If Jesus died to "pay for" our sins..

[Elijah John]

If Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, why didn't he go around preaching "I'm going to die to pay for your sins"?

Could it be that doctrine is only a theological interpretation of Jesus martrydom? An interpretation after the fact?

[FWI]

Mankind dies and is sick for his own iniquities and that remains to this day. The false gospel of grace, is the gospel of the false prophet Paul, who came to help the "beast" deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:14).

The concept that man pays for his own sins is quite clear biblically and Paul is the one who introduces this idea in the N.T. So, it seems that showme is falsely accusing him. In 1Cor. 15, Paul explains that the death of the Christ was an important part of salvation, but it did not rescue us from our sins…So, what does? The resurrection of the Christ!

When humans die, because of sin, they cease to exist. There is no going to a heaven or going to a "make believe" place called hell. Therefore, all who have died (excluding the Christ) still cease to exist. However, the Christ, who was sinless, before his Father (God) and man, died physically for no apparent reason. Or, did he?

The Christ had the option to "live physically" for eternity, because he did not sin. Yet, he gave up this right, so humans could have the opportunity to be resurrected from the dead (he also believed that spiritual life was greater than physical life). The resurrection is the only hope for mankind. Some, will be resurrected spiritual, but most will be resurrected physical. They will be taught the true ways of God and then will need to choose: God's ways or man's…

Hence, the "gospel of grace" has been twisted by man's "altered" beliefs, but not by Paul. It is also clear that his writings do not suggest that he claimed to be a prophet. This label, is another example of certain men using their own altered beliefs to designate, who they want others (including Paul) to be addressed as.

I also disagree that Paul was a tool of the adversaries of God. Did Paul have issues? Sure, he did. He was human, just like you and I…

[ttruscott]

Jesus only mentions "ransom" about once per Gospel.

How many times does he need to say it before we should accept it?
If a person says to another, "I'm going to save your life." How many times does a person need someone to say something before they believe them? If words are not enough...what if that person actually dies to save their life...would they believe them then? Did that person die in vain?

One would think the central and essential message of a preacher would be repeated. Especially if one's salvation depended on understanding and consciously accepting that message.

Not once, as in "I said it once, will not repeat it, sorry you missed it, but oh well, your (eternal) loss".

The Bible is NOT TO BE THE PROOF OF HIS MESSAGE! No one will miss anything because he will be led by the indwelling Spirit. Not one of those given to Him will be lost because of the inadequacies you think you see in the bible!
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
of the bible or teachers...

In fact it is obvious to me that the Bible is purposefully inadequate to force the sheep who can hear His voice to turn to Him with full attention!

[ttruscott]

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�

The problem with metaphor is its interpretation. My goodness, had Jesus just spoken in plain words we would all be able to talk about something else.

1. Not a metaphor.

2. He was not giving the plain truth everyone...Matt 13:10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?� 11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.…Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

His words serve His purpose of creating the separation between His people and the people of the evil one, Matt 13:36-39.

[Elijah John]

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�

The problem with metaphor is its interpretation. My goodness, had Jesus just spoken in plain words we would all be able to talk about something else.

1. Not a metaphor.

2. He was not giving the plain truth everyone...Matt 13:10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?� 11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.…Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

His words serve His purpose of creating the separation between His people and the people of the evil one, Matt 13:36-39.

So if people do not understand what Jesus says, or misinterpret his meaning at times, are you saying they belong to the evil one? Really?

[showme]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

He did. He preached that he is the anointed one, proclaiming the Good News about the release from being captive to sin.

"So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.� With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.� - Luke 4:17-21

Yet Jesus' main preaching point was about God's Kingdom to come and not to honor himself in his role as the ransom. He was sent to fulfill the covenants God made with mankind. One being the Abrahamic covenant, where all the families of Earth will be blessed.

You are still captive to sin, and all the families of the Earth are not blessed. I think you missed something in your analysis.

[showme]

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�

The problem with metaphor is its interpretation. My goodness, had Jesus just spoken in plain words we would all be able to talk about something else.

1. Not a metaphor.

2. He was not giving the plain truth everyone...Matt 13:10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?� 11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.…Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

His words serve His purpose of creating the separation between His people and the people of the evil one, Matt 13:36-39.

Who is the "evil one", and what message did he plant in the same "field", and what "field"? What was the "good seed"?

[jgh7]

[Replying to Elijah John]

In Matthew 20:28 Jesus said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�


In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.�


In John 15:13 Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.�

The idea of him dying as a ransom for others seems to be a common theme in Jesus teaching, and he expressly stated that it was way he came.

Ransom just mentioned a few times. Seems likely a theological allusion placed on Jesus lips by the Gospel evangelists. Again after the fact.

The thrust of Jesus preaching by contrast, seems to have been proclaiming the love and mercy of the Father. This based on simple repentance, as taught in the parables of the Podigal Son, the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, the Beattitudes and the LORD's Prayer. Seems a theme of the Father's mercy based on simple repentance..All without the bloodshed of ransom.

