Serious question....Why did he have to die? Why did Jesus have to die?

[54anickel]

I thought I understood, or at least had a grasp, until I was asked to explain it - to answer that question. Now I find myself asking the same thing - why did Jesus have to die?

[Critters2]

1. For starters, I'd recommend you read _The Scapegoat_ by Rene Girard.

But let me try to answer.

First, you're probably assuming that God is responsible for Jesus' death, that somehow God wanted, even sent, Jesus to die. I agree with Girard about this, though. Girard says people have always found scapegoats, victims, whom the community blames for its problems and kills to solve its problems. The tensions which led to the scapegoating violence do subside after the "salvific" murder. Communities are struck by how much better they feel after the murder (or murders, in the case of pogroms, wars and other attacks on whole communities), that they decide the violence must have been ordained of God, must have been what God wanted.

The murder of Jesus follows this pattern exactly. Jesus is just another scapegoat. The difference, however, is in his followers' reaction to his murder. Over the three years of his ministry, Jesus taught his believers to feel empathy for victims, to challenge the assumptions of the community, to value peace over violence. Thus, when he died, his followers saw his death not as salvific, but as an injustice. Yet, they knew it was different from all those deaths that had been committed over the millenia. They couldn't just ignore it and move on with their lives. By watching the suffering of Jesus, they were changed. They knew they, too, could face the violence of the world, and challenge it. And move the world away from it.

Of course, in the resurrection, whether it was literal or figurative, this death was different than all those others as well. One couldn't simply ignore this death, because the death was not the end of the story. God took what was bad, and what was the responsibility of the human community, and turned it to good. Girardian scholar S. Mark Heim (under whom I studied) calls this "the good bad thing". Human beings intended that it be just another instance of scapegoating violence. God decided it needed to be different than all those other murders God had witnessed throughout human existence.

God didn't cause Jesus' death. God allowed it. But God decided that those who did it would not have the last word.


At least, this is how it seems to me. Hope this is helpful.

[54anickel]

2. Thank you so much mycritters2. I've seen you reference Girard here before and I went digging

around for more info on his thoughts back then. I have to admit I merely "felt the breeze" while attempting to read some of the excerpts and reviews on Amazon. I just came across Heim's "Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross" which seems like it might be a bit easier to grasp. I'll take a look at The Scapegoat (I was thinking about trying "Discovering Girard").

The idea of God taking the bad and turning it for the good makes much more sense to me than a substitute atonement.

[Critters2]

4. I actually think you'll find _The Scapegoat_ an easier read than Heim,

but Heim's book is more comprehensive of the full range of Girard's thought: his work on scapegoating, mimesis, Satan, non-Christian mythology, etc. Mark's book isn't exactly an easy read, but it's well written. You'll come away with a real sense of Girard after reading it. I honestly haven't read _Discovering Girard_. Just read about it on Amazon, and it looks like a good intro.

[54anickel]

43. I've been attending the "Living the Questions" discussions at the UCC across town.

http://www.livingthequestions.com

My Pastor and I wanted to bring this video series into our "cluster" (the majority our own congregation isn't quite ready for this, then again this is a VERY conservative county so it might not play well within the "cluster" either). We got side-tracked in getting it off of the ground. In the meantime I found out the UCC was presenting it so I asked if I could join them to catch a peek.

Anyway, we just covered the session on "The Myth of Redemptive Violence". It began with a discussion of Walter Wink's paper of the same name (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Kc-zmuO42c0J:www.biblesociety.org.uk/exploratory/articles/wink99.doc+The+Myth+of+Redemptive+Violence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) and how that myth is still very much alive in today's society.

Essentially, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is what Wink calls, "the original religion of the status quo." It not only exists to legitimate power and privilege, it perpetuates the value of ideas like peace through war, security through strength, and the notion that fear can only be overcome through domination.

