A Prayer
of Jesus
I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise
and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will


Part I: Personal Salvation

By Edgar Jones


The Christian view of the crucifixion is fatally flawed.  The purpose of this paper is to reveal its flaws, then to point to the explanation given by Jesus himself as the Truth about his crucifixion.  To this end we take the supposedly logical explanation put forth on a Christian apologetics Web site, focus on each point of the presentation and then proceed to reveal its fallacies.  Then we will go to Jesus and listen to him to determine the real purpose of his death and finally conclude with a summary listing of the many reasons why he did not die.

The meaning of the crucifixion is far simpler than the arcane theology of the Christians have it, nevertheless it can be very confusing for one who has not listened carefully to the explanation put forward by our Lord.   The Christian view is ubiquitous in the world and tends to confuse everything our Lord teaches.  Therefore, understanding why Jesus died will be much simplified if one clears the mind of Christian doctrine and starts afresh with a clean slate/mind when looking to Jesus for answers.

We live in a world of three physical dimensions such that it is necessary to view a physical object from a perspective that reveals all three dimensions if we are to have a complete view and understanding of the object.  Similarly, the full comprehension of the death of Jesus and its significance requires that one view it from three perspectives, and the realization of that will greatly simplify our full understanding  of the event.  These perspectives are:

1. Personal salvation of the sinner

2. Coming of the kingdom of God

3. Personal experience of Jesus

This paper deals only with the first perspective, and so is subtitled Personal Salvation.  Subsequent papers describing the other perspectives are planned.  These are not independent perspectives, but are as interdependent as are the three dimensions of physical space.  Viewing each perspective (dimension) separately, however, will greatly facilitate the understanding of the whole. One needs also to accept that the Christian view has almost nothing in common with the Truth as revealed by our Lord Jesus.

I. The Christian view

One Christian apologist  gives a very orderly answer to the question that provides a good structure by which to negate the Christian view, point by point.  We begin first by giving his comprehensive summary, which is a good statement of this view.

Basically, the reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord.  Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.

All people have sinned against God.  But, God is infinitely holy and righteous.  He must punish the sinner, the Law breaker.  If He didn't, then His law is not law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment.  The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God.  Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God.  Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself.  That is why Jesus is God in flesh.  He is both divine and human.  He was made under the Law (
Gal. 4:5-6) and He fulfilled it perfectly.  Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.

The following outline is an attempt to break this down, step by step, using scripture and logic.  I hope that it helps you understand why God is our savior and not some created thing.  Also, I hope that it helps you understand that you must trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins; that you can do nothing on your own to merit salvation from God. 

This apologist's outline begins with points from scripture that establish the character of God as existing, infinite, holy, righteous and just.  Being in agreement with all of this, we take up the point by point apologetic with the following premise (the scripture citations are those of the apologist):

1. Furthermore, God speaks out of the character of what He is.

Matt. 12:34, "...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."

This utterance is taken from a context where the Lord addresses the Pharisees and condemns their speech as coming from their evil hearts.  It has specific application to human beings, not to God.  This utterance does not speak of God but, by applying it to God, this apologist is committing a logical error.  To make his position secure, he needs also to establish: a) that God has a heart such as men possess and b) that God has a mouth such as men possess and c) the statement applies to God as well as to men.  He does none of this, but only assumes it.  We agree, of course, with the premise that God speaks out of the character of what He is.  We disagree in that this utterance of the Lord does not support his premise, which makes this a good example of the gross misuse of scripture that follows.

2. God spoke the Law

Exodus 20:1-17, "Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me...."

There is no supporting quotation from Jesus.

Quoting this to support the statement that "God spoke the Law" is correct only in regard to the Decalogue. Dietary and ceremonial laws are not included [all these words (above) refers only to the Decalogue as determined from the context].  Please read on to the next premise.

3. Therefore, the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it   is Holy and good.

Rom. 7:12
, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

Here we have agreement with the premise, provided only that we confine our definition of "the Law" as being the Ten Commandments, which is not stated.  In context, the reference of Paul from Romans does indeed refer to the Tenth Commandment of the Decalogue, Thou shalt not covet  (Romans 7:7), and is therefore a true statement.  The problem lies in his use of Paul to prove his point without establishing the validity of Paul's word as a source of Truth.  So he continues to build his case on the basis of the assumption that Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Word of God, without verification.  This is another gross error in logic.

4. Furthermore, to break the Law of God is to offend Him since it is His Law that we             break.  This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.

There is no quotation from Jesus, or anyone.

It is reasonable to assume that breaking the Law of God offends God, although our apologist has not bothered to establish this point in logic.  I agree and so will not contest this assertion.  But the next statement is an horrendous offense to reason and logic:

This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.

