Why did Jesus have to die?

[substitute]

Oh man, I bloody hate this sort of stuff. My simple answer would be: he didn't have to, he chose to; none of it makes sense unless he chose to freely.

But all that sacrifice/redemption/Adam's sin stuff... TBH I just laugh at it... not meaning to be disrespectful to the people who take it seriously, but it just seems to my mind so... small... as to be quite beneath the general modus operandi of what I understand as God.

For me, 'why he chose to' is 'to show us what it's all about'. The whole crucifixion story is just as powerful and compelling, just as inspiring and real to me, completely divorced from the Judeo-Christian traditions' interpretations of it... I promise you. Yes, I've looked at them in detail, learned in detail about how it fits into that context, but to me it still just isn't something I can take seriously... I have to take it out of that context for it to make any sense to me. But the wider context I see it in is considered heretical and not valid by the majority of people who can even bring themselves to talk about 'Adam's sin'.

IOW I see the whole thing as allegorical. Not the crucifixion itself, but the Judaism-saturated interpretation/context in which say, St Paul places it. If I have to listen to someone presenting me this whole "God had this plan, right..." thing, I'm afraid I find it very hard to keep a straight face.

And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic (not Roman). And I see no contradiction there.

 

[Nonsensical]

The Roman's were very Judgmental (strong J's). Anything that contradicted them, in this case-religious beliefs, was morally wrong. They were closed minded, and felt that their views were superior, and right.

 

[Totenkindly]

The Roman's were very Judgmental (strong J's). Anything that contradicted them, in this case-religious beliefs, was morally wrong. They were closed minded, and felt that their views were superior, and right.

According to the only account(s) we have, the Romans didn't give a damn about Jesus.

They wanted to let him go.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Q: Why did Jesus have to die?

A: Why does anyone have to die?

______________________________________

Q: Why did Jesus have to die the way he did?

A: The answer all depends on whether or not you feel he's the exclusive "Son of God".

If he is the exclusive "Son of God" as per Biblical and ecclesiastical accounts, then he died as part of a self-sacrifice to take on the sins of mankind and offer them and all their progeny a chance at redemption, access to Heaven, sealing the final covenant between God and his people, no longer just the ethnic Jews, but all men and women who accept Christ's message of the Lord in their hearts.

Why did JESUS, in particular, have to die? He was the only flesh-and-blood being who was capable of taking on the rest of men's sins, because he was entirely pure, innocent in word and deed, the only person with compassion, and beyond that strength, enough to suffer for all mankind.
______________________________________

 

[heart]

Q: Why did Jesus have to die the way he did?

A: The answer all depends on whether or not you feel he's the exclusive "Son of God".

Some people see Christ as archetype and metaphor.

 

[murkrow]

The Roman's were very Judgmental (strong J's). Anything that contradicted them, in this case-religious beliefs, was morally wrong. They were closed minded, and felt that their views were superior, and right.

ROFLMAO

yeah, those are some solid facts you've got there.

The romans were the most permissive empire ever, all they wanted you to do was build like one statue of the emperor and they were happy.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Some people see Christ as archetype and metaphor.

Being an archetype and a metaphor in the manner you're speaking of is purely contingent. The question was WHY Jesus had to die. In all likelihood, Jesus didn't need to die merely so that some people could have a nice metaphor for suffering or goodness or sacrifice or higher moral values. Somebody else could have fulfilled that role. The Biblical account is such that it frames Jesus' death as a NECESSARY and crucial element in the progression of both human and, beyond that, cosmic history.

As for archetypal and metaphorical statuses:

Anyone can serve as a metaphor... like Willy Loman for the disillusioned everyman, or George W. Bush for the ascent of the undeserving.... as for archetype, it's a rather arbitrary status... who are the believers to determine that Christ is archetypal of, say, sacrifice or love? There may be (and in fact are) thousands of other people lauded by their communities as archetypes of many (if not all or more) of the values that Christ is said to have embodied. Christians have merely populated the earth. How can we make a fair assessment of all instances of love, etc. and choose an archetype?

So, once again, one has to consider the question of the OP... why did Christ HAVE to die? I'm assuming that the question presumes a historic importance to Christ's death... as opposed to why 'any old person' has to die, hence my first response.

 

[heart]

Being an archetype and a metaphor in the manner you're speaking of is purely contingent. The question was WHY Jesus had to die. In all likelihood, Jesus didn't need to die merely so that some people could have a nice metaphor for suffering or goodness or sacrifice or higher moral values. Somebody else could have fulfilled that role. The Biblical account is such that it frames Jesus' death as a NECESSARY and crucial element in the progression of both human and, beyond that, cosmic history.

The death and resurrection of Christ are all very important and valid parts of the metaphor...whether a Jesus ever really existed or died to begin with. Modern churches are putting the focus on Jesus the man and less on Christ.

 

[gokartride]

The Biblical account is such that it frames Jesus' death as a NECESSARY and crucial element in the progression of both human and, beyond that, cosmic history.

