Why did Jesus Die on A Cross?

[pwlj_christ87]

I understand that,

mankind is unworthy of God, through ourown fault, sin…

I understand that, God isall good with no evil,

I understand that God would come to meet his people Israel, in the form of human and dwell amongst them,

What I dont fully comprehend, is why, jesus died for us?

I know we cannot be with god unless we are forgiven, but so why did God through jesus choose death on a cross as that means?

Is it symbolical to the OT accounts of slaughtering lambs? (Yes right). but i dont comrpehend it fully.

for surely, he could have forgiven us through jesus throughother ways, like praying , or hugging your friend, or another activity…

why then the cross, i believe in it., i delight in the fact i am forgiven through the cross, but i dont get why… why the suffering??couldnt it have been pleasurable, etc. thanks

 

[GEddie]

I understand that,

mankind is unworthy of God, through ourown fault, sin…

I understand that, God isall good with no evil,

I understand that God would come to meet his people Israel, in the form of human and dwell amongst them,

What I dont fully comprehend, is why, jesus died for us?

I know we cannot be with god unless we are forgiven, but so why did God through jesus choose death on a cross as that means?

Is it symbolical to the OT accounts of slaughtering lambs? (Yes right). but i dont comrpehend it fully.

for surely, he could have forgiven us through jesus throughother ways, like praying , or hugging your friend, or another activity…

why then the cross, i believe in it., i delight in the fact i am forgiven through the cross, but i dont get why… why the suffering??couldnt it have been pleasurable, etc. thanks

He had to die, in order to be united to human life through to death.

Death intrinsically involves suffering; there is no “pleasurable” death.

Although crucifixion is a visually hideous death, there are others whose deaths involve equal or even more suffering. So He chose a death that would unite Him to our life even through its most grievous ending.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[fnr]

It’s necessary to separate the historical, worldly reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion from the theological explanation.

Jesus died at the hands of the Romans under the accusation “INRI” – the Latin for “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” While it would have been easy to just kill Jesus once he’d been identified and captured, execution by crucifixion was a form of violent crowd control. Jesus had been identified as “king,” about which Caesar asked him. To me, he was killed because, while Caesar recognized his innocence from political ambition, he could not hold onto his position and save face in front of the Emperor if he were to free someone who had been publicly identified as a threat to Roman imperial control over the Holy Land. Romans had had to put down a number of armed revolts there, from the Sepphoris rebellion in the Galilee following the death of Herod the Great to the aftermath of the Golden Eagle incident, which brought Roman control directly over Jerusalem. Caesar was no pious man… we hear from Philo of Alexandria of his brutality. So I think the best explanation from a historical perspective is that Jesus had been held up as the return of the Kingdom of David. Many of even Jesus’ followers mistook his intentions (e.g., Peter carrying a sword at Gesthemane and cutting the guard’s ear), and thought he would lead a military reconquest of Israel similar to Judas Maccabeus (i.e., Acts 1:6). So it’s really apparent to me that Jesus’ crucifixion was intended to show any of Jesus’ backers, who had greeted him like a king on the way into Jerusalem, who had accompanied him at his highly public action in the Temple. Crucifying him outside the gates of the city made sure that anyone walking by would see his death in such a humiliating way and see that Rome would crush any who dared to utter the name “king.”

As to the theological reason, if you look at Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, you’ll see that the prophecy was that the “servant” of God would bear the sins of others. It’s not just Christians who interpreted things this way: the “Targum” of Isaiah (translation and commentary on the book in Aramaic) also thought that this verse meant the Messiah. It’s in the broader context of God wiping away the sins of Israel. Jesus came teaching that there needed to be a new way to be Israel. Not by supporting nationalist revolution of the sort won by Judas Maccabeus supported by Temple-focused piety or by hyper-observance of the “Oral Torah” advocated by the Pharisees of the time, but by loving, letting oneself be transformed fundamentally, and forgiveness.

 

[powerofk]

First of all, the cross was one of, if not the, most brutal ways to be executed ever imagined. The cross itself was a torture device with the final outcome of the torture being death. People with high pain thresholds could have potentially been on the cross for days before they died. Jesus and the Father knew that this would be the only way for people to see the horror of their sins - Jesus could have died in a much more peaceful way, or even simply offered up a single heartbeat in His Mother’s womb, and would have saved mankind. But, Jesus and the Father, knowing humanity, understood that we actually needed to visually see the horror of our sins.

