Was the Death of Jesus Necessary For the Race to be Saved?

I don't know what that adds to the discussion. It is like saying that birth is a condition for death. The question is whether the salvation of the human race was predicated on the death of Jesus Christ. The answer is No! This does not mean that Jesus did not die or that his death was meaningless.

Do tell, what was the meaning of Jesus death?

Paul's answer is that every individual's salvation is predicated on Christ's death. Therefore, the same is true for the race.



Do you have a verse for that?

You cannot depend on an opinion expressed by an individual who is commenting on past issues. The connection between the death of Jesus and the salvation of the race must be established before the death occurred. That said, who do you think required the death of Jesus for the race to be saved? To answer that question you have to understand what happened in Eden. Too many believe that the human race rebelled against their creator even though the Bible is clear that they were deceived and the enemy took occasion of their fall to claim them as his. No amount of dying could reverse that claim. Besides, it is impossible for an eternal God to die.

When you consider Jesus' declaration before He went to the cross that His work of redeeming the human race had been completed it is obvious that at best the death of Jesus was a useless act of vengeance on the part of the enemy. The hold he had on the human race had already been broken and he struck out the best way he knew how. He was being a thug and we are honoring him by attempting to make him a party to the redemption of the race.

So, why didnt Jesus defend Himself? If He didnt have to die, why did he? We know that He chose to, why?

Mat 26:52 Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back in its place! For all who use a sword will be killed by a sword.
Mat 26:53 Don't you think that I could call on my Father, and he would send me more than twelve legions of angels now?
Mat 26:54 How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say this must happen?"

Darius,

You say that at best the death of Jesus was a useless act of vengeance on the part of the enemy?

Are you saying that it didn't matter whether or not Christ died?

Good passage. This says, that even if only for a day, Jesus was in exile from heaven while on earth.

All I know is that according to John 17:1-5 the work of redemption had already been completed. Any claims the enemy had on the race had already been dealt with. The life of Christ dealt with all misunderstandings concerning the character of the Creator.

Let us not confuse the willingness of love to go to any lengths with what is legally required to achieve a particular result. He also did not have to allow the enemy access to Adam and Eve in the garden. There is no need to ask why.

The willingness of love to go to any lengths for what? If all was achieved at the time of that last supper, why end it with, "ok, im finnished here. Lets go and experience some roman torture techniques." Why not just, "ok, im done, beam me up scottie."?

Actually it would have been much easier to just destroy the universe and start again. These questions are the same as the popular can God create a stone so big that he cannot move it. I did not suggest that Jesus scripted the cross. That aside, He is God. Do you know how much pain He felt if any?

Ehm, no, no, you didnt but the bible did, and finaly, either He felt pain or He is the greatest actor in the universe.

Yes, we have John 17:4 which says, "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."

But Christ also said this in John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

I, therefore, ask what was finished at the cross?

I merged the two topics together into one topic.

Daryl, the ordeal of the cross was finished. "I have finished my work" does not mean that He could do nothing else or that nothing else could happen to Him. "It is finished" indicated that there was nothing else that the enemy could do to Him.

Thomas, we don't all have the same tolerance for pain. Given your "actor" comment I am surprised you would suggest that Jesus scripted the cross and that you can find evidence for it in the Bible. (of course, you did not provide a reference).

I believe both statements are referring to the completion of the same work that Christ came to do. The first one was at the end of His work on presenting to the world the love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness of God as revealed in His own life on this fallen world. The second one was Christ's work of taking upon Himself the penalty for our sins. Christ's final and redemptive work on the cross was to show the justice side of God in that a penalty still had to be paid. Right after He said "It is finished" He died.

Atonement in the OT required a sacrifice. Atonement in the NT also required a sacrifice. This is why Christ is also referred to as the Lamb of God.

Well, belief is always an option. In the face of evidence I test my beliefs. I prefer that option rather than see how the evidence can be made to fit what I believe. That is not difficult to do.

This is a good point.

What was legally required? (and what was the particular result?)

I agree with the premise that to understand how Christ's work fixes what happened in Eden, we need to understand what happened in Eden.