The session didn't offer Girard's theory of atonement, perhaps because it's more of an anthropological than theological dimension or because it's just too deep for a 30 minute segment. But it did explain 5 major theories that have emerged from Paul's "Christ cucified" - satisfaction, substitution, ransom, victory, and moral. The moral theory being least dependent on justifying the violence of the crucifixion and, sadly, also the least popular among orthodox theologians. Guess we can blame Augustine and his obsession with Original Sin. The Original Sin crowd would argue that if we only needed Jesus to set a moral example of standing up for what's right then we must not have been so damned evil after all. :eyes:

They answer the Original Sin agrument with the notion of Original Blessing. There's a clip of John Spong, and a discussion of Franz Kafka's The Trial and Matthew Fox's Original Blessing.

Even though there was no discussion of Girard at all, I started to gain a better understanding and appreciation for his theories. I know that probably doesn't make any sense - maybe I learn inside-out or something. :crazy:

[JerseygirlCT]

3. He didn't

He chose to, as a demonstration that he knew would resonate with us, of the impermanence of death, and more importantly, of the great and undying love God has for us.

If you want a lesson to stick, it's got to have some power.

Just my thought.

[Kajsa]

38. That's my understanding, Jerseygirl.

I remember lessons taught to me in Sunday school, over 50 years ago
where our teacher explained that Christ did not chose or accept any
rescue plan to save him from crucifixion.

There was an instance where his followers suggested an armed rebellion
against his captors to free him and he rejected it.

Believe me, that was REALLY hard to accept as a child.
I was questioning that for weeks, afterwords.
In retrospect,I understand I was a pain in the butt for my Sunday school teacher.

It was to happen, for a very specific reason.

That's my two cents, here.

[Why Syzygy]

5. I think..

so we can have a resurrection to eternal life. He was the first of the born again. I don't believe that we are "born again" when we believe. I think that refers to the resurrection to new life.

If he had not died, and risen again, no one else could have accomplished that.

[Critters2]

6. But, could the same result not have been acheived by dying of natural causes?

I suspect what the OP is really asking is "Why did Jesus have to be killed?". We all die. Jesus is not special in that. If his dying led to resurrection, did it have to be death at the hands of others? If so, why?

[54anickel]

7. Yes, thank you Critters2 for clarifying for me. Why did a supposedly loving God need to

turn to some sort of cosmic child abuse to reconcile a debt owed to him?

There are plenty of other more natural, political, explanations for the crucifixion of Jesus. He was a rebel in an occupied area of Palestine that was ready to explode. Yet Christianity seems to have this need to cling to the notion of some divine plan in which Jesus had to suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay for everyone's sins...Without it, what have you got?

Girard's notion of a scapegoat makes a lot of sense. There were the expectations of the times for a Messiah. The loss of the Temple brought an end to the daily sacrifices around the time the Gospel narratives were actually written down.

How do you faithfully answer that question honestly? I almost feel like I'm dealing with the question of eating Idol meat Paul addressed in his letter to the church in Corinth.

On edit:
Perhaps I'm straining a gnat while ignoring the camel. What does it really matter if the true point and meaning is in the resurrection. As you said earlier, God taking the bad and turning it around for good.

[Why Syzygy]

9. Maybe even an even deeper question,

one I have pondered over and over through the years, is why the shedding of blood. A natural death wouldn't necessarily produce blood shed. And it was voluntary bloodshed. The OT tells us that our Life is in the Blood. Maybe I just got some insight into this because you asked the question!

The technical answer is, for the remission of sins. But, I never understood what that meant or why.

Why blood? In my personal walk, I have actually departed from the faith on two separate occasions. I only returned again a few months ago after being a Pagan for the past eight years. Pagan was the word I discovered for "no religion". And that's where I wanted to be. I did attend some mild rituals, and there are always offerings. In the Pagan worship, they are offerings the earth provides.

My heritage includes Native American. I read of one of our tribe's rituals to honor the earth and harvest. At the festival, the women make a circle. Circles are sacred. They entered the circle to give a ceremony of thanksgiving. Before the men could enter, they had to cut themselves with a stone and drop blood on the ground. Then they were considered pure enough to enter for blessing. Women naturally bleed, so it was not needed in their case. Again we see the sanctity of blood.

