse "the Messiah must die" is a prophecy. But not prophecy as it is normally considered by the general public. In the Bible, prophecy means "the Word of God". That is why prophets speak the Word of God.

Ezechiel 33 33 And when that which was foretold shall come to pass, (for behold it is coming,) then shall they know that a prophet bath been among them.

Now, prophecy usually comes with an "if" clause. A clear example is the prophecy of Jonas:

Jonas 3 4 And Jonas began to enter into the city one day's journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed.

But was Nineveh destroyed?

No. The populace repented of their evil ways and Nineveh was saved.

Jonas 3 5 And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. 6 And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. 8 And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? 10 And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

So, just as Nineveh must be destroyed, the Messiah must die.

If the Jews had repented of their sin and acknowledged that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, then perhaps God would have forgiven our sin without Jesus death on the Cross.

But the point is moot. The Jews did not repent and they enlisted the Romans to crucify Jesus. And God used this evil deed to save the world from their sin.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If the Jews had repented of their sin and acknowledged that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, then perhaps God would have forgiven our sin without Jesus death on the Cross.
So your answer to the question is "Perhaps, it depends on what the Jews do"? That's interesting. Most Christians that I've encountered are more definite about it than that. They usually insist that Jesus absolutely did have to die in order to save us, and quote the book of Hebrews (9:22) that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin". I like your answer better than theirs, even though my own answer is "No".

So your answer to the question is "Perhaps, it depends on what the Jews do"?

Huh? Since the event already happened, I don't really understand what you mean to say.


That's interesting. Most Christians that I've encountered are more definite about it than that. They usually insist that Jesus absolutely did have to die in order to save us, and quote the book of Hebrews (9:22) that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin".

They would be correct, wouldn't they? Since it already happened then it had to happen. It is no longer a question.

If it were an event that had not yet taken place, then the question would still be open. But the question has been answered.

What might have been if Jesus had not died on the Cross is mere speculation. As I said before, it is a moot point.


I like your answer better than theirs,

Thanks.


even though my own answer is "No".

You're entitled to your opinion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

They would be correct, wouldn't they? Since it already happened then it had to happen. It is no longer a question.

If it were an event that had not yet taken place, then the question would still be open. But the question has been answered.
The question is why it had to happen. The usual answer is that it was because God required death as a condition of forgiveness. Your answer is that it was because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and otherwise it might not have been necessary. It's the difference between an absolute and a contingent necessity.

What might have been if Jesus had not died on the Cross is mere speculation. As I said before, it is a moot point.
It's not about what might have been if he had not died, it's about whether God required his death as a condition of our reconciliation. The reason I like your "contingent necessity" answer better than the "absolute requirement" answer is that it allows at least the possibility that God could forgive and be reconciled to us without demanding the sacrificial death of an innocent person.

:)