I believe our believing the serpents lies resulted in our seeing God in a way He is not. In order for us to be reconciled, or set right, with God, it was necessary that we see Him as He really is. This was the work which Jesus Christ finished (when He said, "I have finished the work you gave me to do.")

Here is a nice comment on this from EGW:

I guess the short answer is No.



Why? Where did that rule come from?

But anyway... Isaiah 53:5 - But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.



Why do you think rebellion and deception are mutually exclusive? Where do you get the idea that Adam and Eve did not experience both? (But keep in mind that I will not depend on your expressed opinions and comments on past issues. To paraphrase the disclaimer on many items sold in health food stores, Not intended to cure or treat any misconceptions.)

Im not quite sure which posts of mine you are refering to here..

Asygo, I am surprised you would question the mutual exclusivity of deception and rebellion. No one who understands what both are could do so and I am convinced you know what they mean. Rebellion is an act of the will. One must truthfully understand the issues in order to rebel. Deception takes away that possibility.

Asygo, Isa. 53:5 does not establish a link between the death of Jesus and the salvation of the human race.

Tom, you hit the nail on the head with the quote from EGW in 5T (which is my favorite volume in the Testimonies to the Church series). "the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God." The salvation of man constituted setting men right and the revelation of God was seen in the life of Christ. Death does not reveal a God who is eternal. If we would take the time to read EGW carefully we would find that the essential truth is there in her writing even though she, through her fallibility, often seemed to counter it in her writings.

Thomas, I was referring to what you said in post #87078.

I still wonder where the "scripted the cross" comes in, unless you refer to some of the bibleverses I quoted...

How does this go with this?


How were we reconciled to God? Romans 5:10 says "by the death of his Son."

The scripted comment was in response to post #87075 which characterised Jesus as choosing that course of action.

Darius,

A new topic was created out of your last post here and was moved into another forum of MSDAOL.

As far as this topic goes, for those of us who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God through the various authors of the Bible, Romans 5:10 refutes your statement.

You can't choose from the Bible what you like and reject what you don't like, or refutes your own cherished beliefs.

If you don't accept Paul's writings as part of the inspired Word of God, then your participation in this topic is no longer credible.

This needs some explanation. If you say simply that we were reconciled by the death of His Son, then everyone would be reconciled, right? Reconciliation requires participation on our part, doesn't it? So you're in danger of chopping off the verse to say something Paul was not intending it looks to me.

We reconciled by faith, aren't we? Doesn't faith need to come into play somewhere? You can't just take a portion of verse of Paul and make conclusions based on that, without taking into account what else Paul has written, can you? Wouldn't that be picking what you want, the very thing you said we can't do?

Daryl, I don't choose on the basis of likes and dislikes. I choose on the basis of what models reality. When Gen. 1 tells me that the earth and water existed before God said let there be light on the first day of creation I have no choice but to conclude that what follows cannot be considered to be a play by play account of the creation of the universe.

Tom,

I didn't define who the "we" consisted of, or didn't consist of. I assumed the reader already knew that. I am simply going by what Paul stated in that vese in Romans 5:10. If you want to add more to it, go to it, but it was clearly stated by Paul in that text that "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Using other texts, for example, John 3:16, I would say that the "we" in Romans 5:10 is the "whosoever" in John 3:16. The "God so loved the world" part shows that it has been offered to the whole world. Only the whosoever in the world that responds will benefit eternally.

After re-reading the numerous posts here, it seems that we have strayed away from the topic, therefore, unless somebody can connect these numerous posts to the topic, I will soon be making a new topic from the point where it seems we have strayed from the topic.

Your statement was incomplete, which is what I was pointing out. It's not sufficient to say "I assumed the reader already knew that." What you are assuming is precisely what's being questioned.

You state (actually Paul stated) that we were reconciled by the death of Christ. What does that mean? Without a discussion as to what that means, it's impossible to use that phrase as a rebuttal to what Darius wrote; it could be that it means the same thing Darius is saying! (I'm not saying this is the case, but without knowing what the phrase means, it's a possibility).