Our apologist cites no text to sustain this statement because it is not sustainable by any Biblical source or rule of logic.  This non biblical statement is essential to his case, and without any substantiation, the whole case crumbles.  I do not need to proceed further if all I seek to do is to demolish his argument, but there are other points to examine that further illuminate the fallacious nature of his case, so we will proceed.  But first, lets examine this statement further.

Where is the fault in his logic?

It assumes that a finite person, a man, can commit an infinite offense.  It assumes that the nature of the offense is determined by the characteristics of the one offended with no reference to the nature of the offender.  It makes no allowance for any limitations that may be imposed on the law by God, who is the law maker and the offend one. 

When men legislate, they assign penalties depending on the nature of the legislation, the offender and the offense. All offenses are not the same, although it is the same legislators who have been offended.  The nature of the offense depends not on the nature of the legislators, but on the nature of the offender, the offense and the circumstances of the offense. If one kills a person, the law assigns punishment according to the circumstances of the offense, whether it is first or second degree murder, manslaughter, self defense or other justifiable homicide, and also on the nature of the offender who may be a minor or mentally ill. It is not reasonable, on the basis of all human experience, that the nature of an offense be decided by the nature of the one offended without regard to the nature of the offender or of the offense. 

According to Jesus, the gravity of the offense depends also on the cognizance of the offender:

[42] And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
[45] But if that servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk,
[46] the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.
[47] And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.
[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

This figure involving men applies to the Lord and his servants as defined by the context and it establishes a principle in Truth according to which all offenses against the Lord are not of the same degree.  They are graded as to their gravity, and so is the punishment.  But an infinite offense can have no gradations.  One half of infinity remains infinity.  This statement,

This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite,

is therefore neither reasonable, logical or scriptural.  Where did our apologist obtain it?  Is it original with him?

No, but it finds one of it's earliest advocates in Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (d.1109) who in his Cur Deus Homo  (Why God Became Man.) stated the view that any offense against God was to great for any man to pay due to the nature of God.  It was, in principle, taken over from the Catholics by the Reformers and continues to thrive in many branches of Christianity.

From this point there can be no more doubt: the chain of logic here is broken so that any subsequent and dependent premise has no foundation whatever.  God's being infinite does not make every sin an infinite offense.

5. Furthermore, it is also right that God punish the Law breaker.  To not punish the Law
    breaker (sinner) is to allow an offense against His holiness to be ignored.

Amos 2:4, "Thus says the Lord, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they rejected the law of the Lord And have not kept His statutes."

Rom. 4:15, "...for the Law brings about wrath."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

The statements from Amos and Paul say nothing about what is "also right."  They simply state that transgression of the Lord's statutes brings wrath.  The assumption is that this logically translates to what is also right.  But this does not logically or necessarily follow. Further, these are not reliable sources of Truth; only the utterances of Jesus constitute the source of Truth. 

This premise rests on the assumption that every transgression must be punished.  It therefore limits God and makes him less than infinite after all, because it says that he has given himself only one method of dispensing with any sin and every sin -- it must be punished.  This means that forgiveness of a sin is impossible for God.  Amos 2:4 does not say that God must punish every transgression, nor does Romans 4:15.  The latter text is absolutely false if we compare it with the utterances of Jesus, where we find that the law (the keeping of the law) brings eternal life and not wrath.  By stating that God is infinite, then by making Him less than infinite is a radical contradiction within the logic of our Apologist!

Paul thought that the Law must bring wrath, because he taught that one cannot keep it, based on his own experience of failure (Romans 7).  This is, however, absolutely contradicted by what the Law itself says:

[11] "For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
[12] It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[13] Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[14] But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

6. God says that the person who sins must die (be punished).  The wages of sin is death.

Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."
Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

This statement looks to the prophet, Ezekiel, and to Paul (Romans 6:23) to certify it.  These sources are not invariable sources of Truth, and therefore the statement remains unsubstantiated.  We will see below that this is not a reliable statement.    Romans 6:23 is a false statement in any case; no part of it is in accord with the Lord, who is the Truth.  Death is not the wages of sin, nor is eternal life a free gift.  The major defect in this premise is that it identifies the sentence of death with punishment, a point that is simply assumed without any substantiation, either logical or scriptural.  The fact is that Christians themselves, in general, make a distinction for they define a punishment for wickedness that comes at the Great Judgment and after death. 

7.The sinner needs to escape the righteous judgment of God or he will face damnation.

