[W:110] Was dying on the Cross necessary or a random method chosen by God ?

[ataraxia]

Religion and philosophy are for answers that science can never provide. Like why we shouldn’t behave like the animals we are, why we should have things like moral values, manners, and civilizations, what those things should look like, etc. And science is a big fat who cares without any of that.

It's not quite that simple. There are many dogs who are better behaved and moral than many humans, in terms of being capable of love, loyalty, friendship, prudence, reliability, even self-sacrifice. It's not because they have studied religion.

Today, we reject the many pages of detailed instructions in scripture on how exactly to own slaves so it's pleasing to God, or all the misogyny. This is all IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.

We have learned that corporal punishment of children is wrong, even though the scripture says "spare the rod, spoil the child". We have learned how it teaches children that might makes right, that bullying works, to fear and hate their parents and not trust them with their safety, and it leads to adults who in turn are more prone to inflicting domestic abuse and being bullies in their workplaces. We have learned there are far better and more effective techniques of child discipline. We did not learn any of that from scripture. We learned it from science and detailed, careful observations and studies.

Our morality does not come from religion. Religion is just what we project our latest opinions on. It's not worth the resulting tribalism and closed-mindedness and stagnation- especially in the modern world where we are learning so much about the world so fast, and so much new technology is coming out which raise so many ethical questions. It may have been fine for societies who could go for millenia without learning anything new. It does not work very well in the modern world.

"Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion."
-John Dewey

“Whether the possibility of rearing new Martin Luther Kings is worth the risk of rearing new Jerry Falwells is a matter of risk management. To my mind, the advantage of getting rid of the Falwells is worth the risk of getting rid of the Kings. But I have no knock-down argument to bring to bear. I just suspect that the continued existence of the churches is, by and large, more of a danger than a help to the rise of a global democratic society.”
-Richard Rorty

 

[Daisy]

Gods can't die.

Correct...

He faked it.

Not true...Jesus is the Son of God, he is not God Himself...Jesus was dead, in hell, for parts of 3 days...

 

[Revelation]

It's not quite that simple. There are many dogs who are better behaved and moral than many humans, in terms of being capable of love, loyalty, friendship, prudence, reliability, even self-sacrifice. It's not because they have studied religion.

Today, we reject the many pages of detailed instructions in scripture on how exactly to own slaves so it's pleasing to God, or all the misogyny. This is all IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.

We have learned that corporal punishment of children is wrong, even though the scripture says "spare the rod, spoil the child". We have learned how it teaches children that might makes right, that bullying works, to fear and hate their parents and not trust them with their safety, and it leads to adults who in turn are more prone to inflicting domestic abuse and being bullies in their workplaces. We have learned there are far better and more effective techniques of child discipline. We did not learn any of that from scripture. We learned it from science and detailed, careful observations and studies.

Our morality does not come from religion. Religion is just what we project our latest opinions on. It's not worth the resulting tribalism and closed-mindedness and stagnation- especially in the modern world where we are learning so much about the world so fast, and so much new technology is coming out which raise so many ethical questions. It may have been fine for societies who could go for millenia without learning anything new. It does not work very well in the modern world.

"Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion."
-John Dewey

“Whether the possibility of rearing new Martin Luther Kings is worth the risk of rearing new Jerry Falwells is a matter of risk management. To my mind, the advantage of getting rid of the Falwells is worth the risk of getting rid of the Kings.

the Kings have not gone away, they still in the back ground, just don't get any press currently. (kinda 'off limits' for the controlled lame stream to report on)

Prophetically the kings are coming back during the Tribulation, when ten of them rule the earth. who knows, The Orange may be one of them.

The prophecy of a future ten-nation confederacy is found in several major passages of Scripture, including Daniel 2:31-35, 40-45; 7:7-8, 19-24; Revelation 13:1-2; and 17:3, 7, 12-16.

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. Rev 17:12

some details that we already know, the club of R*me has already published a map of the 10 Kingdoms they are forming for the End Times. kind of amazing huh that the Bible has predicted this thousands of years ago, and now we see this happening in the newz. the map below shows 'the north american union as nation 1, european union as nation 2, south american union as nation 6 etc.

everything that is going on here is prepping us for the Tribulation when all sovereign nations die, all national currencies will fail. we will have on Digital Currency world wide with the mark of the beast. you can see this with CB-DC coming in about 2025.

just in case you are wondering; now you have some more Bible Prophecy to deny as the sheep run over the Cliff.


....we need some wallet size maps of this so we can show people the Coming Reality; especially those burning buildings and rioting in the streets.

blessings people, things are changing very fast. the Rapture probably this year or next; why hang out here and watch man fail ?



.

But I have no knock-down argument to bring to bear. I just suspect that the continued existence of the churches is, by and large, more of a danger than a help to the rise of a global democratic society.”

