May everyone remember that today in North America that it is Good Friday, but it will be Resurrection Morning for Roman Catholics and Protestants this Sunday. God bless.
5 Likes
One of the things about the gospel proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus The Christ is that it does not matter if you are a theistic evolutionist or creationist. No matter the origins of life,or how sin came into human relationships, I hope we can all agree that Christ, sent from the Father offered His life to change our relationship to God and with each other, to renew humanity and the opportunity to share in the Eternal Life and Divine Communion. We may take differing stances on this and other matters but we all share such a faith.
We maintain such a proclamation for a world steeped in selfishness and self centeredness, racial and ethnic divisions, persecutions and violence, materialism, greed and social inequalityâŚIt should be our constant hope that faith in Christ changes us personally and that what we carry of that faith can make a good difference and change in our neighbours and in the wider world.
Thanks be to God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Amen
9 Likes
may we be with the Lord like Jesus so we also have the strength to sing a psalm on our way out
2 Likes
Perhaps this question can be easily answered, but why would Jesus ask God if he had forsaken him if a) He was God himself, and b) He knew his death was to save humanity? Itâs a big issue which I have with accepting the foundation of Christianity, for it seems to me as though the historical Jesus had no idea that his death was to save mankind.
1 Like
I believe that Jesus always knew about his forthcoming death; however, we must remember that Jesus had two natures: one was completely born of a Virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit; the other was the Almighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He was completely human and completely Divine. Happy Resurrection Day, for it means our resurrection too.
I see that not as a question that came from a rational place of not knowing relevant information, but a gut-level emotional expression of deep pain and suffering. And that seems like a believably human response to the stress of torture, abandonment, and the injustice of the whole situation.
5 Likes
So Jesus would use the lords name in vain?
How so? No, I think he was talking to God. But all the time we use questions to express emotions. When my kids say, âWhy do we have to leave Grandmaâs tomorrow?â they arenât really asking for a list of reasons. They are expressing their sadness that a fun time is over. When I was nine months pregnant and said to my husband every day âWhen is this baby going to be born already?â I wasnât really asking to be reminded of my due date, I was expressing impatience and discomfort. I hear âWhy have you forsaken me?â as an expression of despair, not a question that involves a true information gap.
6 Likes
I agree with Christie. He was not using the LORDâS name in vain; on the contrary, he was talking to His Father. It was possibly the human nature of our Lord that was expressing his pain and forthcoming death on the cross. Remember that our Lord, God the Son, was 100% human and 100% Divine. I also wish to add something from Psalm 22:1 in the Old Testament. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? This was predicting the death and suffering of Jesus on the cross. Psalm 22 was written by King David of Israel through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I would recommend that you read this text. It shows the suffering that Jesus took upon himself for us. During this time, God the Father turned His back on His Son since Jesus for a time became sin to save us. God bless you in your quest for truth, both in the Bible and in science.
2 Likes
Reggie, I believe that Christ, at the moment of crying out to God, was experiencing the full weight of humanityâs sin. And because God cannot look upon sin in any way, He had to turn from Christ. Whether God separates himself from Christ in that moment, I do not know (and I donât even know if that would be possible because of the triune relationship), but I do believe that Christ may have experienced the human feeling of utter, but momentary, abandonmentâŚthus His crying out. This doesnât take away from Jesus knowing His purpose for being on the cross and it doesnât limit Christâs divinity. I also believe that Jesusâ sweating of blood in the garden of Gethsemane was not only due to His fear of the horrible death that was awaiting Him but because He knew what would happen in the moment that He took all that sin upon Himself. It would cause a cosmic, but necessary disruption in His relationship with the Father. I canât even imagine how He felt, but I am so thankful for His willingness to do that for us. That is just my rather unqualified opinion and I am open to correctionđ.
3 Likes
We can agree. That was a good answer, Kendra.
⌠That is a good way to point out the difference in how we use language and what we actually mean. It somehow reminded me that perhaps the statement was also meant to bring some comfort to those of us who despair (unfathomably) far more easily in the troubles in our own lives.
2 Likes
Thanks for the reminder, Edward. God bless!!
