Who Killed Jesus?

[SonJudgment]

haha!

hence anything but C diminishes God - - and nothing less can reconcile with John 10:18 / Hebrews 7:16

bacteria did not kill God, and our wickedness cannot kill God, and no man or angel or power at all can kill God.
only God can voluntarily lay down His own divine life, and take it up again.

no one and no thing is greater than Him

No, it does not diminish God because while C is indeed true, from the same passage used to support C is also the connotation of A as the primary purpose (the shepherd that sacrifices himself to redeem the sheep). John 10:15.

As for germs I agree with you on that though, even if we want to indulge the argument, Jesus wasn't on the cross long enough for typical forms of disease to set in (ie: gangrene).

 

[posthuman]

No, it does not diminish God because while C is indeed true, from the same passage used to support C is also the connotation of A as the primary purpose (the shepherd that sacrifices himself to redeem the sheep). John 10:15.

As for germs I agree with you on that though, even if we want to indulge the argument, Jesus wasn't on the cross long enough for typical forms of disease to set in (ie: gangrene).

the reason He chose to die isn't the thing that killed Him - - that's an ubiquitous fallacy in this thread.

God has free will, if no one else truly does: He independently chose to atone for us. we do not by doing evil force Him to work for us mercy.

i buy a Christmas gift for my brother. the calendar does not force me to do so. there is an opportunity, and i choose to take it. we cannot say, the month of December bought this for my brother - - i alone did it. i made a conscious choice, and i gave the price for the gift. the gift didn't pay for itself, and my brother's need or desire did not accomplish what i did for him.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

haha!

hence anything but C diminishes God - - and nothing less can reconcile with John 10:18 / Hebrews 7:16

bacteria did not kill God, and our wickedness cannot kill God, and no man or angel or power at all can kill God.
only God can voluntarily lay down His own divine life, and take it up again.

no one and no thing is greater than Him

Jesus said He had come to do His fathers will, that was to die for the sins of mankind. Sunday school stuff. At least I use to think it was before I came to CC. smh

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Interesting read "Antisemitism is the smokescreen of hell — Here’s why" especially this part...


The Truth About Jesus’ Death

Let’s be clear: Jesus was sentenced to be crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea. Only Rome had the power to crucify, and crucifixion was a Roman execution. Yes, the High Priest Caiaphas was involved in Jesus’ arrest and in sending Him to Pilate - and yes, Caiaphas was a Jew. But his sin was his own! And one corrupt leader does not indict an entire nation, much less an entire people, for thousands of years.

Even though some Jews cried out, “Crucify Him,” that does not take into account that Jesus was not killed by anyone. As He Himself said, “No one takes My life from Me; I lay it down of My own accord.” In this, God demonstrated His love toward us: at the Cross, the perfectly just God turned unjust men into righteous ones, simply by paying the debt of sin Himself - a gift offered to those who repent and believe!



https://allisraelnews.com/blog/chri...ashem & affirms support for Israel - 19993363

 

[SonJudgment]

the reason He chose to die isn't the thing that killed Him - - that's an ubiquitous fallacy in this thread.

God has free will, if no one else truly does: He independently chose to atone for us. we do not by doing evil force Him to work for us mercy.

i buy a Christmas gift for my brother. the calendar does not force me to do so. there is an opportunity, and i choose to take it. we cannot say, the month of December bought this for my brother - - i alone did it.

Well why does the shepherd have to lay down his life for the sheep?

An analogy for an analogy. Say I have an organ failure, I need a kidney, you're the only match in the world for the kidney. You lay down and sacrifice your kidney that I may live. It is both simultaneously true then that my failure caused your loss while also being true that you sacrificed yourself for me to live, but you would not have to make the sacrifice, or else your sacrifice be pointless, if I were not failed to begin with.

So in this way both A and C are true (as well as the others to the specific poll) but A still remains the best option that makes sense out of all the other options. If A is not true each subsequent possible answer begins to lose purpose or effect.