It is the belief that Jesus had to die and live perfectly in order to save mankind that introduces the idea of risk. In fact it was a simple case of living so that His true nature could be revealed to His human creation who had been deceived as to His true nature. There was never a risk that He would not be who He was. This is why the enemy wanted to kill Him as a baby so that He could not live out His life on earth. There was no risk involved in the rescue of the human race. Positing that there was is as close to an insult of the Creator as there could be.

In relation to the attempt to prematurely kill Him, that could never have happened as the timing of His death in accordance with the 70 week, 490 year prophecy, had not yet arrived. As the lamb that was sacrificed represented or prefigured Christ, He had to die the exact moment that the lamb was scheduled to be sacrificed.


Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. IN order to pay the penalty for our sins, Christ had to die, and He did die for the whole world.

I do find it interesting though that even though EGW uses the word "risk", I do not see such a word or thought expressed in the Sciptures, therefore, seeing that we ae to harmonize the writings of EGW with the Sciptures, we had better take another look at what the word "risk" really means in her writings.

Obviously you are going to hold on to what you believe regardless. Please explain how you kill an immortal God.

I am not referring to the killing of Christ in His divinity, but to the killing of Christ in His humanity, therefore, we are not going to go in that direction.

If you kill only part of an individual you have not killed that person. Period.

A long time ago I learned that the more I refused to accept the obvious the less credibility I was left with.

When they took Christ down from the cross, His body was dead and lifeless. When they laid Him in the tomb, His body was still dead and lifeless.

Christ was dead.

God said, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Adam and Eve both knew the command. It was simple enough to understand: Don't eat that fruit. Don't you think that it was an act of their wills to disregard God's word and eat the fruit? Or were they deceived into thinking that God didn't really say that?

I don't think they doubted God's command to abstain from that fruit. The command was clear, and Satan didn't even try to deny it. Though Eve didn't understand all the issues, she was sharp enough to understand the requirement.

What he did deceive Eve on was the consequence of disregarding God's command. God said, "You will die." Satan directly contradicted that. And Eve bought the lie. (Not that her deception made the death any less inevitable.)

Don't eat it - she willfully rebelled.

You will die - she was deceived.

I see no problem with both happening.

Those are equivalent. You cannot have one without the other.

Chastisement/stripes/wounds, peace/healed -> death, salvation. Some see it, some don't.

Anyway, you didn't answer my questions.


Why? Where did that rule come from?

Asygo, the rule comes from the same reasoning that says a prophecy should be stated before the event happens. It is easy to make a causal relationship between two events after they have occured.

You are referring to the body He took upon Himself, right? I don't suppose you realize that you and I don't take on bodies. If you think God died on that tree then go right on believing it.

Asygo, where was Eve when the command not to eat of the tree was given?

In that case, you are misapplying the reasoning. Foresight and hindsight do not work under the same rules. For example, just because I don't tell a toddler in advance that fire is hot, if he sticks his hand in it, he will get burned anyway. Lack of foreknowledge does not impact causality. Or do you believe the misguided saying, "What you don't know won't hurt you"?

If you are proposing that foresight and hindsight are based on the same rules, then show why that should be.

In Adam's rib cage, according to Gen 2. But she must have had a good teacher, because she knew it by Gen 3.

Unlike Olympic diving, truth is not judged by degree of difficulty.

I have created a separate topic from all of the posts here.

I am not certain if the topic name accurately reflects this topic, therefore, if it should be renamed, please let me know.

The word race should not be used because it was not anywhere in the bible and it only refer to running the race. So, that means that that question is not valid at this time.

We know it was sufficient, by verses such as Rom. 5:10, which says we are reconciled by His death. The question of necessity is more challenging. One could argue that the mere fact that it happened argues to its necessity, since why else would God have permitted His Son to die?

From the Spirit of Prophecy we know that from God's perspective, the death of Christ is not necessary in order for Him to forgive, since He was willing to forgive Lucifer without Christ's having to die. Why, then, should Christ's death be necessary for man, if not for angels? I think the following statement from the Desire of Ages speaks to this:



The following statement by George Fifield amplifies the idea:

It is my thinking that the human race is what is being referred to in this topic, however, it probably would be clearer to add the word human in front of the word race.

