Why did Christ die?

Originally posted by Zander 88
Are there any other books/sources beside the bible that record Jesus' history? Basically, Do we know without a doubt that Jesus did infact exist?

Yes,
For example, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus; so did Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian - amongst others.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:
" ... independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus ..."

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, lets get the scriptures in order shall we? In Matthew 16:22 we see Christ right before he goes to the cross and Peter saying "Heaven preserve you Lord". At this time Christ knew his hour had come to go to the cross and Peter was saying otherwise. This was a time of temptation for Christ because he in no way wanted to go to the cross. Likewise in the d ...[text shortened]... state in the wilderness and Christ answered saying that thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

In other words, Peter was Satan.

Originally posted by frogstomp
In other words, Peter was Satan.

No, no, silly man. Satan is really Peter. 🙄


Somedays my patience wears thin.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What is necessary is repentance, which goes beyond "walking in love the best we can". Perhaps Christ paid a ransom so that repentance is enough to pay the penalty of sin. However, it does not necessarily follow that Christianity is the only way to God.

Once again, if one comes to repentance and lives a life based in love, compassion, justice, etc., is he not observing the commandments given by Jesus? Has he not found his way to God?

As I have repeatidly said, Christ paid a ransom for ALL to be justified before God. This includes those who died before the time of Christ, during, and after the time of Christ. I don't think there were any Christians before the time of Christ yet according to Christian theology men like Abraham and David are considered to be "saved". Having said that, I would also venture a guess that without Christs sacrifice thier salvation would not have been possible.

Biblically, God requires faith. Faith in what you may ask? Faith in what he has conveyed to mankind such as sending his Son to die for us. I think we are accountable for what is made known to us.

Originally posted by whodey
As I have repeatidly said, Christ paid a ransom for ALL to be justified before God. This includes those who died before the time of Christ, during, and after the time of Christ. I don't think there were any Christians before the time of Christ yet according to Christian theology men like Abraham and David are considered to be "saved". Having said that, I w ...[text shortened]... h as sending his Son to die for us. I think we are accountable for what is made known to us.

🙄
I think the Bible that I am reading is missing a few chapters.

This post is on the Satan / Peter issue.

Fallen man has become united with God's enemy Satan. The rebellion of Adam was not simply that he trangressed. It was that he caused the human race to be united to Satan. Satan is something like a parasite attached to man in a spiritual way. Concider this passage:

"And you, though dead in your offenses and sins in which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience ..." (Ephesians 2:1,2)

Satan is "the ruler of the authority of the air". Satan is an evil spirit who is now "operating IN the sons of disobedience".

That goes for you and me and Peter and all of descendents of Adam. Satan the evil spirit is operating IN fallen mankind. So when Jesus turned to Peter and addressed Satan he was underscoring that Satan is the evil spirit hiding out in Peter's suggestion that Jesus sidestep to cross and not do the Father's will.

Satan was operating in Peter's opinion. It is important to see that it seemed like a very good opinion. What could be better than suggesting the Jesus not be put to death? Isn't that seemingly a high and noble thought.

Satan is concealed in many of man's noble thoughts. IF they are not the will of God it doesn't matter how "good" it sounds. Now consider the words of Jesus carefully:

"But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men" (Matt. 16:23)

The will of God transcends the things of men. The will of God is the true blessing for mankind. If you oppose the will of God it doesn't matter how noble your concept of man's benefit is. Satan is hiding out in many a thought concerning the things of men. Satan is hiding out behind many "good" suggestions. Our good suggestions can be in opposition to the will of God.

Sneaky has the Devil is he cannot fool the Son of God. And Peter had just had a great revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God too. Yet short time latter Peter expresses his opinion with his mind on man's things rather than God's will. And the leading disciple receives the rebuke of Jesus - "Get behind me Satan ..."

The next passage shows that Peter's problem is the problem of all people who will not deny the self to enjoy and follow the Lord Jesus -

"THEN ... Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his soul-life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soul-life for My sake shall find it" (Matt. 16:24,25)

If you want to lose your soul-life you hang on to it and avoid Jesus. You have now but you will lose in the end.

If you want to save your soul life, you lose it now to follow Jesus. You lose now and are saved in the end.