 

[PaulThomson]

Jesus Christ, almighty omniscient God in the flesh, is a student?

Heb 5:7
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Heb 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Sounds like Jesus of Nazareth was a student - "yet learned he obedience"

Doesn't sound like a description of someone omnipotent - "when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death."

The difficulty I have with your bold assertions is that they don't actually align with how scripture describes Jesus during His 33 years of life on earth in human form.

 

[posthuman]

Heb 5:7
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Heb 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Sounds like Jesus of Nazareth was a student - "yet learned he obedience"

Doesn't sound like a description of someone omnipotent - "when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death."

The difficulty I have with your bold assertions is that they don't actually align with how scripture describes Jesus during His 33 years of life on earth in human form.

before one has any hope whatsoever of accurately understanding Hebrews 5 they must accept and believe Hebrews 1, which open theism openly & evidently does not.

Hebrews 1:6-8​

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ​

"Let all the angels of God worship Him." ​

And of the angels He says: ​

" Who makes His angels spirits ​

and His ministers a flame of fire."​

But to the Son He says:​

" Your throne, O God,​

is forever and ever;​

a scepter of righteousness ​

is the scepter of Your kingdom.​

​

without acquiescing to these truths, at the beginning of the book, the argument of open theism has zero context, zero legitimacy, and zero standing within the Word of God.

unless you belive that I AM, you will die in your sins. ​

​

no one takes it from Me, but I lay it down and take it up again. ​

 

[posthuman]

no one takes it from Me, but I lay it down and take it up again.

no one means no one

C is the only supportable answer.

every other argument can be effortlessly ripped to shreds

 

[posthuman]

before one has any hope whatsoever of accurately understanding Hebrews 5 they must accept and believe Hebrews 1, which open theism openly & evidently does not.

Hebrews 1:6-8​

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ​

"Let all the angels of God worship Him." ​

And of the angels He says: ​

" Who makes His angels spirits ​

and His ministers a flame of fire."​

But to the Son He says:​

" Your throne, O God,​

is forever and ever;​

a scepter of righteousness ​

is the scepter of Your kingdom.​

​

without acquiescing to these truths, at the beginning of the book, the argument of open theism has zero context, zero legitimacy, and zero standing within the Word of God.

unless you belive that I AM, you will die in your sins. ​

​

no one takes it from Me, but I lay it down and take it up again. ​

tldr:

JESUS OF NAZARETH is never not-God

 

[posthuman]

when one believes The Christ is only human.

it little wonder they have zero faith in the security of their salvation -

- having, rightly, no hope at all in the faithfulness of mankind..







... the Hope of actual Christianity is in God

 

[SonJudgment]

no one means no one

C is the only supportable answer.

every other argument can be effortlessly ripped to shreds

when one believes The Christ is only human.

it little wonder they have zero faith in the security of their salvation -

- having, rightly, no hope at all in the faithfulness of mankind..







... the Hope of actual Christianity is in God

If you don't account for A then Jesus is not the Christ and therefore he is not God but would just be fully human. All the answers are correct but A is the primary driver which each subsequent answer depends upon. Without A then C alone is a suicide basically and is entirely pointless. By understanding A as the primary driver this validates all the other answers. If you account for A then C becomes Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecies (aka he is the Christ), which means he is fully God and fully man, that by laying down his life he is rather committing the ultimate sacrifice for us, and by implication of all these things that he was resurrected, ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. Without A the entirety of the religion of Christianity falls apart, but accounting for A the entirety of the religion is upheld and also confirmed.

1 Corinthians 15:3
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Matthew 20:28
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

[PaulThomson]

before one has any hope whatsoever of accurately understanding Hebrews 5 they must accept and believe Hebrews 1, which open theism openly & evidently does not.

