Search This Blog

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Why did Jesus suffer and die? My annual pre-Easter post

My annual Pre-Easter post. The goal is to inform those who find Christianity mysterious or stupid.

This year I am referring back to prophecies made about the Christ many hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

700 years or so before Jesus Christ was born, a prophet named Isaiah wrote a prophetic book. When Jesus was 30 years old and legally able to read and expound upon scripture as a Rabbi in the Jewish Culture, he read from Isaiah as quoted in Luke 4:18 and 19:


"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

He did not finish the rest of verse two of Isaiah 61 - and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,

He was not on earth to bring vengeance and He had a job to do before being able to comfort all who mourn.

According to John 1:1 and 1:14, the Son of God was the one who actually created the Universe and it was He that confined Himself within a human body. Moreover, Jesus did not use His powers to do anything. He reported to the Father and was powered and led by the Spirit of God to do everything done as Jesus of Nazareth. Further study for those who care will reveal that Jesus Christ willingly lived fully human to be able to take our place and pay our penalties for sin and disobedience.

Isaiah 53 (New International Version)

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Unlike Saul the first king of the Jews, Jesus was not extraordinarily tall or handsome. He would have been a fit and powerful man as a carpenter, but not someone who immediately attracted attention.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

I believe that when Jesus actually asked the Father to "take this cup" from Him (in the garden of Gethesemane) if it would be the Father's will it was not out of fear. One thing about Jesus that set Christ apart was that he "loved the good and hated the evil" so that the thought of becoming sin itself for all men was terribly disgusting and repugnant to Jesus beyond any nastiness we could imagine. Yet He was obedient, knowing that when it happened, at that moment the connection between Jesus and the Spirit and the Father would be severed. This was unthinkable for Him and yet He did it willingly.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

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.

Matthew 27:11-14 says

"Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

12When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" 14But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor."

Christ did not seek to defend Himself as His mission was to give Himself away for mankind.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Jesus Christ was never accused of any wrongdoing, his trial was against the law and the charges against Him were a combination of lies and unaccepted truths. He died between two thieves and was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied ;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

The secret of Christianity is that when you believe in Christ He does actually change you. Christianity is not really so much a religion as it is a relationship. I know God. Not because I am anything special but rather because He is remarkable and He desires a relationship with all men and women of every color and size and shape and age.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christians celebrate the day of Easter as a celebration because Jesus Christ came back from death on that day and, in doing so, guaranteed eternal life for those who trust Him. Jews celebrate Passover, but you see Jesus was the actual Passover Lamb, he was the one sacrifice for all sins that every animal sacrifice since Adam and Eve were object lessons for mankind.

I was not so much a bad man before I trusted Christ but I was a sinful man and a selfish man and one without a firm moral standard. When Christ transformed me on the inside it began a long period of the stubborn me versus the patient Spirit of God within me, the battle of the flesh versus the Spirit and the process of becoming more like Christ. I have not become anywhere near as patient and loving and kind as Jesus nor have I overcome every bad habit. Very slowly God is working with me and on me to be more like Him. It helps that I am at least willing to be changed.

You are free to say what you will about me and often commenters do make false statements about me. I have never intentionally published anything untrue. I have sometimes posted something that was taken from another source and that source was wrong but when I did it I thought it was true. I do not wish to lie or deceive. There is one commenter who likes to accuse me of lying and of course he is incorrect. He seems to get a big kick out of repeating this falsehood for reasons I do not understand fully. Feel free to go back in time and trace any of the so-called lies. I will not lie because the goal of this blog is to promote things I believe are true.

I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God (and still is) who came to earth in human form in order to undo what the first man, Adam, did. I believe that this same God is quite inexplicably three persons in one and He made a three dimensional world and created man with body, soul and spirit. Just as a fourth dimension, time, is not tangible to us and out of our control the supernatural world that is God is not comprehensible to us because we are not able. Many people reject God because they do not understand Him or cannot put Him tidily into a box.