A man or woman has to decide which is better. Is it better to save your opinion and your soul life now and suffer loss in the end? Or is it better to suffer the loss of your soul-life and your man centered opinion now but be gloriously saved in the end? Which is better?

The disciples are warned to lose their self love now to follow Jesus. Then they will find themselves in the kingdom of Christ. Actually to follow Jesus now is an enjoyment. And to follow Jesus now is a personal victory for the follower because the parasite Satan is dealt with and conquered by you following Jesus.

For this reason, for the reason of knowing that to follow Jesus is a defeat to Satan, Satan furiously fills the human mind with rationals why one should NOT follow Jesus. Satan is a LIAR. He knows that if you follow Jesus he, Satan, is cut off by the cross, but you go gloriously on to a victorious resurrection victory.

Originally posted by Brimon
Yes,
For example, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus; so did Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian - amongst others.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:
" ... independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus ..."

Please do some research and you will find that these so called 'independent accounts' actually only refer to the existence of Christians who claim that Jesus existed.

The Encyclopedia Britannica is clearly wrong in its claims as it could not possibly know what all the opponents of Christianity doubted and even so this is not evidence for the historicity of Jesus as these opponents would have relied on the accounts of Christians anyway.

Originally posted by vistesd
And if he were around today, saying the things he said then, I suspect there would be a lot of Christians calling for his head. He really wouldn’t be less of a skandalon today.

My guess is that the wing ("conservative"/"liberal"/"progressive" ) that most calls for his head would surprise not a few posting here.

Originally posted by whodey
No, no, silly man. Satan is really Peter. 🙄


Somedays my patience wears thin.

OK, so you're saying that Satan was the rock upon whom Christ built his church?

Originally posted by frogstomp
OK, so you're saying that Satan was the rock upon whom Christ built his church?

No that's called sarcasm. Why not respond to jaywills response?

Originally posted by frogstomp
OK, so you're saying that Satan was the rock upon whom Christ built his church?

That's a perfectly fair question.

The rock upon which Christ built the church was the revelation that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. The revelation is the rock, I believe, and not Peter.

Here's the passage in question:

"He says to them, But you, who do you say that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said to him, You are blessed, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens. And I also say that you are Peter, and on this rick I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail againt it." (Matt. 16:15-18)

I believe that the rock is the revelation which only God the Father can grant to men. That is that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Intelligent, smart, clever, and educated "flesh and blood" cannot make this known to men. Only a revelation from the Father can cause people to see this truth. Upon this truth the New Testament church is built.

Confirming this interepretation is the Apostle Paul's word that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets:

" ... you are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20)

In Matthew the rock underneath God's building is the revelation of the Son of God. And in Ephesians the building is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus Himself as a living Person is the chief cornerstone of this building. To see the revelation of Jesus the Son of God is also to touch the reality of Jesus the Son of God. The Person and the revelation become one matter upon which the church is built.

Even if you want to make a case that Simon was not too good, this is precisely the point of Jesus changing his name to Peter - a stone. The changing of Simon's name to Peter represents the transformation of Peter's being through the salvation of Christ.

It doesn't matter if Satan has ground within the believers. Christ is able to transform them with His dynamic salvation and make them fit to be built together in love and in divine life into His building.

In the Bible the changing of someone's name by God signifies God's ability to transform them from the old man to a new man.

For example - Abram to Abraham, Saria to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Peter.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok kids. For all of you who do not think that Christ is the only way to God, why then did Christ say that he laid down his life for us? I mean, what was the purpose if there were a number of equal or better choices? Did he do it for kicks? If Christ were only but one of many prophets of God and nothing more, why did he lay down his life? For what?

Why did Christ die?

Well, I'm no physician, but I wager it had something to do with the nails...

L

Originally posted by Brimon
For example, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus; so did Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian - amongst others.

Really? What others, specifically? Which of Jesus's contemporaries took notice of him, apart from the N.T. authors?

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Really? What others, specifically? Which of Jesus's contemporaries took notice of him, apart from the N.T. authors?

Is there some basis upon which you think N.T. authors, on general principle, should not be considered?

Originally posted by whodey
No that's called sarcasm. Why not respond to jaywills response?

After you have read his next post, ask me again, and I might tell you why I won't...... that is, if you already haven't figured it out.