Hebrews 1:6-8​

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ​

"Let all the angels of God worship Him." ​

And of the angels He says: ​

" Who makes His angels spirits ​

and His ministers a flame of fire."​

But to the Son He says:​

" Your throne, O God,​

is forever and ever;​

a scepter of righteousness ​

is the scepter of Your kingdom.​

​

without acquiescing to these truths, at the beginning of the book, the argument of open theism has zero context, zero legitimacy, and zero standing within the Word of God.

unless you belive that I AM, you will die in your sins. ​

​

no one takes it from Me, but I lay it down and take it up again. ​

​

​

Maybe, just maybe, when the writer says "when He again brings the firstborn into the world", he is referring to Jesus returning to the world after having been resurrected as the firstborn from the dead, and after He was glorified with the glory He had previously had with the Father, before incarnating as a little lower than the angels, i.e. human.

Heb 2:5
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings....
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[PaulThomson]

​

​

Maybe, just maybe, when the writer says "when He again brings the firstborn into the world", he is referring to Jesus returning to the world after having been resurrected as the firstborn from the dead, and after He was glorified with the glory He had previously had with the Father, before incarnating as a little lower than the angels, i.e. human.

Heb 2:5
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings....
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Why would the writer in Heb. 1:6 use "again" , if he was referring to the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And our Lord is "firstborn from the dead."

Col 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

I believe Hebrews 1:6-8, but Jesus received back His glory and His kingdom and his throne, which He seems to have relinquished to become like us in every way, after His death and His resurrection.

Jhn 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Luk 19:12
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return...
Luk 19:15
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Rev 12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

You are starting from presuppositions that were fed to you by tradition: presuppositions which you are assuming are axiomatic, but they are not explicitly stated in scripture, and are only implicit if one adds and overlays those unstated presuppositions to scripture.

If you are accusing me of denying the deity of the Son, the Word, you haven't been listening.

 

[posthuman]

I believe Hebrews 1:6-8, but Jesus received back His glory and His kingdom and his throne, which He seems to have relinquished to become like us in every way, after His death and His resurrection.

you are right in that, it was His glory He set aside, emptying Himself - - but He never ceased to be God.

His humanity is perfect, sinless humanity - not subject to death, decay or disease - and His deity is irrevocable. Jesus is never not God: this is what makes His incarnation the greatest of all mysteries, and why i continue to see open theism as an humanistic philosophy which diminishes the hypostatic union and rejects the orthodox understanding of humility in the face of the incomprehensiblity of the infinite God.

in the Renaissance mankind exalted his own intellect, rejecting the ancient awe of the wisdom of God that surpasses ((human)) understanding. orthodoxy recognizes that there are aspects of our common salvation, and the personhood of The Christ in particular, which are beyond human comprehension in our present state. open theism is a natural extension of this vain lack of awe

 

[posthuman]

Hebrews 1 comes before Hebrews 5.

His eternal deity must be firmly established and comprehended before the humanity of His incarnation can be understood, and it must be axiomatically accepted that He is God manifest in the flesh, not flesh manifested in Godhood.

an interpretation of Hebrews 5 that pretends there is no Hebrews 1 is categorically incorrect, imo

 

[posthuman]

If you don't account for A then Jesus is not the Christ and therefore he is not God but would just be fully human.

i can't agree with that.

if it were remotely possible that our sins could kill Him, then there is no salvation.

that makes your sin greater than Him; greater than God.

you can kill God simply by idly lusting in your heart?
then God is nothing.

 

[SonJudgment]

i can't agree with that.

if it were remotely possible that our sins could kill Him, then there is no salvation.

that makes your sin greater than Him; greater than God.

you can kill God simply by idly lusting in your heart?
then God is nothing.

