Why did Jesus have to die?

The prophecies part doesn’t make sense, but the sacrifice does.

Were the prophecies based around the sacrifice Christ knew he had to eventually make?

The bible consists of 66 books made by 40 authors created over 1500 years (iirc)
The scriptures were hundreds of years old when Jesus fulfilled them at mount golgotha and elsewhere

Yes

Without the prophecies of the OT we would never be certain that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah God promised the Prophets.

Attached: propheciesofjesusfulfilled.gif (478x740 36.78 KB, 89.62K)

Jesus had to become Sin, so that Sin, through him, would be destroyed.

I thought that Jesus were supposed to be of no sin
How did Jesus become sin?

He is God. He voluntarily became sin. He then descended to Hell and paid the full price for your sins, because he is God.

Ultimately, our salvation is from our total faith in God. And that faith is made manifest is Jesus’ sacrifice. We believe he covered for our sins because that’s what God told us.

Well, first off, it's Dawkins so opinion discarded. He's always picking on low hanging fruit like that evangelical in the clip.

Is relevant

Finally, why do you think free will, exercised poorly, is not a bad thing? It seems to follow from what you've said is that free will is always good. So is theft good? No.

Let's think for a moment of Cain and Abel. Abel, the shepherd, was killed by Cain, Cain went on to produce all the generations down to Noah. Now I know the Bible is a narrative story, so maybe it's somewhat unbelievable, but there's a reason the writers wrote the story of Cain and Abel; it's because they saw that people have this innate savagery, like Cain did. The Jews showed themselves to be no different in the New Testament, a "new Abel" if you like, the Good Shepherd, came to them and they crucified Him. God could have saved Himself, but how then was He supposed to save us, except by allowing us to destroy Him and forgiving us even as we did? His blood is upon our heads (Matthew 27:25), this much is true, but He did so to show us the extent of His forgiveness.

Also consider other antecedents in Greek literature; the Spartans at Thermopylae and Socrates all allowed themselves to die out of obedience to a principle. Nobody ever asks why the 300 had to die, or why Socrates had to die, because the history of those men tells us that they believed that they were the servants of their own people and principles.

Jesus, being as He is God, likewise had principled reasons for dying; to show us the extent of God's forgiveness, to serve those who mistreated Him, to be an example of pure love, to wipe out our sins as a sacrificial lamb, and also to be resurrected. All the varied theories of atonement just cast different light upon the same event and all are equally valid.

I know a guy who debunks all that with what he calls the "hindsight implausibility theory". It basically states that someone who writes about someone who came after an event and writes predictions after the event cannot be taken seriously.

For example: If I had read Psalm 22:16 and knew the Messiah would be crucified, then the character I create in my own writing would obviously have to be crucified. The question posed is - How does John 20:27 fulfill Psalms 22:16 when John was writing AFTER both Psalms was written and Jesus died? It's like if I wrote a story today about a made-up man who predicted the events of 9/11/2001. I have the power of hindsight and, thus, cannot be believed.

Well, fair enough, but I think we all knew it had to be taken on faith in the first place

Also I don't think that applies to the broader narrative, all you have to believe when it comes to narrative points is that the Bible gives a very solid account of human behaviour albeit in a storied format.

Think of it this way: just use common sense. My religion professor said that Jews thought Cyrus the Great was the Messiah after reading Isaiah. Then I just thought, “wow, that’s retarded… don’t recall Cyrus ever having his hands and feet pierced…”
Just read the Bible, the prophets specifically. There’s no other option as to who the Messiah would be other than Jesus Christ.

That would imply the gospel writers were lying and made up the story of Jesus, no?
Or are you saying that the psalms were made after jesus died?

That's pretty much what I told him. Faith is essential.

It's the implication that the Gospel writers invented Jesus and just used OT prophecy to "prove' Jesus was the Messiah.

Jesus wasn't made up

Jesus is a real person, not just some fable made up after the fact.

So it's a retarded and bunk argument then.

so the apostles lied about a public execution when witnesses were still living to jews who they were trying to convert?