1 Like
Amen, cosmicscotusâŚvery nice thoughts
ReggieâŚThe historical Jesus did have such an understanding. âBut it was for this purpose that I have come to this hourâ (John 12:27). The famous or infamous cry cited above was an indication of His separation from God while on the cross. He bore the sins of the world â of me and of you â and God is holy and cannot look upon sin. His death was to save humanity, but this meant being separated from God. That was your second question. Your first question as to why Jesus would say that if âHe was God himselfââŚthis issue goes to the heart of the concept of Three-in-One, that is, of the Trinity. And that in itself is a whole theological discussion of another order.
1 Like
I have wrestled with this idea for a while too. I also thought it to not be much of a sacrifice, when you are going to come back to life in 3 days⌠But this was my old line of thinking.
You have to hear me out to the end as it may seem that I contradict myself (though I do not). I donât think that Jesusâ death was âspecialâ. Though He did have to die. But that death was so His life on earth could end, and sin could be conquered. I think Jesusâs life was special.
I think it was a sacrifice for God, who lived in harmony and heaven with Jesus, to send Jesus to the wretched earth that we turned it into and perverted. So the sacrifice was not in Jesusâs death, but in sending Him out of heaven.
But also Jesus who was fully human, could have sinned. That is a lot of pressure on a human. With no pressure at all, we end up sinning, imagine what all that pressure how we would be crushed. But Jesus knew a human could never do the will of the Father perfectly on his own, but needed God and the Spirit of God to help them achieve perfection. As we were created to be dependent on God, that was the requirement to be perfect, to allow God to help us be perfect. This is a power that we had when first created. It wasnât until we handed this power to sin, that we lost that power to allow God to help us to be perfect.
Jesus never did this, God helped Him live a sinless life. But in order for us to be reconciled to God, that life had to end, that is why Jesus died. But Jesus and God, knew He would come back to life, so the death wasnât that bid of a deal. The great big deal was that Jesus had to take on the powers of sin and darkness.
Romans 8:22
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Cor 1:15
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created:
Luke 22:53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hourâwhen darkness reigns.â
From before creation, God planned the moment of Jesusâ death. It took the heavens aligning and all that had come to pass for the hour of the power of darkness to attempt to over throw Jesus. This needed to be done for death to be conquered.
Like if Jesus is a buoyant vessel. All of us were also born buoyant, but sin caused us to sink. Jesus never sunk, but allowed all the sin of the world (the hour of the power of darkness) to attempt to drown Him. They were able to bring Him down for 3 days, but sin could no longer hold down the buoyancy of Jesus, and He came back up to the top. That is why after being âforsaken/separatedâ by God, Jesus says, âIT IS FINISHED!â The whole creation was groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to that moment.
Now we still have sin dragging on us trying to drag us down, and doing it successfully, BUT, if we hang onto Jesus, no amount of sin can ever sink us again. We still have sin on us, but the consequence of that sin (drowning or spiritual death) can no longer effect us.
So when Jesus said âEli, Eli, Iama sabachtaniâ. Jesus saw what a world is like without God, rejecting God (like the sin on Him, though He Himself did not reject God) He was separated from God, with our sin. He was forsaken, or separated from God.
That is why the resurrection wasnât any more necessary than a ball that falls when you drop it. Jesus IS life. He surrendered to death and submitted to sin for usâŚbut even that could only last 3 days, He rose from the grave just like a ball falls when you drop it. The resurrection wasnât the miracle, Him heavens aligning for death to attempt to take Him on was the miracle.
I donât think Jesus sweat blood because He was going to undergo crucifixion. Sure it wasnât pleasant, but many humans were crucified. The sweating blood came from knowing what He was going to face on the cross, the weight of all sin and darkness.
And I donât think Jesus was God (the best I can explain/understand the trinity)âŚAnymore than a prince is a king. They are both royalty. A prince can live among the peasants, but if anyone know who he was, he would still have royal authority. This is why Jesus had the authority of God to forgive sins, or the authority of the creator of water so it obeys Him. But Jesus wasnât God, He was fully human and tempted. One can only be tempted if one could have sinned. God cannot sin, Jesus was not God, He was human, He just has the âGodly bloodâ in Him, like a Prince has royal blood in him.
I think before Jesus left heaven, He knew what He was doing, like someone who sells themselves into slavery knows, but once a slave, you are subject to your master. He basically sold Himself to the flesh, by with the price of leaving heaven and Godâs side. And once born in the flesh, no longer had knowledge different than any human. But in His talks and meditation with scripture and the Spirit, He learned of Godâs will and that He would die for man. But I donât think He was born knowing that.