What does God require of us? Belief? What does belief require? Sunday mornings? Or does it require no less than giving of our entire self? Sacrificing our faith in ourselves and placing it in him. Since the blood is the life of a man, could it be that it represents us in our entirety? Lose enough blood, and your life will be gone, that's for sure.

So, it could be that the shed blood represents the willingness to lay down my life. Instead of cutting ourselves, or each being crucified to show our submission to His authority, one was sent in our stead. To stand in for us. The mystery is, and this is the scapegoat part, that by trusting in THAT bloodshed, of a perfect, freely given life, evidenced by bloodshed, I am able to partake in the same reward that the sacrificed inherits. Which is the Resurrection.

I cannot believe how many sermons I've heard and no one ever explained anything like this. At least, never understood it. My dad was a minister, and I was in church at least three times per week until I was 18 y/o.

Of course it's symbolic! All the good works Jesus did were not enough. Raising someone from the dead, even, was not enough to fully symbolize that, yes, I am willing to exchange my life for the life you have for me. But until we lay ours down, willingly - we have free will - I cannot receive the life of Christ, which is eternal - due to this exchange - Jesus' life for the Father's, which is without beginning or end.

This is one of the sites I like for information:
http://www.biblestudy.org

I haven't read anything specific to this question, yet. But, when I went there for an answer, something clicked.

[54anickel]

11. Thank you for sharing. I came across this post from the site you posted. It speaks volumes to me

since my personal feeling is that in Christianity we tend to misunderstand Jesus and his disciples because we take them out of their Jewish context. It's all through a Christian lens. This article helped to fill in a few more gaps for me. I'll need to process it more closely when I have time and hopefully come back to this thread.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-role-does-death-of-jesus-play-in-plan-of-god.html

[Why Syzygy]

12. Wow.

I'm really glad you posted that. There is so much information on that site. I've been going through it for a few months.

The "Christian lens" have been dirtied and smudged by the traditions of men. I have a very strong feeling that God has given us some lens cleanser for our present day.

[54anickel]

13. Difficult as it may seem sometimes, I try to look for the hand of God in everything. I didn't always

I used to be quite cynical about the early church fathers, authority in general really. Guess maybe it's old age and being tired of being cynical (it got to be hard work looking for a conspiracy around every corner). Now I tend to think they were doing the best they could in their time and place. No one's perfect. We do the best we can and have faith/hope for the future. (Obviously I would never cut the Bush admin that sort of slack, but hopefully you get my drift.)

Rather than calling the Christian lens "dirtied and smudged" I'd prefer to cut them some slack and say they applied a filter. Whether it was a filter to provide clarity or one to cloud the picture I'll leave up to God to judge as he develops the film. But I trust either way, it will be "turned for the good" (as Critters2 stated earlier).

Now back to that article....

[Why Syzygy]

14. Good for you!

:grouphug:

As for me, I will go with dirty and smudged, at least for now. I'd like to share why..

I mentioned my eight year departure, different path .. My best friend of 20 years is a believer as well as my only child, and other family members. It took me about two years to get up the courage to tell my friend what I had done. But, she accepted that, even though it was difficult for her. She never shamed me or anything like we hear other's friends do to them. My son likes to debate his mom, and we had lots of long conversations. I had a strong foundation in Bible contents due to the lifetime of exposure. So, I could keep up.

The thing was, I didn't BELIEVE anything absolutely, other than nothing can exist apart from God (I Am) and our experience is one of duality. I investigated every nook and cranny that caught my interest. I'm convinced that's exactly what I was meant to be doing. I didn't buy into any of the ideas expressed by any belief 'system'. I did feel that I was just a tad superior in that I was 'okay' without having to hold onto anything by faith. Other people 'needed' that. I didn't believe the Bible was infallible.

I've had an interest in conspiracy speculations for 20 something years. Again, I don't KNOW anything for sure. But I'll listen. I had heard most of it before. This is harder to articulate than I thought.

