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?

[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.

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

Irrelevant if written by inspiration from GOD.

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

Thanks for sharing your opinion....

[ttruscott]

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.�

May I introduce you to the idea of type in OT hermeneutics?

"Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. ... In the fullest version of the theory of typology, the whole purpose of the Old Testament is viewed as merely the provision of types for Christ, the antitype or fulfillment."

Wiki can fill this out for you...

[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?

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.

The Scriptures never indicated that the Messiah would come and "restore the kingdom to Israel." If the Jews had paid attention to the prophesies, they would have seen that the Messiah came to take on the sins of his people, and, indeed, the sins of the world. There is NO prophesy that said that the Messiah would be involved in the politics and wars of this world.

The Apostles didn't get it, either, until they were anointed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).

Paul didn't come up with any idea. He simply followed the direction of Christ and preached what the Scriptures said about the Messiah. It's all there in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Acts 13:16-41)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 44 by polonius]

One man's martyr is another man's insurrectionist. A martyr to those whom Jesus inspired was considered a cause of civil unrest by the ruling Romans.

Martry? Traitor? the two are not mutually exclusive.

But I agree, Paul's interpretation of the event as an atonement is a theologicial notion, and I doubt very much it was preached by the historical (read "real") Jesus.

[Elijah John]

There is NO prophesy that said that the Messiah would be involved in the politics and wars of this world.

Doesn't the battle of Armeggedon play any role in your organization's end times thelogy? Seems to me that is a politcal restoration of Israel's predominance in the Kingdom of God.

But I confess, I'm no expert on the matter.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 54 by Elijah John]

Yes, but they don't believe they will have to exert any effort. God's invisible angels will do it all. Big question would be, if God is intervening at this level, isn't he involved in politics of this world?

[onewithhim]

There is NO prophesy that said that the Messiah would be involved in the politics and wars of this world.

Doesn't the battle of Armeggedon play any role in your organization's end times thelogy? Seems to me that is a politcal restoration of Israel's predominance in the Kingdom of God.

But I confess, I'm no expert on the matter.

Remember I said that Jesus plays no part in the politics or wars of this world. There is no nation, including Israel, that will be restored after Armageddon.

Armageddon will be God's war and will not be fought by any humans. It is the time when Jehovah, by Jesus, will eliminate all human governments. The physical nation of Israel stopped being significant to God when the religious leaders turned against the Messiah, Jesus. After that his followers wrote that the new Christian congregation was the "special possession" of God, the "people of God." (IPeter 2:9,10) Israel had not kept its agreements with Jehovah, thus cancelling out their "specialness," and being abandoned by God. (Matthew 23:37,38; Matthew 21:43) See also Deuteronomy 30:15-18.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 54 by Elijah John]

Yes, but they don't believe they will have to exert any effort. God's invisible angels will do it all. Big question would be, if God is intervening at this level, isn't he involved in politics of this world?

You could say, technically, yes. But not in a way that influences what the nations do now, in this system of things. He lets them go on with their political schemes and their wars and does not get involved in any way. When he eliminates them, then we could say he will be getting involved. He will set up his own government, to the dislike of the world's rulers.