We shouldn't use any words that aren't in the Bible?

I think it is easy to see who is wrong about what Eve knew. May God grant us the boldness to think for ourselves instead of blindly accepting what an "authority" has said.

Asygo, who said anything about hindsight and foresight. It is not a very wise idea to change the subject in order to force a victory.

Didn’t Christ Himself say, “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).


Where she was is not important. The important thing is that she knew God's prohibition (Gen. 3:2,3) and, more than that, she knew God – her Creator and Sustainer, who had given her life, love and everything good that she enjoyed. Nevertheless, she chose to believe an unknown serpent who had never done anything for her.

Jesus died to save us, to redeem us, because the law requires it. To allow siners to live in sin is cruel. To ignore their sin condones it. The death of Jesus satisfies the law of God and demonstrates the love of God. Both are necessary to redeem sinners from sin, self, and Satan.

When one questions the validity of interpreting past events and discerning causal relationships between them, that is questioning hindsight. "Hind" = back, "sight" = looking -> looking back to understand what happened and why it did. I thought this was obvious. Perhaps I assumed too much. If you don't see it, the problem is not language.

Anyway, the idea that all causes must be presented before the effects occur for the causal relationship to be valid, is ridiculous. And your inability to present a logical defense of why that should be, rather than the usual vague ad-hominem comments, is telling of the strength of the argument. It reeks of a lawyer-like attitude of gathering as many arguments as possible, no matter how specious, in the attempt to come to the desired conclusion.

I prefer the more judge-like attitude of gathering all sound arguments, and only sound arguments, and coming to the logical conclusion, regardless of what one desires. As my fraternity's motto says, veritas omnia vincit - truth conquers all.

Asygo, your attempts are brilliance darken the night sky. You are much too concrete in your thinking. The issue before us concerns claims of association. You keep regressing to the facts of association. Let me break it down for you. Let us consider that I go to visit my brother and on my arrival his neighbor decides to give him his used lawnmower. The facts are clear. After I arrived the gift was given. No one can deny that. But, what can I claim? Can I claim that I went to visit my brother so he could receive the gift of a lawnmower? Yes, I can. Nothing prevents me from making the claim. But how valid is the claim? To prove the validity of the claim I would have to establish that the link between my arrival and the gift had been made BEFORE I left to visit my brother.

Darius

Will someone show me from the law where it requires that Jesus had to die? I am getting a bit tired from reading unsubstantiated claims that have no standing in reason or logic.

Rosangela, if where she was was not important the text would not go to such lengths to ensure that we realize she had not been created when the command was given. Those who truly follow the Bible need to pay careful attention to how it was written.

Your quote of Mark 10:45 makes the false assumption that "to give his life" means "to die." It could just as easily mean "to live out His life." Jesus' final summary of His mission indicates that it is the latter that is meant.

Darius, I thought you were banned from posting on MSDAOL? Your unwillingness to embrace the most basic Christian beliefs is wearisome. Why not question the existence of God and be done with it?

I find Darius a bit critical at times, but he's asking good questions.

How convincing..... not. Ad hominem. Useful for a lawyer, not for a judge.



I prefer the concreteness of building on the Rock, rather than shifting sand.



There is no dichotomy.



That's all good. Causality cannot be proved simply by a temporal relationship. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common mistake.



This is where you make your mistake. Causality cannot be disproved simply by a temporal relationship.

Consider this possibility: A week after your arrival and the lawnmower's arrival, the neighbor comes for a visit. He then reveals to you that he was waiting for your arrival to give the lawnmower. He then tells you some previously unknown story to explain why that was the case. You now have causality proven after the fact.

God is well able to do the same thing. He could explain why Jesus had to die long after the death happened.

Be careful not to limit what God can do by what you can understand. That would leave you with a rather small God.

Asygo, God's omnipotence does not give you license to attribute whatever you desire to Him. In your version of my analogy the neighbor tells me of how he was waiting for my arrival for him to make the gift. You have no such revelation from God. (Unless you think you are God.)