LOL, get real. the church and the things of God are the glue holding things together.

wait till we gone and watch the world fold up like a cheap suit case. groan.

-Richard Rorty

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

pretended?

Did you never rationalize why a god needs to do anything at all? The resurrection reads like a an excuse for why their false prophet died. Generally poor transparent writing.

Yes either the character called god lied or is not a god at all. Actually whoever wrote that yarn shows their ignorance more than anything. Yet people believe this crap and want others to believe fiction as well. But is not just fiction it is what causes people to kill other people in the name of their god.

 

[Revelation]

Did you never rationalize why a god needs to do anything at all? The resurrection reads like a an excuse for why their false prophet died. Generally poor transparent writing.

just so you know: Jesus died and took the death penalty for your sins. we call that 'God's love'.

let's continue...

Yes either the character called god lied or is not a god at all.

he is, get used to it. are you ready to meet him?

Actually whoever wrote that yarn shows their ignorance more than anything. Yet people believe this crap and want others to believe fiction as well. But is not just fiction it is what causes people to kill other people in the name of their god.

that makes people wrong, not God.


...this is about the atheist's big surprise. (it is not all over, just starting)


..

 

[AmNat]

We learned it from science and detailed, careful observations and studies.

"Science" should be capitalized, given the way you're using it in this sentence.

 

[ataraxia]

"Science" should be capitalized, given the way you're using it in this sentence.

Science is always contingent: on further observations, experiments and models. What should be capitalized is the METHOD, that is what is "sacred" in science, not any final claim or result- those can always change. And why should it be "sacred"? Because it has just proven to be an extraordinarily fruitful approach.

I guess in that way it's no different that Democracy. It's no surprise that both science and democracy have their roots in the European Enlightenment which started by the late 17th century. This was a revolutionary historical change in human consciousness and approach to life. It has not spread very far around the world, and is even under siege in many places it was originally pioneered, like here in the United States.

As long as the process is preserved, there are no "Ultimate Truths" that need to be capitalized. This lack of claims to Ultimate Truths is often used by scientifically illiterate people to discredit the latest science. That's a mistake. This sort of uncertainty in science is not a weakness, but its source of strength, because it always requires that eyes and minds be kept open. That's why science is always growing and changing, new articles are coming out all the time, new editions of textbooks are being published, revisions are made and new models proposed, etc...

But once people begin to short circuit and sacrifice the process to the final outcome they want, and start working their way backwards from that, that's when all further growth and understanding grind to a halt: and we get closed mindedness, intolerance, stagnation, etc...

Science and democracy both require a fundamentally different mindset.

 

[AmNat]

Science is always contingent: on further observations, experiments and models. What should be capitalized is the METHOD, that is what is "sacred" in science, not any final claim or result- those can always change. And why should it be "sacred"? Because it has just proven to be an extraordinarily fruitful approach.

I guess in that way it's no different that Democracy. It's no surprise that both science and democracy have their roots in the European Enlightenment which started by the late 17th century. This was a revolutionary historical change in human consciousness and approach to life. It has not spread very far around the world, and is even under siege in many places it was originally pioneered, like here in the United States.

As long as the process is preserved, there are no "Ultimate Truths" that need to be capitalized. But once people begin to short circuit and sacrifice the process to the final outcome they want, and start working their way backwards from that, that's when all further growth and understanding grind to a halt: and we get closed mindedness, intolerance, stagnation, etc...

The statement that the scientific method is sacred and unalterable means that not everything is contingent and changeable. Those who accept the inerrancy of the Bible (or the reliability of common sense) simply have more fixed reference points than you do.

In any event, the point was that you clearly feel something approaching piety in regard to science, as evidenced by (among other things) your lumping together of things like physics with psychology, which is an art at best and pseudoscience at worst. If you were really a detached utilitarian, who valued experimental science for its track record of technological output, you would not be concerned with the opinion of psychologists regarding child-rearing or anything else.

 

[ataraxia]

The statement that the scientific method is sacred and unalterable means that not everything is contingent and changeable. Those who accept the inerrancy of the Bible (or the reliability of common sense) simply have more fixed reference points than you do.

Not at all. It’s the difference between someone who recognizes that their senses are fallible, but nonetheless keeps their eyes and ears vigilantly open; versus someone who thinks they already know Ultimate Truth as their final reference point, and closes their eyes and ears forever, resting in the “comfort of faith”. That's just the ostrich with its head in the sand: a dangerous thing to do in a world that is moving so quickly.

I would rather have my fixed reference point be my open eyes and ears, and admit when they make mistakes, than have my fixed reference point be some supposed ultimate truth and close my eyes and ears forever. No, these two approaches are not the same but with just different fixed reference points. They are entirley different approaches to knowledge.

