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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 39 by dakoski]

Statements at his "last supper" do not consitute the bulk of his teaching, or his preaching.

Even if Jesus really said those things towards the end, that was not his clear message from the beginning.

Where did Jesus reference his mission of "dying in order to pay for your sins" in his most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount?

Why did he teach nothing of "the blood" in the Lord's Prayer?

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 40 by Elijah John]

Statements at his "last supper" do not consitute the bulk of his teaching, or his preaching.

Even if Jesus really said those things towards the end, that was not his clear message from the beginning.

Where did Jesus reference his mission of "dying in order to pay for your sins" in his most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount?

Why did he teach nothing of "the blood" in the Lord's Prayer?

Haha I thought you might say something like that. What you find in the Gospels e.g. Mark is that Jesus teaching focuses to begin with on his identity (Mark 1-8) and then focuses on his mission which was to die to pay for our sins (8-16). This makes sense since clearly it takes time for his disciples, let alone those less close to him, to get their heads around his identity. A good teacher takes a complex subject step-by-step and builds it up.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 40 by Elijah John]

Statements at his "last supper" do not consitute the bulk of his teaching, or his preaching.

Even if Jesus really said those things towards the end, that was not his clear message from the beginning.

Where did Jesus reference his mission of "dying in order to pay for your sins" in his most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount?

Why did he teach nothing of "the blood" in the Lord's Prayer?

Haha I thought you might say something like that. What you find in the Gospels e.g. Mark is that Jesus teaching focuses to begin with on his identity (Mark 1-8) and then focuses on his mission which was to die to pay for our sins (8-16). This makes sense since clearly it takes time for his disciples, let alone those less close to him, to get their heads around his identity. A good teacher takes a complex subject step-by-step and builds it up.

Where is the "step by step" staircase that leads to the notion of blood atonement in the Sermon on the Mount? In the Parables? In "Q"?

All I see there are calls to simple repentance. A return to the mercy of the Father's expansive love.

And we are talking about simple repentance vs the human sacrifice of bloody atonement.

For that dilemma, Jesus identity is all but irrelevant. After all, both Trintarians (who believe that Jesus is God) and Jehovah's Witnesses (who believe that Jesus is not God), agree that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins.

Something Jesus that did not preach, at least not until the very end, if accounts are to taken at face value that is.

[onewithhim]

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?

I believe he did. He instructed his disciples concerning his death and resurrection, though they seemed not to understand.

John 2:19-22 esp. verse 22
Matthew 16:21
Matthew 20:28

I would think that he told his disciples these things so that they would impart that knowledge to those to which they spoke. I thought too of the fact that many were expecting the coming of the Messiah at that time when Jesus showed up, according to the prophesy in Daniel (chapters 2-4 and chapter 9). They also knew the sayings in Isaiah, not the least of which was chapter 53. Didn't he say to the religious leaders that Moses and the prophets spoke of him, and if they believed Moses and the prophets they would believe him too? Those religious leaders did a good job of sabotaging the coming of the true Messiah.

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE: Jesus was one of four messiah-candidates of his generation who were executed by the Romans for insurrection (by claiming to be the messiah who would sit on the throne of David and return the rule to Israel).

They weren't "martyred." The were executed as insurrectionists. About 20 years later Paul came up with the claim that the death of Jesus was "atonement" for sin. It was better received by his followers than admitting that it was a execution of political reason such as restoring the kingdom to Israel..

See Acts chapter 1 "So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?� Since Jesus wasn't the messiah, it wasn't.

[ttruscott]

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?

Only? It is the perfect theological meaning of His act! He taught them He must die: Luke 9:22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." etc, etc.

Why?
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

[polonius]

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?

Only? It is the perfect theological meaning of His act! He taught them He must die: Luke 9:22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." etc, etc.

Why?
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

RESPONSE: Please note that Luke 9:22 was written about 50 years after the fact, by a non-witness nor Apostle.

And the "Suffering Servant" story was written about Israel and Jacob, not Jesus.

[polonius]

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?

Only? It is the perfect theological meaning of His act! He taught them He must die: Luke 9:22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." etc, etc.

Why?
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

RESPONSE: Please note that Luke 9:22 was written about 50 years after the fact, by a non-witness nor Apostle.

And the "Suffering Servant" story was written about Israel and symbolically Jacob, not Jesus.

https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffer ... isaiah-53/

Isaiah 41:8-9

But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.�

[brianbbs67]

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?

Only? It is the perfect theological meaning of His act! He taught them He must die: Luke 9:22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." etc, etc.

Why?
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

RESPONSE: Please note that Luke 9:22 was written about 50 years after the fact, by a non-witness nor Apostle.

And the "Suffering Servant" story was written about Israel and symbolically Jacob, not Jesus.

https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffer ... isaiah-53/

Isaiah 41:8-9

But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.�

That's what we are told. We are told many things. Can not scripture mean more than one thing? And Isaiah 53 is hard to ignore in its duality of meaning.

[polonius]

That's what we are told. We are told many things. Can not scripture mean more than one thing? And Isaiah 53 is hard to ignore in its duality of meaning.

QUESTION: What "duality of meaning"? The passage tells us precisely who the Suffering Servant is? Israel !