Even if she hadn't yet been created when the command was given (which I don't think is the case), she was informed of God's prohibition, as she herself made clear to Satan (Gen. 3:2,3).


What about John 10:15-18, then? "And I lay down my life for the sheep. ... For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."

Rosangela, what you are doing here is making the biblical text fit a conclusion instead of discovering what the text means. "I lay down my life for my sheep" does not mean "I came to die so my sheep may live." Further, if you read Gen. 2 I fail to see how you can deny that Eve had not been created when the command was given. Certainly, Adam told her what his Creator had told him. After all, he declared that she was "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." But it is also obvious that he emphasized the prohibition so much that he added something that God had not said. The serpent got her because he placed himself in her shoes presenting himself as someone who had not heard firsthand what the Creator had said. It was a simple but effective way of gaining her confidence in the same way that an abductor gains a child's confidence by asking for help in finding a pet. It is unfortunate that in our zeal to defend our false position we miss the true power of the story.

I never claimed such. But Paul, John, and a few others have received revelations. You might be unfamiliar with their works. Or if you are, perhaps you think your teachings supercede theirs.

Why do you imply that I claim to have received revelations? Adding red herrings to your ad hominem soup? You must have already run out of solid arguments.

Here's what we have so far:

1. NT writers teach that Christ's death was necessary.
2. You oppose that teaching.
3. You make the invalid argument that a causal relationship requires that the cause be made known before the effect occurs.
4. You fail to see how I invalidated your argument using your own example.
5. You fail to see the allusions to Christ's death in the OT.
6. You are so confused that you think I claim special revelation, when you are the one guilty of such.

Did I forget anything?

Dude, your paradigm is so unlike everyone else's here that I don't understand why you hang out here. I know someone who claims to be a modern-day prophet. Maybe you guys should get together. You have the same MO.

Asygo, I did not imply that you made any claim about revelation. I categorically stated that you have no revelation.

Asygo, I won't hold it against you for distinguishing yourself by your ability to follow the crowd unquestioningly.

Have you forgotten your own stroke of brilliance? "It is not a very wise idea to change the subject in order to force a victory."

The subject was the *possibility* of causality being established after the fact. I think you realized that I proved that, because you then switched to the straw man of my having no revelation. (Though I have my doubts how well straw will go with the red herring and ad hominem of your fallacy soup.)

Physician, heal thyself.

Let's see if any progress has been made. Is it possible for causality to be established after the fact?

But when the crowd includes Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus Himself, you better believe I will follow. It is impossible to find better company.

You may distinguish yourself by following a path where none have trod. I won't hold it against you. But I can't speak for the One in whose blood-stained footsteps we are to follow.

crater, we discussed a similar question earlier, which you may not have been a part of. I brought out that, according to Ellen White, God was willing to forgive Lucifer of his sin, without any reference to Christ's dying for him. How do you understand that this was possible? (the account of this can be found in "The Great Controversy" in the chapter "The Origin of Evil.")

Lucifer had at first so conducted his temptations that he himself stood uncommitted. The offer of forgiveness was good up to the point of when Lucifers chose not to accept the offer of forgiveness, Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels.

The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him.

I am not so confused as to think that my ideas supercede Paul's. But there are some who are self-confident enough to think that, despite their lack of solid arguments.

BTW, are you any closer to admitting that I proved that causality can be established after the fact? Or are you still simmering over that?

I haven't been on here for a long time only to discover a 9 page discussion on a question that is so basic to Christianity that if you don't believe it or understand it than you simply aren't Christian.

An animal died in Eden to cover sin. Cain was punished because he was unwilling to offer a living sacrifice. Abraham on Mount Moriah, the passover, and then Jesus Himself. Anyone who argues against "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins" is either really unintelligent or is an agent of satan.

The only thing that kept Jesus on that cross was His love for you and I. He could have come down, He could have summoned all the angelic host to come to His aid.

When Peter tried to say that Jesus was not going to die, Jesus abruptly rebuked him "Get behind Me satan!".