It is no coincidence that the most religious societies also tend to be the most backward and stagnant. Why be open to any new ideas if you already know Ultimate Truth?

In any event, the point was that you clearly feel something approaching piety in regard to science, as evidenced by (among other things) your lumping together of things like physics with psychology, which is an art at best and pseudoscience at worst. If you were really a detached utilitarian, who valued experimental science for its track record of technological output, you would not be concerned with the opinion of psychologists regarding child-rearing or anything else.

Between physics and psychology, there are a spectrum of fields: physical chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, neuroscience, behavioral science, cognitive science, and psychology. Together, they form a very intricate, complex, coherent, and interconnected web of observations, models, and beliefs- all based on mountains of data and very clever modelling by some very smart people. Changes in one area can have profound influences in the others. They all use the same principles of control and experiment, trials in clinical practice, etc, etc....

This idea that they are somehow entirely different is not accurate.

Interestingly enough, in almost all situations where scriptural/religious claims could be verified through observation or experience, they have turned out to be wrong. That the Earth was the center of the universe was standard Church doctrine for over 1600 years. Where else would God put the culmination of his creation, man? Besides, there was all that scriptural support (Thou has fixed the Earth immovable in the sky?"- Psalms). All the instructions on slavery, the shocking levels of misogyny, etc, etc... We have found over time that we do much better when we begin to look at these scriptures as the best wisdom of the time and place in the ancient past where they had their origins, projected to a heaven of eternity, sanctity, and immutability. But it was just the best knowledge of the time that they had. We do better just acknowledging it as such, and realizing we can do much better by just stopping anchoring ourselves to it, and just opening our own eyes and ears (as fallible as they may be) and continue building on our experience and learning about the world.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic - let's stick to it.

 

[Overitall]

If God is all powerful, why did God need to become a man and die on the Cross to forgive sins ?
Secondly, how exactly does becoming a man and dying on the Cross remove sin from humanity ?
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with the other.

Even though the author of the OP appears to have left the "building", I'll still tackle this.

Your argument/questions rest upon the theology that Jesus Christ is God. That's a false doctrine. Nevertheless,

Man caused the consequences of spiritual death which another man had to sacrifice his physical life to regain the spirit that died with Adam. Jesus Christ is called the "Passover Lamb" representing the redemption and healing of all men that partake of the sacrifice by declaring him Lord of Life.

The reason I struggle with the Christian doctrine is it's not based on any logical sequence of necessities.
If God had no other way than through Jesus, that means there's something that God is subservient to.

Nah. It's quite logical. Only another man can set straight the result of a man's disobedience by being obedient unto physical death.

And even if God chose Jesus as a method randomly, the act of dying on the Cross and forgiving those who sinned that believe it happened is not a logical sequitur. It's simply random links created by God without any true rhyme or reason.

You haven't given this enough thought.

 

[Gordy327]

Correct...


Not true...Jesus is the Son of God, he is not God Himself...Jesus was dead, in hell, for parts of 3 days...

Really? I'm confused. I thought you said

#384, "He was the archangel, Michael, in heaven, a perfect man on earth..."

So is Jesus the son of god or the archangel Michael? Which is it?

 

[Daisy]

Really? I'm confused. I thought you said

#384, "He was the archangel, Michael, in heaven, a perfect man on earth..."

So is Jesus the son of god or the archangel Michael? Which is it?

All angels are sons of God...Satan was originally a son of God, also, until he rebelled and made himself the Devil/Slanderer/Resister...

"Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them." Job 1:6

Before Jesus came to earth, there is strong scriptural evidence that he was Michael, the Archangel in heaven...

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled.

(Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003035

 

[Somerville]

Many have wondered over the years - WHY didn't the Sanhedrin have Jesus stoned for blasphemy? Why did they give Jesus to Pilate for execution?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Correct...


Not true...Jesus is the Son of God, he is not God Himself...Jesus was dead, in hell, for parts of 3 days...

So his death and "resurrection" was fake.

 

[Daisy]

So his death and "resurrection" was fake.

No, he really died and 3 days later Jehovah resurrected him...

 

[Revelation]

Many have wondered over the years - WHY didn't the Sanhedrin have Jesus stoned for blasphemy? Why did they give Jesus to Pilate for execution?

probably Bible prophecy. everything God declares happens to the millisecond.

Everything.


Isaiah declares 'by his stripes we are healed'. so Jesus needed to be whipped; stoning is not a whipping.

probably more,


blessings.


.

 

[brianpatrick]

the reason most of the stories in the Bible don’t make sense is because they are metaphors, and not to be taken literally.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If God is all powerful, why did God need to become a man and die on the Cross to forgive sins ?
Secondly, how exactly does becoming a man and dying on the Cross remove sin from humanity ?
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with the other.