Frankly a God who can be completely defined and understood would not be a God who was a step above man and matter and time and energy and therefore not great. No matter who you are, no matter what you think you do have faith in something - your understanding, what you have learned, your experiences have caused you to believe in something, even if you believe that you do not know or cannot know or do not want to know or do not want to ask the question - that in and of itself is a belief system and a worldview. We all have a worldview. Mine comes with God included at no extra charge to me. He paid my price. he paid yours, too. Will you accept the gift or turn aside?

13 comments:

radar said...

Margaret Becker song -
Once upon a moonless night
I dreamed my world was one small room
A thousand books of stories told
All were black but one was gold
I took the Book from off the shelf
And held it to my frozen self
A war within my spirit raged
Through drops of salt on every page
And my body was breaking
For the words He was saying
Be a light in the darkness
Be a heart to the heartless
When the world's lost its meaning
Be the one who will still go on believing

Then once upon a windless night
Another dream in black and white
A gentle man of flesh and bone
He says this world is not our home
And my body was breaking
For the words He was saying
CHORUS
Though I was only dreaming
His words kept burning me
Over and over and over again

creeper said...

The fact of the matter is that you do post untruths quite frequently, Radar. Often these untruths are pointed out to you (sometimes repeatedly), and when you have no defense and continue to post the untruths or deny that they are untruths or change the subject, one is tempted to conclude that you are a liar or at the very least deceptive, though that's rather a fine distinction.

There are alternative interpretations, true. You could be incredibly obtuse and simply not get it when a mistake or untruth is pointed out to you. That may have been the case with the "fallacy of division" issue regarding the prison population. (Even now I'm willing to bet that if you comment on this, you will again put on display the fact that you don't understand what your colossal mistake was to begin with.)

You have a rather inflated view of your own intellect, so I doubt you're on board with the explanation that you don't "get it".

It's possible that you're so arrogant that you automatically dismiss opposing viewpoints without even reading them. We seem to have had such an instance recently when you made a completely false statement about something that Lava quoted from your own post. The first statement was just a mistake, and that's fine, we all make mistakes.

But then the exact nature of the mistake was pointed out to you. ("Lava quoted from your own post.") But you repeated the accusation (that Lava was purposely dragging something else into the discussion, which simply was completely untrue).

Your mistake was then pointed out to you in painstaking detail, so that anyone reading it could not possibly fail to understand it...

... and you repeated the accusation against Lava again.

At that point I don't think the explanation that you don't "get it" could really hold any more. A six-year-old would have looked at the explanation and understood it.

So apart from coming to a conclusion that you're just deranged and unable to decipher plain words on the screen in front of you, perhaps it's possible that you consider yourself so far above the comments on your blog that you simply don't read them.

Again, that interpretation isn't all that flattering, but frankly, I don't see any flattering alternatives in this scenario.

So you don't want to be perceived as a liar. Fine.

So why not live up to that and display some honesty and integrity? You're hiding behind "oh I just reported what somebody else said", but when you say you've acknowledged that they lied, that in itself is an untruth. You have yet to indicate that you even understand that the Family Research Center (whom you seem to endorse) committed more than just a typo, a "fat finger". As with the case of Lava's quote, the circumstances were explained to you on the respective post in crystal clear detail...

Is this another case of you "not getting it", or of you thinking of yourself as being above those silly comments on your blog? Perhaps you're even lying, but you claim that's not the case.

So make up your mind. Do you understand the exact lie that FRC put out there and that you posted on your blog?

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, you really cannot understand logic here. I will try to explain one more time. If I post something accurately then I am being responsible.

If the article I posted was incorrect then they were either mistaken or lying.

When you pointed out that they had the numbers wrong then I agreed with you that they fat fingered it or whatever it was they did.

So, I acknowledged this. Other than do backflips down the street what else would you have me do? If FRC continually put out wrong material then I would identify them as (like talk origins and dr dino) bad sources. But one mistake is not enough to label them.