He says the same to all who deny His sacrificial death.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Happy Passover everyone

Amen.

Almost a week later and have moving from one place to another, I will also now add my "Amen!" to that post.

As we are well on our way between Christmas and Easter, it is probably a good time to bump this thread and say once again that post #87650 was a very good post.

It seems past posts put a lot of emphases on the sequence of explanations in Genesis chapter two, to try to prove Eve was not present to hear God's commandment to stay away from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thus she didn't hear the Divine warning that they would die if they ate of it.
This is a distortion of truth built on an assumption that Genesis two contradicts Genesis chapter one.

We need to understand that Genesis chapter two, is not written to give a sequential order of Creation. That was done in chapter One. If we insist that it gives a sequential outline of Creation, then we are in conflict with Genesis chapter one.
Genesis chapter two is simply adding details to fit INTO the frame work revealed in Geneses chapter one, it is NOT introducing a different order of creation in conflict with Genesis One.

We see themes developed in chapter TWO
\

In case you didn?t notice, in Genesis chapter one we have Plants created on day three, then on day six there are Animals, and lastly, Humans.
In Genesis chapter two,, it appears first Man was created, then Plants ,then animals, and finally Woman. Two very different orders. But the intention is not to present a new order, but giving us details to help flesh out the original order in chapter one.
It's only when people demand a new sequential order of creation in chapter two that people find issues to challenge the truthfulness of scripture and even challenge the basics of salvation.

That's actually why there is such an attack on the whole Creation story in general, Satan wants to confuse the whole salvation story as well as the reliability of scripture and the reason why we need salvation..


ADAM AND EVE were both fully warned that eating of the forbidden fruit meant SURE death.

As I understand both the Bible and Mrs. White; the death of Jesus was critical for the entire great controversy, not only for the sinful race.

God has a very unassuming nature. God reveals himself to us in the finite world through the Trinity. God as the almighty great power who is the creator, not the creature. God as personal intermate friend, These two revelations are objective, but a thing we have in common with God is that we are both objective and subjective. So we have the third member of the Godhead, where God is revealing Himself and relating to our subjective experience. God does not like to use his authority to tell us what to believe and why, but he wants to work with not only our objective but also our subjective so that truth becomes a part of us.

Creatures started out with a love for God, but they were of course immature. Their love for God can be compared to children saying "My Daddy can beat up your daddy." Love needed to grow. There were three major questions that all creatures need to answer: First is God really God or just a higher form of life who is using the law to keep the rest of creation in submission and enslavement. The next two are connected because God claims to be both just and merciful. Can God really be both or does he need to be one or the other. Related to this is if sinners die, what is the nature of their death?

The first being that reached a point for the Holy Spirit to raise these topics with was Lucifer. Had Lucifer taken the time to look for the answers to these questions he would have loved God more and help others to deal with these questions. The universe would thus mature, and the odds of someone choosing rebellion would have decreases. The tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil technically means the experience of good and evil. Who knows evil the most, God or Satan? The universe needed to understand these issues. Experience is of course the best teacher; but God wanted us to learn in the second best way. But was not surprised when the universe began to learn about evil through experience.

For a totally unexplainable (I want to say reason, but reason does NOT fit here) as the Holy Spirit was bringing up these issues to Lucifer, Lucifer did not look for the answers. Instead of living with and wrestling with these issues and searching for answers; Lucifer began to congratulate himself to be smart enough to come up with these amazing questions. He turned these three questions into three lies about God. The first was that God really was not God but a higher evolved life form using the power he currently has to place a law over us that prevents us from evolving to his equal. This is a direct attack on God the Father. As for justice and mercy; :Lucifer said that God can't be both. He had to be either one or the other. Since he is a cruel arbitrary tyrant he will be just and kill all who break his law. Well, maybe, just maybe if you do a good job, now a super good job in appeasing God he might change from his wrath towards you.This is a direct attack on God the Son, God as imamate friend. The third was not as focused on until after the passion of Jesus. When Satan saw what God did in the cross the third deception came to the forefront. This says that since God ended up "choosing mercy" instead of justice, that the laws been done away with. God will either save everyone, or Lucifer modifies it to "He will save you if you say the proper words about Jesus and be able to explain how Jesus died in your place. Live as you please, for heaven is your home. Say the right words about Jesus, or the right church ritual and no matter what else you are in. But if you don't do that, your out. This is a direct attack on God the Holy Spirit who leads us into the truth of the love of God becoming central to our subjective existential being.