Rom. 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The apologist at last seeks to substantiate a statement by reference to the Lord.  We will ignore Paul (Rom. 1:18) and agree that Jesus, who is the Truth, states in Matt. 25:46 that there will be punishment for the wicked, but not for the righteous.  Yet the utterance says nothing about "needs to escape the righteous judgment of God."  No escape is mentioned, and the difference between the righteous and the unrightous is not defined. The Lord's utterance resembles the statement, but it does not fit it well.  He is making it say more than the Lord actually said.  I agree with the statement, by the way, but I do not agree that this sole utterance from the Lord makes the same point.  Poor logic, again.  Paul's statement applies very well to our apologist who, by putting up a false interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus, suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).

8. But, no sinner can undo an infinite offense since to please God and make things right,      he must obey the Law, which is the standard of God's righteous character.

Gal. 2:16, "...by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

Quoting Paul again!  Oh well, we will just have to continue on this basis, as he does not know better.  This statement is terribly flawed.  First, he assumes that the sinners offense is infinite, which, if he had substantiated the same above, would be well stated at this point in the presentation.  But he has not proved this point as True on any basis because of his faulty logic in Statement #4; therefore the entire statement is illogical.
The chain of logic was broken and nothing thereafter has a foundation but is resting on a void!

8. But the sinner cannot fulfill the law because he is sinful (in the flesh).

Rom. 8:3, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son..."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

Paul yet again!  Oh well.

Paul sought to establish his doctrine on the basis of appeals to the Law, and as I have already shown, the Law itself denies his view, which is that it is not possible for a man, weakened by the flesh, to keep the law.  I repeat the text from Deuteronomy 30:

[14] But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

God is not so unjust as to give to man a law impossible to keep.  Nor is he a liar that he would tell us we are able if we are not able.  Are we beginning to see, here, the root problem with Paul?  The man had a severe flaw, a weakness in his flesh, that he assumed was common to all men so as to prevent anyone's keeping the Law, as it was not possible for him to keep it.  Thus, he defined a purpose for God's sending His own Son that is false and that conceals the real purpose of his sending Jesus into the world. He falls victim to self condemnation, for he is the ultimate example of one who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

Paul was cognizant of Deut. 30.  He bent and twisted it as follows:

[5] Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it.
[6] But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down)
[7] or "Who will descend into the abyss?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
[8] But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach);
[9] because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Compare that with this as quoted above:

[11] "For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
[12] It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[13] Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[14] But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

9. Since the sinner cannot fulfill the law and satisfy God, it follows that only God can do this.

This is simple logic.  If we are unable to fulfill the Law, then we will be punished by it.  But, since God desires us to be saved, the Law must be satisfied.  Since we cannot keep the Law and it must be satisfied, then the only one capable of keeping the Law must keep the Law:  God.

There is no quotation from Jesus.

I have just established, from the same body of Law to which Paul appealed, that this premise, that the sinner cannot fulfill the law, is not true.  If it were true, this is yet not simple logic because it does not necessarily follow that only God can do it.  It ignores other questions, such as "Is it absolutely necessary that it be done?"

This premise is very interesting indeed.  In substance, it says that God, the omniscient, has knowingly presented a Law to a creature that he created unable to keep it, knowing also that it absolutely must be kept, and knowing also that He must keep it himself by heaping great suffering on His innocent Son

10. Jesus is God in flesh.
  1. John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
  2. Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
There is no quotation from Jesus.

If the supporting texts are true, then the premise is true.  But the supporting texts are not utterances of the Lord and are flawed.  The Lord was ever careful to distinguish between himself and God (the Father), in texts such as this:

[28] You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
[42] Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
[42] Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

11. Jesus was also a man under the Law.

1 Tim. 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Gal. 4:5-6, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

The single word, also, flaws the premise.  He was certainly a man, and was under the Law. But again, the apologist is apparently avoiding any reference to Jesus' Word.  He could have listened to Jesus and learned this directly from the Lord:

[40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God;

Observe, again, the careful distinction that Jesus draws between himself and God.  Jesus of Nazareth was a man, but our apologist needs to stress this here for the wrong reason because it is essential to his view of Atonement that it must be as a man that Jesus suffered on the cross if he was to bear the penalty of men, yet it must be as God that his suffering be sufficient to cover infinite transgression. 

12. Jesus became sin for us and bore our sins in His body on the cross, thus fulfilling the Law.
2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

 Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 4in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

This apologist has struggled to make the case that sin is the transgression of the law, that it is an infinite offense to God that requires an infinite satisfaction that finite man cannot give.  Jesus came, both God and man, so that as God he was able to provide the infinite satisfaction required and, also as a man, bear the infinite penalty for men.  This is the first time in this chain of logic that we have heard of Jesus bearing our sins, or becoming sin for us, ideas that do not follow from the preceding premises but follow only from the Pauline texts quoted.  He likes to slip these things in, very subtly, thinking we will not notice.  The whole aim of the preceding premises is to support this one.  They do not do so because they say have said nothing about the bearing of sins. And how does sin bearing fulfill the Law?  This obvious question is ignored, for it has no logical answer.

13. Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place.

Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
Gal. 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."
Eph. 5:2, "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

There is no quotation from Jesus.

This is the last premise -- the culmination of the argument and the end of the chain of logic.  But where have we heard of "grace" and how does it derive from the preceding premises?  We haven't heard of it previously, and it does not derived from the chain of logic, which was repeatedly broken in any case.  Grace is entirely new to the argument, with no basis whatsoever provided.  It is after the fact that he quotes Paul, as if that were a logical consequence!  He has simply picked up a link out of midair, hoping we would not notice.  Jesus never mentioned "grace" relative to salvation and, as a salvation concept, it arises exclusively in Paul, who never knew Jesus or what Jesus was doing or why.  Logic fails utterly when our apologist plugs it in here with no prior justification.

And what of faith?  It is central to the premise, but the Apologist has not justified it's existence in his supposed logic.  Precisely as with grace, he has slyly slipped faith into the chain of reasoning without any justification whatsoever.  I do not mean to imply that faith is not essential to salvation from sin and its consequences, only that it has no logical placement here.

We read, in the texts from Paul, of Christ becoming a curse for us and of giving himself an offering and sacrifice to God, with no preparation whatsoever for these conceptions, the curse and the sacrifice.  Our apologist is once again slipping conceptions into the argument with no justification.  But we have heard this Christian lingo all our lives and, in most cases, people will not notice that there are unjustified intrusions subtly placed to deceive.

This, the final premise in the supposed logic of the Christian Apologist, is a compound of conceptions that appear without justification. This should not surprise us because it is  not possible to logically combine these conceptions with the Christian view.

II. Fallacies of the Christian View

The apologist quotes twenty-two texts above to support the Christian view, and of these only two are utterances of the Lord Jesus -- and he applies them illogically as they make no real contribution to the argument. 

Why is this a problem?  It's all in the Bible isn't it?

It's a problem because Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through him.  Not through Moses; not through the prophets; not through Paul or Peter, but only through Jesus, which means by receiving his utterances, the words that he heard from his Father and delivered to men.  When we look to Jesus we find the Truth.  When we look anywhere else, we are on shaky ground. 

There are several fallacies In the Christian view, some of which I will simply list without further comment so as to limit the length of this paper.  Then we will move on to Jesus to discover the Truth in answer to our question, Why did Jesus die?"  Some fallacies are:

1. Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice.

2. Jesus paid a debt due to God and provided satisfaction.

3. Jesus became a curse for us.

4. Jesus bore our sins.

5. Jesus bore the punishment for our sins.

6. Jesus died as both God and man.

7. Jesus' punishment was infinite to satisfy infinite sin.

8. Someone has to die, because without shedding of blood there is no remission      of  sin.

This, the Christian view, is wholly fallacious, erroneously conceived and radically contrary to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus.

Should we expect Jesus to know why he was to die and to explain it beforehand?  Surely he did, and it requires only that one go to him and listen, with clear understanding unclouded by false human conceptions such as Paul's.

III. Jesus' View

Why did Jesus die?

If anyone knows why Jesus died, shouldn't he know?  And is it not most reasonable to go to him for an answer to this question? 

We might go elsewhere if we discover that Jesus did not explain the reason for his death, but the fact is, he did explain it in simple terms, using simple metaphors that even a child can understand.  Everything he taught has a relevance to his death and the reasons for it, but his most concise explanation is in terms of his Great Principle that he enunciated and that is preserved in all four of the canonical gospels.  Though we have visited this question many times on this site, we do it here yet again because it is absolutely essential to our eternal salvation.  Jesus' words standing alone as in the Great Principle is a sufficient explanation and would need nothing else except that Christendom has so confused the issue that it is almost impossible to see the Truth through all the theological obfuscation that befogs the Christian scene.  The procedure here, then, is to put an utterance before you, make brief comments and draw conclusions.  Please inform me if my logic is as ramshackle as that to which I have exposed you above.

1. Here we have again the Great Principle as stated in the Fourth Gospel.

[25] He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

This is a general principle of universal application.  The manner of expression shows clearly that it applies to everyone without restriction.  It therefore applies also to Jesus.  He stated this here because it explains why he died (and he was about to die) so it applies to him as well as to every other person.