I hope you are absolutely perfect yourself so you will not need an advocate when God judges all men at the end of time.

WomanHonorThyself said...

Blessed holidays to you Radar..thanks for the strength u give me to keep up the righteous fight!!

creeper said...

Radar,

you're only proving what I said in my previous comment. You're not acknowledging the lie, only that "they got the numbers wrong" or they "fat fingered it or whatever it was they did". It was more than that, as was made plainly clear in the comments on that post... which is why I have to ponder the three possible interpretations of your continuing to evade this:

1. You're choosing to lie or misrepresent this. (Which makes sense, seeing as you see FRC as being on your side of the partisan divide.) We can't rule this one out.

2. You don't understand it. (Also a possibility. So far you haven't shown any sign that you understand the extent of the lie - similar to the way you handled Lava's quote, the "fallacy of division" problem re. the prison population, the "study of ice core layers" thing and many more. You simply repeat a statement that, if you had simply read the comments, you would know to be an evasion from the actual point.)

3. You're too arrogant to read the comments on your own blog. (This one has joined the list of possibilities after the way you finally saw the light on Lava's quote.)

4. If you can think of any others, please let me know.

It is not some kind of "aw shucks, we all make mistakes" kind of mistake (which I'm pretty sure any commenter will gladly forgive you for, if you so happen to recognize it) when one misrepresents a $70 million anti-bullying program as a $410 billion "tool to promote homosexuality". It is a vicious lie, homophobic propaganda at its worst.

And yet you have failed to acknowledge the extent of this lie and instead endorsed them by adding them to your blogroll.

Belittle it as "getting the numbers wrong" if you must, but that would only go to show that you place partisanship way before any kind of honesty or integrity. But that's what happens when you pick a conclusion or side – whether political or "worldview" – before dealing with the facts.

For example, going by the facts, you wouldn't conclude a global flood. But you've chosen the global flood and are now shy an answer for the sorting of fossils, which happen to perfectly correspond to an old Earth evolution paradigm and are inexplicable in a YEC context. You've not even been able to present a reasonable hypothesis to explain this. Fair enough, you're not a scientist, why should this fall on your shoulders?

But strangely enough (for you), no YECer has come up with one.

If you had proceeded from the facts and drawn your conclusions accordingly, you wouldn't be in this bind.

Maybe that would give you something to think about.

As for your attempted false equivalence between, say, Dr. Dino and Talk Origins, you were asked in the comments thread on the other post (for example here) to justify your claims re. Talk Origins.

Sure, they don't agree with you, that much is obvious. But you've stated many claims to be facts and then couldn't back them up, so you're hardly an unassailable authority. And Talk Origins is no stranger to acknowledging opposing views. For example, in their "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" they were happy to link to an attempted rebuttal and engaged in an extensive discussion.

So with regard to your TO claim here, are you going to answer it or sweep it under the rug, like so many other topics?

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, your intense desire to conflate the FRC thing (and the numbers may have been a mistake but you are wrong about the intent) and your crusade to continually harp on this make you look rather sorry. Do you have nothing else to do but turn around a mistake by something else and make it your own lie? Because the way you frame all this you are the liar. I am quite confident that I acknowledged a numbers problem but you would NEVER admit that the program is what it is.

God help you, you are hopelessly sputtering on the rails screaming against the oncoming train. Your refusal to consider God for one minute will be your disastrous fate in the end. You cannot see the extent of your own folly.

As to talk origins, I pointed out to them that the post was falsified years ago and they do not care. talk origins is attempting to twist facts to fool people and they do not care, in fact they believe they are helping people with their white lies.

Creeper, why don't you ask them why they have not changed their acambaro page? Glen Kuban is the name. Go ahead and email him.

creeper said...

"Creeper, your intense desire to conflate the FRC thing (and the numbers may have been a mistake but you are wrong about the intent) and your crusade to continually harp on this make you look rather sorry."