Because God said so. Now go to sleep.

Jesus rose from the dead. You're missing half the story.

Only the sacrifice of God could save us from the eternal offense of the original sin. That is: only God sacrificing Himself for us could repair the infinite offense of original sin.

That's in the catechism of Pius X.

I like this Orthodox priest's explanation. Starts at 18:45.

He didn't die for the original sin, but for every sin we have commited. Why? Because sin is an offense against God, doing something against the will of the one who has created us and given us everything. God is eternal and infinite, but humans are finite. Offenses against God have infinite consequence that we cannot repay because we are finite. This is just. But God is loving and merciful, so He himself became human, so He could suffer our penalty for us, and because of His infinite nature, this was sufficient to atone for all the sins humanity has commited and will commit.

He died so that all who believe in Him could have eternal life. Because we are too imperfect to be able to merit our own salvation. It's because of this sacrifice that no matter how grievously you sin, as long as you have a genuine will to repent, all you have to do is use the sacrament of Confession to be freed, and to be able to participate in the greatest joy and only true purpose a human can have - the eternal life.

The Watergate Seven cracked in less than a day. You expect me to believe that twelve people adamantly defended a hoax, and died for it?

The wage of sin is death. Under the Old Testament Law, all sins had to be paid for with some kind of death, either by the execution of the sinner or by the sacrifice of animals. When we say that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Law, we mean that Christ took the place of all the religious executions and animal sacrifices that would ever have to be paid for sins in the future. Now our sins no longer have to be paid for with death, because they already have been paid for with the most important death in history. If Christ hadn't sacrificed Himself, the Old Law wouldn't have been fulfilled, and legally we'd still be obligated to stone each other and slaughter cattle at the Temple.

I dunno, man. There are people out there who believe all of NASA is hiding the "fact" that the Earth is flat. There are people out there who believe the entire US Government is hiding the "fact" that 9/11 was an inside job. There are people out there who believe tens of thousands of people are hiding the "fact" that the holocaust was fake.

Given that, is 12 people creating a hoax really all that difficult to believe?

Technically, only 4 wrote it down. The other 8 are only written about, but didn't write anything of their own.

I agree. Geeze, people, stop acting like I came up with this. Read what I wrote:

It ain't me.

Woul you be willing to die for a hoax?

Five, actually. John wrote one gospel, three epistles, as well as the book of Revelation. Peter wrote two epistles. James, son of Zebedee, wrote an epistle. James the Just wrote an epistle. Matthew wrote one gospel.

Me? No, but a lot of people would. Look how many people die for Islam. People love to die for hoaxes.

There is a difference. Assuming your premise that the 12 apostles that were martyred for the hoax is true which it isn't they died knowing full well they were lying to people. To what end? The Apostles never got rich or powerful from it. All they got was persecution and death.
Muhammad (piss be upon him) died of a fever and never faced persecution in fact he lived like a king like St. Peter and others did.
All the jihadists that were radicalized after the "prophet"'s death didn't know Islam was a big lie.

The implications here is not that the resurrection is necesseraly true because they died for Jesus, the implication here is that they probably were truthful honest people, and weren't trying to deceive them. The apostle's martydom is only one of the reasons of christianity's truthfulness.

That is not a hoax. Hoax implies you know it is false but still pretend it is true. People who die for islam don't secretly believe islam is a false religion.

Again, can you mention one person who has been willing to get tortured and killed to defend a hoax?

Frankly, if God is too much of a coward to step up and take responsibility for his actions and his followers are more than happy to enable his reckless behaviour under the common argument "muh free will exonerates God", why should I, or anyone, even bother following the impotent retard?

I see now why the kikes laugh at Christianity. It's a joke religion predicated entirely behind 'Heaven on a Stick,' don't mess up or you're going to suffer for eternity! This farce is unnecessary.

I spit on god.

Really just think about it. If your son murdered his brother then of course he should be punished. But wouldn't you contemplate your failures as a father?

God isn't infallible, so why would I follow him?