Not if accounting for B (and the other options). We touched on this already. B support A and also your view. Your view isn't wrong, it's just not comprehensive enough by itself only, it's too narrow. B shows that because Jesus is also fully God that he is omnipotent, literally strong enough, to bear the weight of sins. He is also therefore strong enough to both lay down his life and pick it back up again also. This rather than negating God's omnipotence proves that not only is he able, that in the person of Jesus Christ as also fully human shows he is the only one capable. It's kinda like the "could God make a rock he couldn't lift?" paradox, it's aimed at his omnipotence, the answer is yes he can make such a rock, and he can lay the rock down and also pick it back up again too breaking the paradox and proving he is God. God is the only exclusive exception to every rule and paradox the human nature can really think of.

Think then about the omnipotence and benevolence factors of just classic theism comes into play here too. If it only C, then God foreknew he'd kill his only Son even before he created the entire universe in Genesis 1&2. If A is not factored at all God is a cruel God that basically created the universe and humanity knowing they would become flawed to just torture it apparently, or else he is well-meaning but he didn't know and we would be suggesting he is good but is not omniscient. What even then is the point to a resurrection? Or why not just wipe all the entire universe and have the Apocalypse the moment Adam ate the forbidden fruit? We have to conclude that God is either not omniscient but is benevolent (a well intended fool) or he is omniscient and he's malevolent (the ultimate cosmic tyrant).

Thus A is critical, factoring A then upholds God's omniscience as well as his omnipotence and benevolence (as well as the aforementioned omnipotence). It becomes God foreknew at the creation that the sin and mortality would happen even though he created them perfectly, but he had a plan even before the foundations of the universe to have his Word conceived into the womb of the virgin, live and minister as the Gospels faithfully recount, be crucified for sin as the sacrificial Lamb upholding B and C simultaneously (the central theme of the topic), be resurrected as a sign of greater resurrection to coeme, ascend into Heaven and sit at the right hand of the Father, and promise to come against at the end of the world to judge all, and inaugurate the eternal reign of the Kingdom of God forever, praise Jesus.

 

[posthuman]

Not if accounting for B (and the other options). We touched on this already. B support A and also your view. Your view isn't wrong, it's just not comprehensive enough by itself only, it's too narrow. B shows that because Jesus is also fully God that he is omnipotent, literally strong enough, to bear the weight of sins. He is also therefore strong enough to both lay down his life and pick it back up again also. This rather than negating God's omnipotence proves that not only is he able, that in the person of Jesus Christ as also fully human shows he is the only one capable. It's kinda like the "could God make a rock he couldn't lift?" paradox, it's aimed at his omnipotence, the answer is yes he can make such a rock, and he can lay the rock down and also pick it back up again too breaking the paradox and proving he is God. God is the only exclusive exception to every rule and paradox the human nature can really think of.

Think then about the omnipotence and benevolence factors of just classic theism comes into play here too. If it only C, then God foreknew he'd kill his only Son even before he created the entire universe in Genesis 1&2. If A is not factored at all God is a cruel God that basically created the universe and humanity knowing they would become flawed to just torture it apparently, or else he is well-meaning but he didn't know and we would be suggesting he is good but is not omniscient. What even then is the point to a resurrection? Or why not just wipe all the entire universe and have the Apocalypse the moment Adam ate the forbidden fruit? We have to conclude that God is either not omniscient but is benevolent (a well intended fool) or he is omniscient and he's malevolent (the ultimate cosmic tyrant).

Thus A is critical, factoring A then upholds God's omniscience as well as his omnipotence and benevolence (as well as the aforementioned omnipotence). It becomes God foreknew at the creation that the sin and mortality would happen even though he created them perfectly, but he had a plan even before the foundations of the universe to have his Word conceived into the womb of the virgin, live and minister as the Gospels faithfully recount, be crucified for sin as the sacrificial Lamb upholding B and C simultaneously (the central theme of the topic), be resurrected as a sign of greater resurrection to coeme, ascend into Heaven and sit at the right hand of the Father, and promise to come against at the end of the world to judge all, and inaugurate the eternal reign of the Kingdom of God forever, praise Jesus.

i can agree with B, with the understanding that He and the Father are One

=]

 

[posthuman]

A is critical,

what is critical is that in the law no spotless lamb was ever killed by someone else else's sin. the sacrifice was freely offered in behalf of a sin for which it was in no way whatsoever culpable for


allow me to repeat - - it is a fallacy, that the reason God freely chose to lay down His own life to save us, was a definite cause forcing Him to have no other choice but to die.