Bottom line.. I came to believe without doubt the evidence of an Evil presence. A presence who seemed to have an agenda to hold humanity in bondage and deny any possibility of Jesus Christ. I ran into it over and over. Why this had never struck me just this way, can't say. I came in the back door. Once I was convinced of the Destroyer, the one who would Deny, I knew there must be something there. People do not go to those extremes to fight something that is false.

The exact information I needed was suddenly there. I never could believe in a God who would endlessly torture even the most evil of His creatures. When I learned that not all Christians hold that 'doctrine', I was able to crack the door open and consider the possibilities. It's really quite astonishing to me when I think about it. I've thought of writing a blog about how all this transpired, and all the references I now have that allowed me to Believe.

It's a journey. There is still much that I've been given that I haven't passed along as I want to. This forum gives me the opportunity to share some of those. It is so rewarding to know that you needed what I was given. And I want to receive as well. I am not comfortable seeking a RL fellowship right now. Healing is still taking place many times per day in my heart. There were some close relatives who had the religion addiction. That's not God's intention for us.

My mother used to tell me, during my wandering days .. we were sitting at Red Lobster, and she said, the rapture could come at any time, and you'll be right there behind me. Since she had seen me baptized as a child, she believed I could not leave the fold. So, when I told her at Christmas that I had decided to be a Christian, I added caveats .. But there's no rapture (that conclusion was made during my former studies years ago), you better be prepared in case we are called to go through tribulation (again I resist dogmatic structures), and I am still mean!

I've softened somewhat since then. But the walk is so much more complex and beautiful than our pop-politico-religions would have us believe. They would leave us bereft of real healing truths. It can't be summed in a "statement of faith". At least this is true for me. I do believe that Evil, whatever it is, would have preferred I never taste this freedom.

[Critters2]

18. What does God require of us?

"What does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8

[Why Syzygy]

19. Acceptance. nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

32. Acceptance of what or whom? By whom or by what? "Acceptance" is a nebulous word.

What do you mean you say "God requires acceptance of us"?

That's an odd thing.

[54anickel]

35. That one puzzled me as well, but we will probably not get an answer.

Why Syzygy PM'd me and I believe she may have decided to leave the forum completely, based on one of the other threads where she said "...So I will leave you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=291x5624#5672

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. To show that the material is not our true nature

and to, through an act of ultimate compassion, create a path of light back to God, that our sins (or as Buddhists call them, "formations"), be dissolved.

That of ourselves, we are likely to simply remain trapped in this cycle of materialism. To reinforce God as existing, and as the creator of all things.

I don't know; I merely seek.

[Why Syzygy]

10. I think you're right.

We would remain in the material world. That's all we can do. We're created from dust!
But, with a spirit that longs for union with the Eternal.

[Critters2]

15. How is his death an act of compassion?

I guess I'm playing devil's advocate, but the idea of a murder as an act of compassion makes no sense to me.

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Any answers from me on these topics move into realms of quantum physics,

metaphysics, shamanism, and energetic/attractor theory, and are way outside traditional belief, so I won't share them here in detail. They're far more appropriate in the Astrology etc. forum. I'm a seeker, and have very little understanding of these things, but I have found consonance regarding various concepts across several spiritual schools, so one day hope to have some useful synthesis of these concepts.

Suffice to say, I have zero doubt in the existence of Christ and of His having given us a unique, powerful gift. Somewhere in the Bible He says "All that I have done, you can also do." I take that literally.

[Critters2]

17. I don't doubt the existence of Christ either. Far from it.

But I think it's dangerous to call a murder an act of compassion. It leads to us thinking of other murders as acts of compassion...wars, for instance. And other things we call "sacrifice". We need to name all violence for what it is, violence. And show appropriate horror at it, and demonstrate compassion for the victims. Including Jesus. To find murder a gift is deeply disturbing to me, and is one way the faith has continued to justify its own violent actions.

And making it about astrophysics completely removes us from any compassion for victims. It really isn't that complicated.

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. That's an inversion of what I'm talking about.

Christ's act of sacrificing himself to create a path to God for those otherwise most likely material-bound, is the act of compassion. What the Romans did, is indeed murder.