Revelation 12 - 13 has a counterfeit trinity. The beast is a counterfeit God the Father, it is any organization that ends up controlling us, through the 7 periods of history from God's people being ruled by a son of David, until we are again ruled by THE SON OF DAVID. These periods are Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, The union of church-state over the middle ages (the feet of iron and clay), then comes the 6th head, the deadly wound. The toes of iron and clay: a period starting with the American and French Revolution where instead of one great world empire ruling in place of the son of David, it is several independent countries; some based more on the American Revolution's views of freedom, and others more oppressive as having grown from the views of the French Revolution. This is the head that has the 10 horns and the crowns on the horns rather than the head which is dead But then the deadly would will be healed, the toes will attempt to join together, but it will end up in utter chaos. The Dragon is a counterfeit Holy Spirit; Spiritualism. Where instead of the beast telling us what to do, our subjective existential experience becomes the final authority. You have your truth and I have mine. Existentialism. The beast does not respect our existential experience, the dragon makes our existential experience the final law. The 2 horned beast is the counterfeit Christ. What Jesus does for us is what brings us to the Father and is how the Holy Spirit works with our subjective existential experience. The two horned beast tells people that it would be to their existential advantage to simply comply with the beast. Thus we have the mark of the beast in the forehead of those who don't mind submitting to the system, and in the right hand of those who disagree with the system but decide to go along for our own existential advantage in the long run.

In the Roman world where we see these coming, at different times of the year, such as the emperor's birthday, everyone intown would come and bow down to the image of the emperor. Jews were exempt and could pray to YAHWEH for the emperor in the temple and synagogue service, but if your neighbor did not see you coming and kneeling with everyone else, they might wonder about you and this may not help your business relationship. So there were Jews who would walk by the emperor's image and as others were bowing to the emperor, the Jew would notice that his sandal needed to be adjusted. This action is the type of which the mark of the beast will be the anti-type.

The death of Jesus, and how Jesus died is how to fully answer these 3 important questions about God, which Satan turned into three deceptions about God.

There are things we know, but are not all knowing. Things that are true but which we do not fully understand and as we discuss and think and study we grow,

This next paragraph I'm not dogmatic about and may upset many of you. When I first learned that in the 1800s there were some Review articles that entertained this thought they ruffled my feathers. But as I learned more (and even when I first came across this I still had much of this background). There is a time period where the angels and beings on other worlds had to deal with these issues. We know that the earth plays a role in all of this. Some terms in the Bible such as what is translated as "without form and void" and a time that the earth needed man for a helpmate but did not have in the ancient world indicated something going on here, maybe even for a long long time, but where God was refusing to show proof, refusing to have people compelled to follow him, even if it was just indisputable proof, but where the angels and unfallen world was the center of the great controversy. They only worked on evidence and maybe experiments to build evidence, but they had to make choices of faith based on evidence. Could some of the things that indicate an old world actually date back to that time? Anyway, what we learn is that a day came where the two sides of the Great Controversy were formed, and where whatever what here had become total chaos. It was only when this happened that God stepped in with proof, and he hovered over the chaos and said "Let there be light" and this was not only the visible light, but that the great cosmic events of historoy entered into a time of special light about God. This started a very special six literal days .and the Sabbath. God showed to the beings that he was indeed the creator.

This is getting long, but this is a lot to think about and discuss. I will give a little bit more, but in one way or another the death of Jesus is what answered these questions and lead us to a mature love of God for who he is.