Seems the message of ransom is an afterthought, and not part of Jesus ministry from the start. Something to make sense of the unexpected opposition unto death that Jesus encounterd along the way.

This strikes me as self-fulfilling. It exaggerates the importance of passages that fit a theory while suppressing the importance of passages that contradict that theory.

The examples I gave are each a part of a larger discourse and seem to flow naturally within their context. Particularly in Mark, it is a part of a steady book-long narrative that Mark saw in the life of Jesus.

Suggesting that the Evangelists placed words on Jesus’ lips appears to be taking a specific theory for Jesus and then declaring that whatever doesn’t fit that theory must not have actually been said by Jesus. It is conforming Jesus to our image, which I grant is much easier than the other way around.

Compqre the number of references Jesus made to simple repentance vs the amount of references he made to "ransom" or blood atonement. I bet you would find far more emphasis on repentance. THEN tell me who is distorting Jesus and who is not. Who is making a narrative based on a few isolated verses and who accurately sees a theme in his preaching, an emphasis apparent by what he repeats.

Now if we did that with Paul, yes, you would find the repeated theme blood atonement. Not so with Jesus. Jesus preached the Father's expansive love and mercy, repentance, and the Kingdom of God. Not blood ransom.(If we eliminate those isolated and outlier verses dealing with blood ransom.)

Fact is, Jesus just did not go around preaching "I'm going to die to pay for your sins" . He preached "repent, return to the Father, the Kingdom of God is at hand,".

Now Paul preached the blood repeatedly. But Jesus? Not so much.Paul is the one who re-invented and re-interpreted Jesus. Paul shifted the emphasis from Jesus life and teachings to his death and resurrection. Paul turned the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. As Thomas Paine put it, "instead of God, a man is preached.".

What is the exact number of times Jesus needs to repeat himself to get your seal of approval? Apparently if Jesus says something once, then it can be disregarded. What about twice? What if he said it only three times?

[Elijah John]

What is the exact number of times Jesus needs to repeat himself to get your seal of approval? Apparently if Jesus says something once, then it can be disregarded. What about twice? What if he said it only three times?

Evangelicals and other Bible literalists often warn us of the folly of picking a verse or two and making a whole doctrine of it. I am simply using their standard, and turning it around on them.

Also, repetiton is a means of emphasis. If Jesus said something important to his listeners and did not repeat it, they may have easily missed it.

Remember, many of his followers, (and some argue Jesus himself) were illiterate. In an oral culture, repetition was an important aide to memory.

And if something is repeated from Gospel to Gospel, it is more likely to be true, something Jesus actually said. According to the principle of multiple attestation anyway, which is a principle scholars use when attempting to determine the authenticity of a given statement attributed to Jesus.

[jgh7]

What is the exact number of times Jesus needs to repeat himself to get your seal of approval? Apparently if Jesus says something once, then it can be disregarded. What about twice? What if he said it only three times?

Evangelicals and other Bible literalists often warn us of the folly of picking a verse or two and making a whole doctrine of it. I am simply using their standard, and turning it around on them.

Also, repetiton is a means of emphasis. If Jesus said something important to his listeners and did not repeat it, they may have easily missed it.

Remember, many of his followers, (and some argue Jesus himself) were illiterate. In an oral culture, repetion was an important aide to memory.

And if something is repeated between the Gospels, it is more likely to be true, something Jesus actually said, according to the principle of multiple attestation.

This was repeated across multiple Gospels. Just to be clear, if Jesus says something only once even if repeated across multiple gospels then it can be disregarded? Is that correct? Only repeated things (both within a gospel as well as across multiple gospels) that Jesus said are not to be disregarded?

[Elijah John]

What is the exact number of times Jesus needs to repeat himself to get your seal of approval? Apparently if Jesus says something once, then it can be disregarded. What about twice? What if he said it only three times?

Evangelicals and other Bible literalists often warn us of the folly of picking a verse or two and making a whole doctrine of it. I am simply using their standard, and turning it around on them.

Also, repetiton is a means of emphasis. If Jesus said something important to his listeners and did not repeat it, they may have easily missed it.

Remember, many of his followers, (and some argue Jesus himself) were illiterate. In an oral culture, repetion was an important aide to memory.

And if something is repeated between the Gospels, it is more likely to be true, something Jesus actually said, according to the principle of multiple attestation.

This was repeated across multiple Gospels. Just to be clear, if Jesus says something only once even if repeated across multiple gospels then it can be disregarded? Is that correct? Only repeated things (both within a gospel as well as across multiple gospels) that Jesus said are not to be disregarded?

If Jesus says something only once, or only one Gospel reports it, it is more likely that Jesus never said it, but the Evanglist in question put the statement on Jesus lips. John 14.6, for example. And several other passages from the GoJ.