Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 8 9 10

Original poster

Why did God need Jesus to be killed?

226 replies

Machadaynu · 01/10/2012 11:14

Not much to add to the title I suppose.

It's just never made sense to me that an omnipotent God would need to do anything he didn't want to, therefore he must have wanted to have Jesus killed.

He could have forgiven us without him being killed - or he isn't omnipotent.

He could have made a world that remained without sin, rather than letting Satan mess this one up in the first week - or he isn't omnipoitent

He could have invented another way of making a symbolic gesture that didn't involve murdering his son - maybe he could have made the earth spin backwards or something to signify a new start.

I just don't understand God thinking "well, I don't need to murder my son, but I think I will anyway because that will show people how loving I am"

So why did he claim to need to have Jesus killed?

OP posts:

seeker · 05/10/2012 19:35

I don't understand that post, conflugungen

Conflugenglugen · 05/10/2012 19:45

Hypothetically (before I get jumped on), if we are God, collectively, then we do have free will. Because we are the ones who are making everything happen.

amillionyears · 05/10/2012 20:03

God needed Jesus to be killed,because the rules in the Old Testamount were no longer working.
People were supposed to sacrifice as atonement for their sins.
I cant remember how exactly it went wrong,but it was something to do with,God got fed up with the sacrifices as the people were not doing it as instructed,and the people were not doing it with the right intentions in their hearts.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:12

Con Who says we are God?

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:16

Amillion People were supposed to sacrifice as atonement for their sins? Really? Sorry, but what kind of sick monster, whatever the circumstances, demands sacrifice?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I am awfully glad that Yahweh does not exist. If he/she/it did, the last thing I could ever do would be worship such an immoral, bloodthirsty tyrant.

amillionyears · 05/10/2012 20:20

He does exist.
You have got until you die,to believe it.
Though,if you end up believing before that,you get the benefits.

Sacrifice of certain animals or some birds,I forget which exactly.And something to do with animals with or without webbed feet,something like that.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:24

Con I don't really understand your statement either.

If there's no separation between God and Jesus (they are one being) and between us and God (we are one being) - then there's a trinity of us, God & Jesus? Or we're all one - and we are collectively God? So, no creator God, nobody listening to prayers (since we didn't create the universe & telepathy has never been proved)?

OK - but that's really not 99.9% of believers of all religions actually believe. If we just make up our own definitions of "God", then you could make anything you like fit.

HolofernesesHead · 05/10/2012 20:29

Crikey, okay, let's talk historicity. Which academic historians have you read on first century Palestine? We'll take it from there.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:29

I am as certain as it is possible to be that you are wrong, Amillion - and until someone can offer me some evidence, I will die not believing in yours, or any of the 10,000 or so other gods that humanity has believed in through the ages.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:30

Holo Are you suggesting there's evidence that Jesus existed? Please feel free to supply it. I would be fascinated to hear of it.

amillionyears · 05/10/2012 20:33

Crikey,dont worry about it.
Paul on the road to Damascus thought exactly the same thing!

HolofernesesHead · 05/10/2012 20:33

No, Crikey, I asked you a question. Which academic historians have you read on first century Palestine? Your post gave the impression that you have read quite widely on this subject, so let's take your reading as our starting point.

seeker · 05/10/2012 20:39

Isn't it up to the person who made the practically categorical statement- that Jesus the man existed- to offer the evidence to support it? Isn't that how this sort of discussion works?

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:40

Have read quite widely on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, specifically. Ehrman, obviously, plus Robert Miller & a couple of others.

Enough to feel comfortable (very) making the statement that there's no evidence whatsoever of an historical Jesus.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 20:44

Amillion I won't worry about it. No for the tiniest second :)

Conflugenglugen · 05/10/2012 20:53

As I wrote, Crikey, I am hypothesising. Although there are several eastern religions and philosophies that boil down to the same thing. And they probably make up more than 1.1% of believers.

Conflugenglugen · 05/10/2012 20:54

Religion does not necessarily = Western religion.

HolofernesesHead · 05/10/2012 20:56

Interesting choices, Crikey! What do you make of the Jesus Seminar? Have you read any critiques of your chosen authors?

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 21:04

Con OK. If "we" are God, then free will exists. And so does God, since I believe we exist. Or at least I do - that's all I actually know for certain - which would make me God. I am therefore no longer an atheist. Hail me .

Holo Where are you trying to go with this. I am not an expert on ancient Palestine - and, guess what, I don't actually need to be in order to make the perfectly truthful and almost universally accepted statement that there's no historical evidence that Jesus existed.

I am not prepared to be patronised by you about my chosen reading material. If you feel that I am wrong, or am overlooking something, then go ahead and tell me.

Conflugenglugen · 05/10/2012 21:06

Crikey

HolofernesesHead · 05/10/2012 21:16

Just asking, Crikey, that's all. There is so much rich, fasicinating work being done on the historical Jesus so I wondered what you thought of some of it. Your statements are factually inaccurate; the scholarly consensus is such that there being no evidence for the historical Jesus is very far from 'almost universally accepted.' the problem with just reading one or two people in isolation from the bigger currents in research is that you can be left with the impression that that particular writer has got if all right ( that's what sells popular history books, after all!) and not be aware of the real scholarly consensus, or the historical background to that particular writer's stance (eg Schweitzer, v impt for Ehrman). But YMMV.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 21:24

Nope. Sorry, you are not correct. They even teach trainee priests in seminaries that there's no evidence that Jesus existed.

There are, as I said, reasonably good inferences that can be made if you look at the motivations of the writers and the way (for example) that the gospels were written & constructed. Personally, I think it's more probable than not that some man, possibly an apocalyptic preacher who was killed by the Romans, did exist. I'll even stick my neck out and say that he may well have been an inspirational man with a message of peace.

But evidence? Not the tiniest, weeniest, smallest shred. If you believe otherwise, then you have been misinformed. Sorry.

CrikeyOHare · 05/10/2012 21:25

Dunno what YMMV means.

seeker · 05/10/2012 21:27

Holofernesehead- you are being a bit patronising, you know. Are you intending to be?

BoffinMum · 05/10/2012 21:32

Perhaps it was so it was clear Jesus was human, but also to enable him to rise from the dead and in doing so make a clear statement that something mystical was going on?

Kind of logical, in a God/god sort of way.

Flip

1 2 ··· 5 6 7 8 9 10