So as far as it being the foundation to Christianity, I do and donât agree. Though it wasnât the act of the resurrection that makes it the foundation. Rather the fulfillment/validation that the resurrection brought that makes it foundational.
I donât think scripture agrees with it, and in fact refutes it.
Though I think it is mostly on semantics, in that we agree a divide is created.
I just believe the divide is from us and God, not God from us.
Sin is not Godâs kryptonite. He enters our sinful world often and is in the presence of sin often. However a sinful man cannot come into Godâs presence without bring harmed. Like a commoner cannot go into the presence of a king without having the sentence to death (without the pardon of the king). But the king could and would go to the commoners house from time to time and not be harmed.
I must agree with bluebird and Kendra. God cannot and will not look at sin in any way. Jesus, the Son of God, had to die to give us eternal life and redeem creation. As N.T. Wright says, heaven will be on the new earth one day. That is why there will be a resurrection of the physical body when our Lord and the spirits of the redeemed return from Paradise. Jesusâ death was necessary to bring salvation, and our belief in Him brings everlasting life and joy.
I think I am replying here mostly to Reggie. Kendra had some good thoughts as well.
ReggieâŚYou raised a lot of issues, and I want to thank you for your thoughts.
The original posting was of the words âMy God, My God, why have You forsaken me?â These words are said to have been uttered by Jesus while on the cross, and they constitute an important and treasured part of the account in the Gospels. Since this line reflects the beginning of Psalm 22, many see this entire psalm as referenced by Jesus from the cross. The line also is a sign of Jesusâ utter abandonment by the Father while on the Cross. It also means â to some commentators â that the abandonment extended to the Father as well â that is, the grief of the Father equals the grief and death of the Son. This is speaking in Trinitarian terms. I liked Christyâs example too â from her pregnancy experience â which she cited above somewhere.
You brought up a lot of issues, Reggie. We could be online for, virtually hours on this. And I hope that you will perceive that I am trying to be polite here. On the Internet, that is hard to discern at times. I do appreciate that you are â in one way or another â trying to come to terms with some ideas. And I just want to take a couple of your comments â
A) âAnd I donât think Jesus was God (the best I can explain/understand the trinity). Anymore than a prince is a king.â
B) âI donât think Jesus sweat blood because He was going to undergo crucifixion. Sure it wasnât pleasant but many humans were crucified. The sweating blood came from knowing what He was going to face on the cross, the weight of all sin and darkness.â
C) âThe resurrection wasnât any more necessary than a ball that falls when you drop it.â
D) The âsacrificeâ was âfor God ⌠to send Jesus to the wretched earth. So the sacrifice was not in Jesusâs death but in sending Him out of heavenâŚâ
These are your views. But I am not sure of your source â or sources.
Christianity grew out of Judaism, and should be âreadâ in light of what Judaism taught and had believed over the centuries â as found in earlier parts of the Bible and in related literature of that era. The concept of there needing to be some restitution for sin goes back to that controversial Garden of Eden story in Genesis 3:31 where God made âgarments of skinâ for the newly fallen couple â indicating that an animal sacrifice had to have been made â not as payment for their sins, but as part of the long âlessonâ that is threaded through Scriptures. The lesson is that sin has consequences. There were many other consequences of their actions, but it also meant that an animal had to die. That was, of course, to provide clothing, but many also read into it the beginnings of that concept of blood needing to be shed as a payment for individualsâ sins. This concept is further developed in other areas of the Pentateuch⌠Payment was not by âany old meansâ or using âany old animalâ â it had to be a perfect, spotless animal â free of perfection as an illustration of the fact that human sinfulness could not be paid for, or atoned for, by human imperfection. It required something â Someone â who was sinless to pay the price. (This could be a long conversation.)
You can also see the gravity of human sin illustrated, or hinted at, in the sabbatical laws, the various Levitical precepts, and the pronouncements of the various prophets. Isaiah 6:5-7 is an example â Isaiah cried âI am a man of unclean lipsâ and a heavenly being touched his lips with something that made him (Isaiah) clean. âBehold your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.â
In other words, sin must be paid for, a guilt must be removed and that removal entails some act of ritual cleansing. But these practices, introduced in Hebrew literature (the Old Testament) were simply a foreshadowing of the real and ultimate Event â which was to come.