What Christ did, was obviously to sacrifice himself to save us all, just as one is a hero if they risk their own life to save another. :shrug: The important thing is the result. I of course don't suggest martyrdom to anyone, but service brings its own rewards. Christ was of ultimate service.

[Critters2]

21. Jesus didn't "sacrifice himself". He was murdered. He did not participate

nor make the decisions. He is the victim. And Jesus' death was not a sacrifice to save another. There was no other life in the balance. No one was set free in exchange for Jesus' death. Not in any sense at the time of his death. It was just a senseless death. In teaching his disciples about compassion and empathy, his death opened their eyes to the injustice of his murder.

But Jesus was not a "hero" who died to save another, as happens in the myths. To try to make Jesus another mythical hero is to completely miss the point of his death. Girard's criticisms of Joseph "what a load of crap" Campbell make this clear. Romanticizing Jesus' death nullifies its purpose.

[Why Syzygy]

22. "Romanticizing"

"no other life in the balance"
"not a sacrifice to save another"

May I ask, on what to do base your Faith? Good works? Moral living?

[Critters2]

23. What do you mean by "on what do you base your faith"? nt

[Why Syzygy]

24. Your Christianity

is based on what? If you don't mind sharing a little.

[Critters2]

25. It's based on scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I hope.

[Why Syzygy]

26. So,

your faith is in scripture?

[Critters2]

27. That's not what you asked. You asked the basis of my faith.

Don't change the subject. My faith is in the God made known in scripture.

[Why Syzygy]

28. May I ask, on what to do base your Faith?

Was the question. Thank you for finally answering.

[Critters2]

29. This may be helpful...

http://girardianlectionary.net/core_convictions.htm

[Why Syzygy]

30. Thanks. nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Disingenuous response. VERY disingenuous.

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. No death, no resurrection, no proof of our immortal spiritual nature.

The savior cannot save without that final gift.

And most importantly, remember the power he presented? Walking upon water, manifesting food out of thin air to feed those at the Sermon on the Mount, turning water into wine, raising the dead, healing the sick, especially at a distance? He could have put the soldiers to sleep, or simply outright killed them all if He wished. Opened the walls of the prison with a thought. Never carried the cross (metaphor). He never had to. Didn't one of the thieves He was crucified with say "Save yourself!"? I'm too rusty on the wording as I study the effects, not the cause.

Some await the return of the Christ Himself; others wonder if this is the time of the return of the Christ energy, where we will all do as he did.

And you're definitely playing Devil's advocate here, so I won't continue the thread. Sorry to see this, but happy to learn so before investing too much time into this forum. "Except as ye become as little children, you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven."

[JerseygirlCT]

40. I'm not so sure "victim" in this case

means unwilling, though.

It could be said that he fully knew what his teachings, and his life, would lead to. And chose to continue them as critical, anyway. I'm sure, living fully as a human, he didn't want to face that - but he did take that on, and I do think he knew what he was doing and where it would lead.

[Critters2]

41. He asked God to take the cup from him.

That seems pretty clear to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. He did

Wouldn't you? Even if you knew that your course had been right, you'd know where it was going to lead. I cannot imagine that I wouldn't have a moment or more of fright and sadness about what was coming next, inevitably.

He asked, and then he accepted that it had to be. It just emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. If he had not fully accepted his humanity, he could have handled all that, no problem, right? But he didn't. Being fully human was important, or it wouldn't have been the choice. Being human, sharing that with us, was important so that his life and death and resurrection could resonate strongly with humans.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Critters, perhaps

it's not so much the death that's compassionate, but the example of the resurrection (which of course, would require a death). By living (or dying!) through that which we all fear, and showing us that God's love is more powerful even than that, well, I can easily see that as a loving act of compassion, you know?

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. So move into that realm and offer your answer - could be interesting.

Some of my most clear, memorable, and faith-changing epiphanies were in calculus and quantum mechanics classes.

[Fire Walk With Me]

36. Too off-topic.

[willing dwarf]

44. My sense is that it was to teach us that God loves us beyond life, beyond death

Life and death are not the only aspects of Being. They are simply the starkest ones that we are able to perceive with our common six senses.