That was the reason why the centurion who pierced Jesus’s heart was so amazed that Jesus was already dead. Jesus’s death had to be public for His resurrection to be credible. If He had been executed in private, it would have been easier to say that His execution had simply been botched or faked. Of course, His death being so public was the reason why Thomas initially doubted when the other Ten told him about Jesus’s resurrection - Thomas, just like all the other apostles had seen Jesus die. There was no question about Jesus’s death.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

He had to die, in order to be united to human life through to death.

Death intrinsically involves suffering; there is no “pleasurable” death.

Although crucifixion is a visually hideous death, there are others whose deaths involve equal or even more suffering. So He chose a death that would unite Him to our life even through its most grievous ending.

ICXC NIKA.

Actually, according to doctors who studied crucifixion from a medical perspective explained what a crucifixion does to a person physically. It was considered to be such a painful and excruciating (the word is actually derived from “crux” because death by crucifixion was considered such a horrible and painful death) that the Romans were not allowed to be crucified, which is why St. Paul died via the sword and not the cross like other apostles).

This is also the reason why Jesus died on the cross. Jesus, being God, didn’t need to go through such a horrific death. He did it to show us how much he loves us.

 

[pwlj_christ87]

He had to die, in order to be united to human life through to death.

Death intrinsically involves suffering; there is no “pleasurable” death.

Although crucifixion is a visually hideous death, there are others whose deaths involve equal or even more suffering. So He chose a death that would unite Him to our life even through its most grievous ending.

ICXC NIKA.

since he was human, anddivine, he would die regarldess of whether by crucifixion or not. i dont understand the part, he chosea death that would unite him to our life

 

[pwlj_christ87]

It’s necessary to separate the historical, worldly reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion from the theological explanation.

Jesus died at the hands of the Romans under the accusation “INRI” – the Latin for “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” While it would have been easy to just kill Jesus once he’d been identified and captured, execution by crucifixion was a form of violent crowd control. Jesus had been identified as “king,” about which Caesar asked him. To me, he was killed because, while Caesar recognized his innocence from political ambition, he could not hold onto his position and save face in front of the Emperor if he were to free someone who had been publicly identified as a threat to Roman imperial control over the Holy Land. Romans had had to put down a number of armed revolts there, from the Sepphoris rebellion in the Galilee following the death of Herod the Great to the aftermath of the Golden Eagle incident, which brought Roman control directly over Jerusalem. Caesar was no pious man… we hear from Philo of Alexandria of his brutality. So I think the best explanation from a historical perspective is that Jesus had been held up as the return of the Kingdom of David. Many of even Jesus’ followers mistook his intentions (e.g., Peter carrying a sword at Gesthemane and cutting the guard’s ear), and thought he would lead a military reconquest of Israel similar to Judas Maccabeus (i.e., Acts 1:6). So it’s really apparent to me that Jesus’ crucifixion was intended to show any of Jesus’ backers, who had greeted him like a king on the way into Jerusalem, who had accompanied him at his highly public action in the Temple. Crucifying him outside the gates of the city made sure that anyone walking by would see his death in such a humiliating way and see that Rome would crush any who dared to utter the name “king.”

As to the theological reason, if you look at Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, you’ll see that the prophecy was that the “servant” of God would bear the sins of others. It’s not just Christians who interpreted things this way: the “Targum” of Isaiah (translation and commentary on the book in Aramaic) also thought that this verse meant the Messiah. It’s in the broader context of God wiping away the sins of Israel. Jesus came teaching that there needed to be a new way to be Israel. Not by supporting nationalist revolution of the sort won by Judas Maccabeus supported by Temple-focused piety or by hyper-observance of the “Oral Torah” advocated by the Pharisees of the time, but by loving, letting oneself be transformed fundamentally, and forgiveness.

fnr thank you so much forthis post, this brought me so muchdelight… i think ifinally understand things now, historicla as well as theological , thank you, i amsaving this post

 

[pwlj_christ87]

ok the prhase, jesus did it to show us how much he loves us, bothers me …

not because of what it describes, for thati love, but because it is cliche and i lack interpretation fully of it,

whenever ih hear the phrase im saddenened i dont get it…

i dont get why hehad to die, so our sins couldbe forgiven…

understanding the curcifixion, wny then didh e haveto, chose to die…for our sins…

atonement comes to mind butidont fully understand this, in order for thingsto be ok with us and god forgiveness needs to happen, and that is sacrifice in our religion, but why didnt he just clap his hands and forgive us , why the death?