The reason I struggle with the Christian doctrine is it's not based on any logical sequence of necessities.
If God had no other way than through Jesus, that means there's something that God is subservient to.
And even if God chose Jesus as a method randomly, the act of dying on the Cross and forgiving those who sinned that believe it happened is not a logical sequitur. It's simply random links created by God without any true rhyme or reason.

It was fiction.

Your headline is like asking if it was necessary for voldemort to kill Harry, thus destroying the Horcrux he never intended to create, so that Harry could kill him.

You might find an answer in the text, but the text itself is fiction.

 

[brianpatrick]

It was fiction.

Your headline is like asking if it was necessary for voldemort to kill Harry, thus destroying the Horcrux he never intended to create, so that Harry could kill him.

You might find an answer in the text, but the text itself is fiction.

It’s fiction yeah, in that it doesn’t matter if the stories actually happened, but they are myths that point at important things that are true about all people. The most amazing part about the stories is that as many times as it has been translated, rewritten, and even intentionally distorted, the subtext is still present. It’s the same for all great mythology.

 

[Somerville]

probably Bible prophecy. everything God declares happens to the millisecond.

Everything.


Isaiah declares 'by his stripes we are healed'. so Jesus needed to be whipped; stoning is not a whipping.

probably more,


blessings.

Once again, the words one reads in the English language depend upon which translation one reads

NIV Isaiah 53:5 ". . . he was crushed for our iniquities . . . and by his wounds we are healed." Funny - no 'stripes'

How about the NASB? "He was crushed for our iniquities . . . And by His scourging we are healed."
or
Brenton Septuagint Translation
"But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed."
Once again - no 'stripes'

It does seem that some translators were concerned about whether or not the words they chose supported their specific church's beliefs. Often, the Greek words of the original text don't have a single meaning that is understandable in English.
A few words on the subject from a scholar that many Christians don't like but they seldom can do more than lay personal attacks on the man that often have little to do with his scholarship.

All translations are biased, they merely differ as to how or where. . . . This is because all translation is an interpretation. There is no way to “translate” a text so as to entirely and accurately preserve its original meaning and nuance. You have to always guess or assume at what was meant; some of that guessing or assuming will be tainted by improper assumptions. And even when you get it right, words in one language do not share the same valences (one might say “Venn diagrams of meaning”) as corresponding words in another, so any word you choose in English will carry implications that might not exist in the underlying language—and (importantly) vice versa. Hence, through valence discrepancies, even the best possible translation can both conceal meaning from the source text and add meaning not in the source text. So even after accounting for the role of interpretation in settling on a translation (already an unsolvable problem), that translation might also be in some way misleading, in a way impossible to avoid because English literally “does not have a word” that exactly matches the word it is translating from Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

just so you know: Jesus died and took the death penalty for your sins. we call that 'God's love'.

let's continue...



he is, get used to it. are you ready to meet him?



that makes people wrong, not God.


View attachment 67493358...this is about the atheist's big surprise. (it is not all over, just starting)


..

So then Jesus is still dead? If Jesus rose from the dead; there was no sacrifice. The bible makes it clear that it is their god that tortures those who do not worship him, like some kind of psychopath.


Sorry, but I do not believe in middle eastern folktales.

 

[Gordy327]

All angels are sons of God...Satan was originally a son of God, also, until he rebelled and made himself the Devil/Slanderer/Resister...

"Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them." Job 1:6

Before Jesus came to earth, there is strong scriptural evidence that he was Michael, the Archangel in heaven...

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

Jesus is not Michael the archangel. The Bible nowhere identifies Jesus as Michael (or any other angel, for that matter). Hebrews 1:5-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship Him.’ In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. No angel is ever worshiped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6).

Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9). Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14). Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.

the Bible teaches that Michael is an archangel, one of many, who was created and worships Jesus.

 

[Daisy]

Jesus is not Michael the archangel. The Bible nowhere identifies Jesus as Michael (or any other angel, for that matter). Hebrews 1:5-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship Him.’ In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. No angel is ever worshiped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6).

Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9). Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14). Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.

the Bible teaches that Michael is an archangel, one of many, who was created and worships Jesus.

And I gave you reasons why it is possible...does it have anything to do with salvation one way or the other? No, but it is interesting to delve into the deeper things of God, don't cha think?

 

[Napoleon]

Many have wondered over the years - WHY didn't the Sanhedrin have Jesus stoned for blasphemy? Why did they give Jesus to Pilate for execution?

I don’t know who wonders that but the answer is quite simple. The Sanhedrin had no power to do so. Remember, these events took place in a Roman province governed by Roman law. Blasphemy was not a capital offense under Roman law. The Sanhedrin had to convince Pilate that Jesus was guilty of sedition or treason against the Roman Empire in order to impose capital punishment.