Why exactly did Jesus have to die?

Post by **_Ely** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:14 pm

Paidion,

Reading your in this andother discusssions, I've become aware of the way in which you view the Torah. i.e. it was God basically pandering to the pagan roots of the Hebrews. I find this view to be unconvincing. I say with Paul that the Torah is "holy" and "spiritual." Maybe one day we can go into it in detail, but here is not the time nor the place.

Post by **_TK** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:16 pm

Paidion-

sometimes when postings go this long things get lost in the shuffle. so if you have already answered this, i apologize.

as you know, there is an old hymn that goes "what can wash away my sin? nothing but the blood of Jesus."

do you agree, or disagree with this statement? i guess what i am confused about is if you believe that the sole purpose of Christ's death was so that we could die to self and live christ-like lives, how then are our sins forgiven? you seem to state that the death of Jesus had nothing to do with our sins being forgiven. i dont want to misstate your view, but can you elucidate a little on this point?

thx, TK

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:43 pm

Just as Christ identified Himself with humanity by being born human, it may be that He identified with humanity by dying, just as a human being dies. So somehow His dying enables us to die self. It seems that our Lord Jesus taught this very thing:

But Paidion before we get delivered we have to be forgiven and there are allusions that Jesus's suffering and death accomplishes this.
Jesus told John to baptize him to "fulfill all righteousness." What is meant by righteousness? Paul said Christ died "as a ransom for many." What is meant by ransom? What does "bruised for our inequities" mean or "the chastisement of our peace was upon him."
And in Matt 28 Jesus says "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Why was it given to Jesus, is this related to his suffering,death and resurrection?
I think Jesus as "Son of Man" stood in our place and as "Son of God" had the authority to be our representative and in doing so accomplished all righteousness as deemed by God and earned all authority in heaven and on earth.

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:48 pm

as you know, there is an old hymn that goes "what can wash away my sin? nothing but the blood of Jesus."
do you agree, or disagree with this statement?

I am very familiar with this hymn, and have sung it many times. If the author means what the apostle John meant in the following passage, then I agree 100%

...but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

It seems that John was saying that if we walk in the light of Christ, we have true Christian fellowship with one another, and in this way the blood of Jesus goes on cleansing us from sin [the efficacy of the sacrificial death of Christ], so that we practically we sin less and less and become more and more capable through His grace to walk righteously, and gradually become conformed to the image of Christ.

i guess what i am confused about is if you believe that the sole purpose of Christ's death was so that we could die to self and live christ-like lives, how then are our sins forgiven?

Let's consider the cost of discipleship. Jesus said:

Luke 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

After Jesus bore his cross, He died. For us to "bear our cross" is to begin the process of dying to our self-serving nature, and to follow Him, that is, to obey Him. To renounce all that we have is to let go of our own agenda, and to serve Him, and Him alone.

If we become disciples who are on the narrow path to life, in the process of being saved from our sins by the power of Christ's death, (actually and not merely positionally), do you think God would hold our past against us?

As George MacDonald said, our past sins our dead; we will not be condemned for them; it is our present live sins for which we will be condemned, and that only that we might be delivered from them.

Suppose you had a spouse who left you, and did some very evil things against you. Suppose your spouse completely repented (had a genuine change of mind and heart about his/her actions). As a result of your spouse's real repentance, you have agreed to receive him/her back. Are you going to require him/her to "pay" for his/her past actions? Doesn't the very fact that you reconciled with your spouse and took him/her back indicate that you have forgiven all the evil acts against you? Surely God will do the same for us. Surely He must be at least as just (fair) as we are.

you seem to state that the death of Jesus had nothing to do with our sins being forgiven. i dont want to misstate your view, but can you elucidate a little on this point?

Perhaps my comments above have answered this question. But if not, may I affirm that I have not stated that Jesus' death had nothing to do with our sins being forgiven. What I have stated is that Jesus did not die in order that our sins might be forgiven.

Jesus died in order that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. ( I Peter 2:24) If we are in the process of dying to sin and living to righteousness, and staying on that road which leads to life, God has forgiven our past sins. If we are not disciples, and are not on the narrow road, we will be judged, so that we might be corrected. Yes, we will be judged according to our works, because our works indicate our character ---- what we are.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:22 pm

Paidion wrote:If we become disciples who are on the narrow path to life, in the process of being saved from our sins by the power of Christ's death, (actually and not merely positionally), do you think God would hold our past against us?

As George MacDonald said, our past sins our dead; we will not be condemned for them; it is our present live sins for which we will be condemned, and that only that we might be delivered from them.

I quoted this earlier, here it is again. I think it supports Paidion's point.

Eze 18:21-23
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Todd

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:17 pm

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.

The problem about taking this as gospel is that it contradicts about 50 chapters in the Torah about the tabernacle which is about sacrifices and contradicts the whole sacrificial system the jews kept up until the destruction of the temple.
Certainly repentance is the most important element without which nothing else matters but building a doctrine upon one verse (18.22) verses chapter upon chapter describing the sacrificial system IMO is not looking at the weight of evidence.

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:45 pm

The problem about taking this as gospel is that it contradicts about 50 chapters in the Torah about the tabernacle which is about sacrifices and contradicts the whole sacrificial system the jews kept up until the destruction of the temple.

Why is that a problem? Did not God Himself, who does not require sacrifices and burnt offerings, contradict 50 chapters in the Torah, and the whole sacrificial system by doing away with the sacrificial system (which He didn't want), and by establishing the new covenant by sending His Son to teach the gospel of the kingdom, and to die to provide enabling grace?

Did not the New Order under the Kingdom of His dear Son express the Father's heart rather than the man-made sacrificial system adapted from the heathen?

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:01 am

Why is that a problem? Did not God Himself, who does not require sacrifices and burnt offerings, contradict 50 chapters in the Torah, and the whole sacrificial system by doing away with the sacrificial system (which He didn't want), and by establishing the new covenant by sending His Son to teach the gospel of the kingdom, and to die to provide enabling grace?

I don't think God did away with the spiritual connection to the sacrificial system ever , it's just that Christ's sacrifice was the last one required to be performed but unlike the old covenant sacrifices , Christ's final sacrifice had past and future forgiveness and deliverance. That sacrifice for us is part of what allows him to make intercession for us now.

I think in Ezekial's answer he assumes that the sacrificial system is continuing as he never said repentence replaces it. IMO the sacrifice of Christ is the heart of Christianity and the culmination of the OT sacrifices which pointed to this and "forgiveness" of sins through Christ is a dividing line that separates it from "new age" thinking which says we are not sinful we just make mistakes.

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:17 am

Thanks, Steve7150. I guess we just don't understand the supreme sacrifice of Christ in the same way.

Nevertheless, I think we both agree that the sacrifice of Christ Jesus is central to the faith, that His blood shed for us is precious, and that his death was absolutely necessary for deliverance from sin.

I don't think either of us have any tendency toward the "new age" thinking you described.

May God bless you as you continue to search for truth and reality.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:54 am

Paidion wrote:Nevertheless, I think we both agree that the sacrifice of Christ Jesus is central to the faith, that His blood shed for us is precious, and that his death was absolutely necessary for deliverance from sin.

Paidion,

I am interested in your opinion. I agree with your statement here. I know that you have said that Christ's death was absolutely necessary, but is it absolutely necessary that an individual who truly seeks after God in a real repentance needs to have any special knowledge or understanding of it for it to have its intended affect? I am thinking of someone who may live in obscurity never having heard the Gospel but who truly seeks after God and tries to do what is right? In other words, is the Grace of God limited by how well we (mankind) spreads the knowledge of it?

Todd