When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said âBehold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the worldâ â he referred to that belief tradition. The Passover Lamb, which had to be a lamb that was found spotless, was illustrative of who Jesus was. HE was the sacrifice, not His leaving heaven for âwretched earthâ â but His life given for ours.
As Paul said, âIf Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain.â The resurrection truly matters and matters a lot. The resurrection means that the sacrifice can be extended to all who repent â bringing the gift of new and eternal life to them.
I think all this â and more that could be said â applies very much to your comment B. Payment for the sins of all humankind was a âbig deal.â It did involve the tearing of His relationship with the Father â and it happened because our âuncleannessâ is an offense in the highest realms of the Universe. Kendraâs comment in that area is something I will have to look into at some other time.
The experience of crucifixion itself is nothing to dismiss, Reggie. That is like men saying to women like Christy â âchildbirth is not so bad. Lots of women give birth. Quitcherbitchin!!â
Do you know what crucifixion entailed? It came after a savage beating that often left muscles and bowels exposedâŚand after a ritual mocking (such as the gospels record) of the condemned individual. And that was just the beginning of the ordeal. It was not a day at the beach. Others might sweat blood because of their fear of death, but Jesus knew more than that was about to happenâŚpart of which would be separation from the Father with Whom He had been in fellowship for all past eternity. âWithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sinsâ (Hebrews 8:22). And it is not automatic. We must acknowledge our sin and ask God to forgive us, based on what Jesus did. It is a âbig dealâ in the workings of the Universe that this sacrifice â and resurrection â happened.
A) I think this is a significant issue â perhaps the most significant. It seems to be somewhat related to your problems with comprehending the âTrinityâ â which is, admittedly, a difficult thought. The very first verse in the Bible uses the word Elohim which is âgrammatically pluralâ but followed by a singular verb â the verb for âcreated.â Pre-Christian Judaism had a concept of a rather âbinaryâ deity, so in some sense the concept of a complex yet monotheistic God has been chewed over for a very long time.
You may not believe Jesus is God. But this then makes some of your concern about the Eli, Eli statement difficult.
When Jesus said âHe who has seen Me has seen the FatherââŚwhen He said âI and the Father are Oneâ ⌠when He told one prospective disciple âBefore Abraham was, I amââwhat did He mean? This cannot be re-interpreted in the light of other literature. It has to be understood in light of the cultural and religious milieu in which those around Him lived and breathed. They were expecting that one day a Jewish Man would come and that He would be both Messiah and God. See the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were not making some other interpretation.
The Qumran community apparently expected a Messiah who would atone for their sins.
The combination of divine status and divine suffering is unknown in Jewish literature â at least per some modern scholars-- so it is important to consider how or why they would have incorporated this scenario ino the life of Jesus if it did not occur â yet they still acknowledged Him as God. A rabbinical commentator pointed to Jesusâ comments to the High Priest in Mark as acknowledgement of divinity.
What you believe about Jesus is what you believe, Reggie. But it does not fit what Jesus believed Himself to beâŚnot does it fit into the overall understanding of Who His followers understood, from the beginning, Jesus to be.
1 Like
I wish to make a suggestion: Please read John 20: 24-29 and give us an interpretation with emphasis on 20:26-29. How can deny the Deity of Jesus after reading that portion of Holy Scripture?
1 Like
What verse in the Bible says that?
Here is a good quick read, more concise and articulate than I could do.
Man sins in Godâs garden, God is with them, so close that they can hear His footsteps. God is not weakened by their sin. He throws them out, because a sinful man cannot be in a Holy Godâs presence. That was merciful. As it was to prevent them from being immortal, living forever apart from God is hell. So giving us a limited time on earth to be apart from Him was merciful. We would only have to live in this perverted world for a small time.
Dark cannot cover light, rather light exposes/illuminates the dark.
Jacob (a sinful man wrestled with God). God appears to many people who do not die, and God is not harmed by their sin. God is with us daily and is not harmed by our sin. He can stand to be in the presence of sin, He is not the wicked witch and sin is not water.
But there are many verses where a sinful man cannot be in Godâs presence without dying. But there are also many verses of God coming to man. Jesus is God, He came to man, near sin. How can God not be near sin?
Again, like a king can visit his commoners all he wants. But a commoner cannot come to him unless requested without the penalty of death. The way the Jews came to Godâs presence was as requested, and only when following strict purification rules.
But show me one verse that says sin weakens God and I might change my mind. God does not like sin, I will agree with that.