Now there have been different theories in how this worked. There is an early view that I'll close with as I think that while it may not be the ultimate answer, might set us in the right direction. A second early view was called the bate theory of the atonement. That we are Satan's prey, and legally belong to him. But God was willing to trade us for his Son. Satan saw Christ as a better trophy than us, so he agreed to it, not seeing the resurrection and so he lost both us and Christ. Around the 1200s many saw the craziness of this view, so two other views were developed: The Forensic view, where we owe the death to God the Father, and my guilt got transferred to God the Son. And the Moral Influence Theory, which says that the cross does not save us, it is only showing how much God loves us and what he is willing to put up with. This awakens love inside of us so that we start doing what is right. This does not allow Jesus' death to be a substitutionary sacrifice. Probably the best picture of the moral influence theory is found in the song "When I survey the wonderous cross on which the prince of Glory died, My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

The earlier view I'd like to close with actually came from a book of nature by Pliny the Elder. Now he made a comment that no other naturalist has recorded and we are not sure what he saw to give him this idea, but he wrote that in times of famine mother pelicans would peck a hole in her stomach, so that her chicks who had no access to food would eat her food and it would nourish them instead of her. Early Christians picked up on this and in our earliest churches would have alters with a mother pelican poking her stomach for her chicks to eat and saw this as a picture of our atonement in Christ.

Later I'll come back with how I understand the Bible and Mrs. White to teach about hell fire. I would like it if you would take a moment to read in one setting (or at least closely together) five passages from Mrs. White. The first being "Why was sin permitted. from Patriarchs and Prophets Second "The origin of Evil" from Great Controversy. Third the article "God made manifest in Christ" from Signs of the Times January 20, 1890, fourth, "Gethsemane" from Desire of Ages, and fifth, the crowning words from the ministry of Mrs. White "It is Finished" from Desire of Ages. I hope that we can share and discuss. I've given most of what I understand here, with the exception of how I understand hell fire. But we are living at the time of study and evidence as the rest of the universe did prior to creation week. This way we can all grow.

Why did Jesus die? Yes, there are many areas that benefit from God's great display of grace and love, uniting justice and mercy. There was more at stake than just the human race. There is always more to learn. After all, this subject will be a theme of study through eternity! We definitely don't know everything now!

But there is one very basic reason why Jesus came to live and die for us.
If He had not died and risen again, all people who have died (the death everyone faces in this world) that would have been the end. Period.

Because, when mankind sinned, the law said they die.
Sin separated him from the source of life, and justice demanded death.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt SURELY DIE.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

When Jesus died, He wasn't paying Satan anything. He wasn't paying nor appeasing God anything.
He took the sentence the law demanded of us, because, if we were to be saved, without the Creator taking our penalty, it would be abrogating the authority of the law. The law would be just a "take it or leave it" thing.

Satan's claim was that sinning humans deserved the same penalty as he was getting: 'I and my angels, were thrown out of heaven and have the death sentence hanging over our heads because we won't yield to Christ's commands and law, if God simply forgives them sinners and takes them to heaven, He'd better forgive us too, and give us our place back in heaven, or He Is being totally arbitrary and unfair.'

A main point in Lucifer (Satan's) big thing in his rebellion was against God's law, that it couldn't be kept, and that it was too restrictive.

But Christ showed two essential things:
1. the law can be kept by a human connected to God's power,
2. He showed the law could not be changed to accommodate sin.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed
Rev. 5:9 thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood

If God would have only shown GRACE -- that is, if Adam had simply confessed and been forgiven after deliberately sinning. God would have lowed the standard and authority of the law. But by taking Adam's (and everyone's) sin and dying the death the sinner deserved, Christ showed the law to be immutable, it stands forever.



Christ lived a perfect life, thus He rose again!
1 Cor. 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.
15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

You see, if Christ had not died AND risen again, everyone, even those who accepted Christ, would have perished. -- That is, they would stay in their graves, and never exist again.

BUT CHRIST died and rose again!!!!
Justice has been dealt and now comes mercy!

1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
15:21 For since by man came death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Those who believe and follow Christ, cooperating with His Holy Spirit to live righteously, with be raised unto the resurrection of life.


And that's one very essential reason why Christ died -- to redeem us!