I agree....and I believe Christ's death was of this very nature. As such, it is probably difficult for us to articulate exactly why he died or what that act truly accomplished. I believe there is something in it that is all about connection....and restoration of the same. Something was out of whack...broken. Christ's entire life was about this though, not just his death. His birth, the many and diverse eyewitness accounts of his ministry, his teachings, and his death....all interconnect. On the whole, this was something very rare and unique.

I will also state that I believe there are enough credible eyewitness accounts/details within the Gospels (aside from the lessons to early Christian communities) to make it hard for me to disregard the overarching historical validity of the accounts. This leaves one w/ a real problem...I choose to settle it by believing Jesus was the Christ (wanted to lay my cards on the table on this).

In light of this, his role in history is indeed cosmic...many religions present/deal with seperation from the Divine and grapple with ways to restore this broken connection. To accept that God himself reconnected the cosmos in a way that still leaves us essentially with free will is mind-boggling, delightful, and illustrates profound the care of God (however one defines this Person).

I will also add that his death/life illustrates that connecting to the cosmic Truths...the really big ones....is not a game, and demands everything we are. This should come as no surprise, really....it happens this way in many traditions. The big whoppin' secret is that those who do follow this way also receive "all things." And the paradox is that they receive "all things" without possessing them. This is wondrous stuff, and connects to ultimate reality!!!

I myself hail from the Catholic tradition, but I am amazed at how these same elements crop up in other non-christian traditions, too. I therefore choose to believe that if Christ did himself mediate a solution for the nagging disconnect of humanity from cosmic truth/reality....than this is indeed "good news" on an order that is altogether stunning.

If I could blow off significant Gospel accounts it'd be one thing, but under the light of critical analysis, I cannot. They are far too compelling from an historic/literary perspective. Therefore, I have chosen to believe. Now the issue for me becomes one of grasping and then moving past/into the highly-condensed theological maxims that serve as mere pointers to the real mystery which is cosmically huge. To do this I myself have had to glean insight from other traditions/awarenesses before coming back full circle and seeing things (like the meaning of the Christ's death) in a fresh light, even though this inner meaning was contained in the maxims all along. Weird, huh?

I freely admit one has to leap past the realm of logical/scientific agrument on this....but for me enough of these aligned close enough for me personally to make the leap into belief. That this leap is required...considering the nature of the mystery...should also come as no surprise.

I mention all this only because the death of Jesus holds very different meaning if one chooses to believe....aside from that things naturally would appear very different.

 

[Totenkindly]

ROFLMAO yeah, those are some solid facts you've got there. The romans were the most permissive empire ever, all they wanted you to do was build like one statue of the emperor and they were happy.

Hmmm. Maybe it was a very stern, very judgmental statue?

 

[Oberon]

Why did Jesus have to die?

Well, the physical abuse his body took rendered it incapable of survival.

If he hadn't passed already, that spear through the side would have finished him off.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, the physical abuse his body took rendered it incapable of survival. If he hadn't passed already, that spear through the side would have finished him off.

Thank God we finally have a medical doctor on the forums.

 

[Mole]

The Father is offended by us. So in order to forgive us, he tortured his Son to death.

Child sacrifice was common in the society and many would have seen their siblings sacrificed by the very people on whom they depended for survival.

So in order to survive, the siblings dissociated and repressed all the feelings about their sacrificed siblings. And so formed a paranoid personality.

And being unable to deal with their feelings about their parents and child sacrifice, they projected their feelings outward in the new religion.

And it is this religion that saved them from their feelings and gave hope and meaning to the horror of their lives.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well it looks like that I will have to be the one who will pop the question.

How do you people know he has even existed?

 

[Totenkindly]

Well it looks like that I will have to be the one who will pop the question. How do you people know he has even existed?

Because he lives inside my heart, silly!



... and what's this with the "you people"?

 

[Oberon]

Well, the real question is "Why does a loving God require a blood sacrifice for sin?"

Good question. People who choose to worship this particular God also choose to live with this question, as I have done.

The only alternative for the true believer is to become "...the kind of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in the Creator, but rather is offended by Him personally."

I wish I could remember where that quote came from...

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, the real question is "Why does a loving God require a blood sacrifice for sin?" Good question. People who choose to worship this particular God also choose to live with this question, as I have done.

The only alternative for the true believer is to become "...the kind of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in the Creator, but rather is offended by Him personally." I wish I could remember where that quote came from...

Hmmm. How do you define "true believer" again?

 

[Virtual ghost]

... and what's this with the "you people"?

Well I have translated one old saying from my language directly.

So the entire sentence is grammatically incorrect.

 

[Oberon]

Hmmm. How do you define "true believer" again?

I mean the person who can't escape his own worldview, and whose worldview includes the traditional Judeo-Christian Creator God. If you really believe, you can decide you are going to follow this God and do so, or you can decide He's a bastard and He doesn't deserve your worship... but you really can't choose to disbelieve. Belief isn't a matter of volition.

 

[Totenkindly]

I mean the person who can't escape his own worldview, and whose worldview includes the traditional Judeo-Christian Creator God.

Thanks, that helps clarify what your premises are.

If you really believe, you can decide you are going to follow this God and do so, or you can decide He's a bastard and He doesn't deserve your worship... but you really can't choose to disbelieve. Belief isn't a matter of volition.

Within the constraints of your premise, yes.