Back to the thread title, âMy God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?â This isnât to say that God did forsake Him, but when looking at God through sinful human lenses, He felt abandoned, it doensât mean He was. Just like god never abandons us. Just like Jesus put on human form and felt hunger and temptation during His life here, He also took on the weight of sin, and felt what it was like to be separated from God. But God never looked away, He is always there, especially when we need Him most.
God didnât say, oh no, a sinful man, Iâm meltingâŚBut man who saw a Holy God was about to die in His presence, required the âscepterâ of the king to be extended to spare his life. God forgave Isaiah, and Isaiah was allowed to be in His presence.
100% agree. Huge fan of N.T Wright. Much of my understanding the Biblical narrative comes from N.T Wright.
I am assuming you meant some of this for me, as you quoted me a few times, but referred to reggie?
I donât see how this goes against any scripture. I am trying to keep this as short as I can referring to scriptures that are fairly well known, but if you canât find the connection, feel free to ask for a reference and I can find one for you.
I think it mainly comes down to semantics, which since we canât really fathom the concept of the trinity, we just have to take it for its word. I will refer to them as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are God, but Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father ect.
I know that only God deserves praise, and Jesus allowed praise, therefore Jesus was God, or it was in His blood. God created the universe, Jesus created the universe. God can forgive sin, Jesus could forgive sins. Jesus was GodâŚin His lineage or authority, but not in person/role while He was on earth.
I guess there is no clear scripture of this, but it is how I make sense of it, that Jesus was fully God, but fully man, like a prince is fully royal, but can be fully commoner at his own will.
Much like a king is royal, and the prince and queen is royal, but the king is not the prince ect. The prince can act in a non-royal role, he is still royalty, but not the prince. If the price wore commoner clothes and asked to be treated as one, then he could not do such a thing. BUT, you can imagine, anyone who recognized the prince would treat him better out of the fear of knowing who he really is or could do, the prince still has authority of those who know him.
Itâs like undercover boss, the CEO becomes the employee. While a lowly employee, He canât fire anyone, is is just a new guy. But, he can take off the outfit and put his CEO hat on and fire you at any second. But Jesus knew the bigger picture and wanted to see the human process of life through to save man, so He never put on His âGodâ hat, until it was finished.
Jesus gave up His âGodlyâ role, and took a human role. He could sin, He could err, He could stumble. But He still had authority from God to forgive sins and heal people and command the seas and winds.
Jesus was a human, Jesus was tempted. One can only be tempted if one can sin. God cannot sin, but Jesus gave up this ârole of Godâ when taking on form of man.
It is very difficult to understand or explain. But I didnât mean to make it out as if I didnât believe Jesus wasnât God. I said in the beginning, that I will appear to contradict myself a lot, but not really. Itâs very simple, yet very complex.
Just like I think that since the creation of our universe, the death of Jesus was in progress, yet on the other hand, I say the death wasnât a âbig dealâ.
I can say that about my son. Meaning we have one mind, we agree on everything, we are of the same blood. I think the Father and Son are tighter than humans, but again, you can be âoneâ without literally being âoneâ. Just like the two human fleshâs become âoneâ.
They are one because they are both God, but the Father is not the Son.
It means what Co1 1:15 says, before the universe Jesus was God, so of course before Abraham.
I am not making some other interpretation of it either. I think I might have set you off with my one sentence that said Jesus was not God, which was a mistake on my fault, as it is difficult to articulate. I meant to say that Jesus was not in the role of God.
This is to go against what I have commonly heard that Jesus was fully God and was perfect from birth and had God powers and was fully God in the role sense and could not sin, which I donât see scripture saying that at all.
I wasnât trying to dismiss it, I was speaking relativistic. I am well aware of the brutal nature, I know that thousands of people were crucified. Relative to the burden Christ would bear (being separated from His Father which whom He is âOneâ with), a physical crucifixion was small fries. Just like a match is hot, but relative to the sun not so much.
I think that was most of the praying and sweating blood was from.
Or what about Isaiah 6:5-7 is an example â Isaiah cried âI am a man of unclean lipsâ and a heavenly being touched his lips with something that made him (Isaiah) clean. âBehold your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.â
No blood, but sin was atoned for. God could forgive all sin in a second if He wanted to. He could also take away our free will if He wanted to. But it is illogical, so He wonât. Sin needs to have a high price, so we can know the weight of sin, and then know the holiness of God. If sin were forgiven with the snap of His finger, we would probably all continue to sin, and we would not know or understand Godâs holiness. And could not properly worship Him.