Almost everyone loves her/his life in this world.  That means that one wants to hold onto it and does not want to part with it.  If we love it, we will lose it; there are no exceptions given and no limitations placed because, as is clear, it is a principle of universal application.

Almost no one hates his life in this world.  This means that almost no one wants to part with it.  Yet one must hate his life to keep it for eternal life.

The Great Principle mandates a radical revolution in one's attitude to life, from love to hatred, if one is to save one's life and keep it for eternal life.  It mandates the ultimate radical decision.

The Great Principle implicitly mandates individual choice; therefore it is a matter of the individual's will -- of her/his free will.  The Great Principle being of universal application, each of us must make this choice to qualify for eternal life; otherwise, we will lose it.

2. Jesus not only died voluntarily, but it also was all his doing.

[17] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again
[18] 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.

He hated his life in the world, and gladly parted with it.  No one took it from him; it was  his own will and desire.

He did it that he might take it again as eternal life.  This laying down of his life pleased the Father, and was the reason for the Father's love for him. 

Conclusion: Jesus died to conform to the Great Principle.  He hated his life in this world so that he might keep it for eternal life.  This enabled him to rise from the dead.

3. God commands that we love Him

[27] And he answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

This is the Great Commandment.

To love God means that one wants to hold onto Him, to be joined to Him, to be with Him where he is.  But God is not here, he resides in heaven so that, if one loves him, one wants to leave this life to go to him. 

The Great Principle correlates perfectly with the Great Commandment.  They form a Great Correlate and explain why Jesus died.

Conclusion: Jesus died because he hated life, loved God and wanted to go to him.  He therefore laid his life down and raised it up according to the Father's charge.

4. Jesus declared the Father's will.

[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

This is the plenary definition of the Father's will.  To believe in the Son so as to have eternal life means to believe in and abide by his Great Principle, so that one can have eternal life thereby.  The Father's will is the resurrection, according to which one hates life in this world, dies and is raised up at the Last Day to be with the Father in his Glory, thus following Jesus.

Jesus came into the world that we might see him, believe in him and so receive eternal life.  Everything is according to the pattern of the Great Correlate.  He came to do the Father's will concerning which he prayed in Gethsemane, then he did it becoming our Leader in the Way of salvation.

Conclusion: Jesus died to manifest the Father's will to the world by doing it.  His death on the cross was the living manifestation of the Great Principle.

5. Jesus is our Leader

[34] And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Why did Jesus die?  He died to show us the way and to lead us to the Father.  But, as he said, every one must bear one's own cross so as to do the will of the Father and qualify for eternal life.

6. God forgives every sin without penalty provided --

1) one repents of the sin
[3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

2) and provided one forgives others who have offended and have confessed and sought forgiveness.
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

7. So, one loves the Father and desires from the heart to go to him, according to the Great Commandment, and correspondingly hates his life in this world. This is what it means to follow Jesus and take up, each one, his own cross.  Then one repents of every sin and forgives others their trespasses. 

Why did Jesus die?  He died to show us what the Father requires of us: that we love him and want to go to him, hating our lives in this world as Jesus hated his life and willingly went to the Father. 

He went ahead of us, not instead of us.

IV. Why He Did Not Die 

1. He did not die to atone for sin.

2. He did not die to accept the infinite punishment of sinners.

3. He did not die as a sacrifice for sin.

4. He did not die as our substitute, but as our leader.

5. He did not die to satisfy the wrath of God.

6. He did not die to pay our debt to God.

7. He did not die to bear out sins.

8. He did not die to impute his righteousness to sinners.

9. He did not die to cleanse us of our sins.

10. He did not die as the lamb of God.

11. He did not die as God in the flesh.

12 He did not die to become sin for us.

V. Conclusion

The Christian view is conceived on false premises and has no foundation in Truth.  It supports and is supported by other factors not mentioned above but that should become apparent to all who have learned the Truth from our Lord.  The idea put forth of one's having to merit salvation both supports and is supported by the Christian view, but is wholly false. Also, the faith/works dichotomy that arises from this view is wholly invalid and serves only to distract one's attention from the Truth.  Such things are but red herrings that confuse and distract one from the perception of the Truth that we have in Jesus.  Indeed, the whole Christian religion, resting on such false doctrines as the above explanation of why Jesus died, is a red herring!

So, one finds personal salvation only in and through acceptance and submission to the Truth put forth by Jesus himself concerning why he died, on the basis of his Great Correlate and not on the basis of the Christian doctrine.  Next, we take up the death of Jesus as seen from the perspective of the coming of the kingdom of God.

Return to List of Papers     E-mail      Return to Home Page
Valid HTML 4.0!