God's will is more free than any other will in creation.

the only thing that can be said to be causal in His free decision to substitute His own life for ours, is His character.

 

[SonJudgment]

i can agree with B, with the understanding that He and the Father are One

=]

Jesus and the Father are one in the sense that there is one God in three persons; the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. Trinity in unity, and unity in the trinity. This is very important to understand since it's one of the two absolutely non-negotiable salvic issues of the faith, but that's a whole other topic.

what is critical is that in the law no spotless lamb was ever killed by someone else else's sin. the sacrifice was freely offered in behalf of a sin for which it was in no way whatsoever culpable for


allow me to repeat - - it is a fallacy, that the reason God freely chose to lay down His own life to save us, was a definite cause forcing Him to have no other choice but to die.

God's will is more free than any other will in creation.

the only thing that can be said to be causal in His free decision to substitute His own life for ours, is His character.

Well we've already been over how no one can force God to do anything. A is still the prime driver though because while C is true that Jesus is a willing sacrifice that laid down his life, and B is true that the Father sacrificed his only begotten Son, the reason this is both neccessary and also is the will of God is A. It's the will of the Father, he's not forced to do anything, but this is how he chose to do things. No one forced God to just simply not blink the entire universe out of existence from the moment Adam sinned, as he could easily just start again and no one would even be able to know. No one forced God to even create the world to begin with foreknowing that sin would enter the world and foreknowing he would have his own Word, whom is also God, become flesh in the womb of Mary while she was still a virgin and be the Lamb sacrificed for the sin of the world. If Jesus dying on the cross isn't a sacrifice for our sins then we got a lot of both theological as well as very real salvic problems both generally and so specific it would affect every single individual person, me, you, everybody. This is why A is neccessary to be accounted for and is the prime answer, without A every other answer starts to lose meaning or simply is too narrow and incomplete to stand on its own and can only be propped up with a few verses. A as the driver and all the answers together with A as the lynchpin best reflects the Bible as a comprehensive whole, indeed to the character of God indeed, but also greater than that, even touching upon both every single facet of the religion, but also even reality itself.

When A is accounted for every other answer makes sense, it's the primary lynchpin that holds it all together. Even consider this even beyond the sacrificial element which is what we've mostly been talking about due to it being the grand implication of combining A with B and C, but then consider the subsequent answers too. Because we live in a sinful world it makes sense why the Jews blasphemed and murdered their own Messiah that Moses and all the Prophets told them about, why the Romans fail the judgment of truth and murder the Son of God and the centurion doesn't realize it until it is too late, why the crowd is so ignorant and malicious as to release a murderer instead of Jesus (who for all they knew at the moment was that he might just be a human but one that had done them much good healing them and working miracles in front of them). It even makes sense in the Other option and the earlier raised issue of how the Apostles could be scattered and forsake him in the garden of Gethsemane in tandem with B (and thus they too are complicit and need a Savior). If A is not true or is elsewise neglected then not only does the principles behind B and C lose their purpose and effect, but then it fails to really explain why DEFG (and by implication H) even played roles they did in the conspiracy, trial, and ultimately crucifixion of the Son of God. If A is accounted for however both B and C simultaneously make sense as a sacrifice, and DEFG all become easier to understand how fallen and corrupted the world really is, which is a wider theme in the Bible, but also crucially shows how the subjects of DEFG's could carry out their parts in the crucifixion of Jesus, not from a vantage of endlessly blaming eachother, but understanding everyone is complcit and everyone needs God.