I donât think it can Hebrews 8:22 can be read so literal. Matt 9:5, Luke 5:23 âTake heart, son; your sins are forgiven.â There was no blood there, yet sins were forgiven. Isaiah 1:11 âThe multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?â says the LORD. âI have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.â
First we need to delineate between the sacrifice (as in an animal that died on an alter) and a sacrifice (as giving up something you treasure).
Lev 17:11:For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for oneâs life.
The sacrificing of animals was to point to what Jesus would do for them. It was more the heart of the sacrifice than the act (as with all things of God). It was in obedience to God, and it was a bit of trust that God would provide, they could afford to give up their best lamb. The animal was the sacrifice, but it was the clean blood sprinkled that âforgaveâ the sins. Much like the blood of the passover lamb is what saved the Israelites. But the blood wasnât magical. The blood represents life. Jesusâ entire life was given for man, the reason He left heaven was for man, He lived as a servant for man, His life was the sacrifice, the blood (which is necessary) was a representation of that. This was Godâs sacrifice (giving up a treasure)to/for us, it was costly, God had to give up His best (in heaven) part of Himself for us.
Again, most of this you are commenting on is my contradictions or an excerpt, not the other part I said or the post as a whole. The resurrection was a big deal, but I donât see it as a miracle. I donât think death was an obstacle that Jesus had to overcome and He was worried that He might not. I think Jesus sweat blood thinking of enduring this separation from God, knowing He would overcome it, but still had to endure it. Like pregnancy and/or labor, I bet it sucks to endure it, but knowing what comes afterwords is worth it, but you know it will come(not the best analogy as I know not all pregnancies end up in live birth). Itâs not like âI have to conquer this obstacle so the baby will be able to come out, I hope I can and when I do celebrate with me for overcoming itâ.
I think the hour of darkness was a necessity, that had to be endured, to save mankind. Jesus is LIFE, death couldnât hold Him, death didnât scare Him. I donât see that resurrection as a miracle, rather a law of the universe, like gravity, I am not surprised when a buoyant object that was submerged, springs back upon the surface, I kind of expect it. So if that object never did surface, then yes, I would be suspect of the Messiahs claims. That is why the resurrection was important, it had to happen to validate who Jesus was, but it wasnât a miracle or a surprise any more than God loving us is a surprise or a miracle, it just is what it is.
So relative to Jesus taking on all the powers of darkness, I think the resurrection wasnât a big deal.
But other than the prophesies saying how He had to die on a tree and be pierced and no broken bonesâŚThe crucifixion wasnât a big deal either. But Jesus blood/life had to leave Him, for us to have benefited from it. So in that sense, it was the biggest deal, but again, more His life than His death, but death was required so His life could end so we could benefit form it.
I just think too many people focus on the face value of the physical death/crucifixion and resurrection. When thousands of others died that way, and the resurrection, like it was a tough obstacle to overcome, like Jesus could have stayed dead? There is so much more meaning behind it, Jesusâ life in this place was a sacrifice (treasure forfeited) from Jesus and God for us, and an example how were were supposed to live before we rejected God. We should celebrate good Friday more than Sunday. Good Friday was good, the first time since the universe was created that it was finished! The following Sunday just proves/validates Good Friday after the fact. What happened first, the smoke or the fire? What is more important? Semantics really.
How is that logic consistent with scriptures? I thought blood was where forgiveness came from? Where is resurrection required for atonement? After âit is finishedâ was done, we were all potentially forgiven (it has to be asked for itâs not automatic). The resurrection is just validation of the sinless spotless lamb, Son of God who died for us. It told us after the fact. This doesnât disagree with any other scriptures, it is just coming at it from a different perspective. You can read the whole NT and it still agrees with all that Paul says, even more I think.
The Bible is the only source I am using.
But this is really pointless semantics. I think we agree on the important things. Who God is, and Why Jesus came, and what He did for us. Looking at it like I do just makes more logical sense to me and explains things like: How knowing you would be raised to life in a few days, makes death a difficult thing. Or how giving something away you will get back in a few days is a sacrifice? I donât see it like that any more. I see His life as the sacrifice (not his physical life) but His being, leaving heaven and His Father, and death not as an obstacle to overcome but as necessary enduring for mankind.