That doesn't even make any sense. What am I conflating? The FRC thing and harping on the FRC thing? Huh?

"Because the way you frame all this you are the liar. I am quite confident that I acknowledged a numbers problem but you would NEVER admit that the program is what it is."

Nice try to flip this around. Actually, no, rather a lame try. But just out of curiosity, what are you pretending I'm lying about?

Yes, you acknowledged a numbers problem (though so far only the dumb typo excuse, not the 70 million blown up into 410 billion one), and ignored the lie that an anti-bullying program is meant to be a "tool to promote homosexuality". That's not a "mistake", that's an intentional lie. Sure, you didn't originate it, but you're happy to stand by it, even now not acknowledging it... and it seems actually confirming it. You do think the anti-bullying program is "a tool to promote homosexuality". How Christian of you. Care to explain?

"God help you, you are hopelessly sputtering on the rails screaming against the oncoming train. Your refusal to consider God for one minute will be your disastrous fate in the end. You cannot see the extent of your own folly."

Ah, the usual fearmongering. Impressive.

I have to say the brand of Christianity you're flogging here (intolerance, homophobia, anti-science) is not terribly appealing, I've seen it done better.

"Creeper, why don't you ask them why they have not changed their acambaro page? Glen Kuban is the name. Go ahead and email him."

You have yet to explain what you think they got wrong.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar says,

"God help you, you are hopelessly sputtering on the rails screaming against the oncoming train. Your refusal to consider God for one minute will be your disastrous fate in the end. You cannot see the extent of your own folly."

We get it Radar, you believe all this stuff because you are scared. We're just saying it's apparently causing you to say some pretty dishonest stuff.

- Canucklehead.

Ha, my word verification is "logical". Too funny.

IAMB said...

R.E. the TalkOrigins thing:

Why in the heck are you talking to Kuban about something in the index to creationist claims when Mark Isaak is the guy in charge of that particular piece of the website?

P.S. I would like to see a link to where you say the post was falsified (not a link to your own posts making the claim... a link to your source)...

Anonymous said...

P.S. I would like to see a link to where you say the post was falsified (not a link to your own posts making the claim... a link to your source)...

As would I.

lava

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Happy Easter and God Bless.

(:D) Peace be with you...

Anonymous said...

Radar at work.

I have posted at least once every year since probably 2005 on Acambaro and ripped DiPeso to shreds. Talk Origins does not care. Keyword search "acambaro" on this blog if you want sources and links.

I kind of thought a talk origins guy might show up if mentioned. How can you talk origins people sleep at night knowing you are intentionally posting all sorts of information proven to be untrue?

Don't even start, creeper, I am going to take care of your false charges willingly after Easter. That is, those not already addressed. We can get into the Flood as it relates to ages, ice cores and sea floor cores and all that stuff after the holiday.

We will also defend and go beyond defense concerning Williams. Science has this funny way of asking the same questions over and over no matter how the ruling elite try to cover those questions up.

Anonymous said...

"How can you talk origins people sleep at night knowing you are intentionally posting all sorts of information proven to be untrue?"

I suspect you're not losing any sleep over what you post on your blog, so that should give you a hint as to the answer to your question.

"Don't even start, creeper, I am going to take care of your false charges willingly after Easter. That is, those not already addressed."

You get to call them false after you demonstrate that they are false. Until then this is just your usual bluster.

You should know, though, that a large number of charges remain unaddressed. To claim, for example, that you had addressed the "fallacy of division" issue re. the prison population would be a... how do I put this delicately?...

... an untruth.

Yeah, that would be a kind word for it.

But one thing at a time:

"You recently made this claim:

All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages."

Okay then:

1. What are the methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?


You've previously taken a stab both at dendrochronology (tree rings) and ice core layers and failed completely at both, so I'm curious if you've made any progress."


Let's hear it.

-- creeper