Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Not so sure any of the gods but the Biblical God was ever said to "care about us," that's just something that gets assumed based on the Biblical God. But most of the gods of the world's tribes have been demons who demand propitiation and sacrifice of their worshipers, who always approach with some kind of gift.

Well, that's the Trinity, and it is just about impossible for us to wrap our minds around it, so we can't expect it to "make sense" exactly, but it is solidly based on scripture nevertheless. There's a thread on it still more or less alive I think, started by Alter2ego, titled something like Scripture or Traditions of Men?The Trinity is expressed as "One God in Three Persons," which can't be reduced logically, it simply is what it is. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all One God, and the three together are also referred to as "God." "God" often refers to God the Father alone, as well. So Jesus IS God, He is God the Son, so it's right to say that God died for us; but God the Father sent Him to die for us. So it's right to say it either way.ABE: Looked it up: The thread is "Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men" and in Message 20 I posted a link to a very complete Outline Study of all the scripture verses that add up to the Trinity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

God can't die, but Jesus the man died, and then came back to life. He is the first resurrection of a human being from the dead, now at the right hand of the Father, yes, quite alive. I did some pretty thorough posts on this subject on that other thread too. The answer is that Jesus was both God AND Man. God can't die but man can. Jesus' divinity never left Him, that's impossible, but He did die as a man. There is another way to describe this as well: From a biblical point of view we are all immortal souls who will live for eternity, but while the soul or spirit will live, the body will die. In Jesus' case His spirit is divine and couldn't die for that reason, and now that He has resurrected He is body and soul complete. He was absolutely totally dead, and since the wages of sin is death all sacrifices are intended to pay for sin by death, though Jesus' sacrifice was the only one that actually could pay for sin. How long He was dead isn't of any importance. As scripture says, death couldn't hold Him -- not only because He is God but because a sinless person cannot die either -- He had to take the sins of humanity onto Himself and die FOR those sins. The Roman soldier pierced His side with his spear to determine that for sure and that required test proved He was dead. His greatest suffering was probably being forsaken by the Father, which He suffered for our sake along with everything else. Thanks to Him believers in Him can look forward to being resurrected just as He was, body and soul reunited but in a new form.

His HUMAN BODY died, same as ours does. And I was quite clear about that and it's perfectly logical. Your rudeness is over the top.By the way you are also sounding just like the Jehovah's Witness Alter2ego in dealing with this subject, insisting that Jesus didn't die because God can't die. Maybe you should join the JWs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The other "resurrections" in the Bible were only temporary and they went on to die again. What is meant by saying that Jesus is the "first" is bigger than that anyway, it means that He is now the first or the head of the New Creation and that all those who believe in Him will also be resurrected into transformed bodies just as He is. His resurrection is a new beginning.

The story of Osiris is ridiculously unlike the story of Jesus, obviously a myth. The myth isn't always told the same way for one thing. Part of the myth sometimes involves others bringing him back to life. Nothing like the accounts of Jesus, which have the stamp of truth in them to anyone being honest with the text.

The gospels do not tell different stories of how Jesus died and so on but the myths of Osiris do.

The first person to visit the tomb AND the first person to see Jesus resurrected was Mary Magdalene. All the gospels agree at least that she was among the first visitors, and yes they all have different accounts of who she was with, what she did when, when she told the others and so on, but all that is incidental and has nothing to do with what I said -- about how Osiris actual death has completely different accounts, according to Wikipedia and there is no such discrepancy in the accounts of the important events in Jesus' life.Such incidentals as the order in which people went to the tomb of Jesus have no importance, and are the sort of thing different reporters are likely to remember differently, or simply choose to report with different emphases.ABE: As GDR has said more than once, this sort of discrepancy should work to the credibility of the gospels because it is realistic. To include such incidental detail at all is a mark of reality, not of myth, and the differences add to the reality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Different emphases are not contradictions. There is no problem with an inerrant Bible including variations in the details of events. All of them are true, they just occurred at different times and the different reporters remembered different aspects of them.

That would be relevant if I were making up the answer myself but I'm giving what I understand to be the commonly accepted explanation, and it makes sense. Most supposed contradictions in the Bible, even on the level of unimportant incidental details, can be reconciled by merely understanding that the different writers are writing from different vantage points, so that you can put all the different testimonies together into one picture.

Jesus did not inherit the sin nature from the Fall because that is inherited through the father not the mother and His father was God the Father. This is standard theology back to the apostles, not something I'm making up. Jesus was the only sinless man since before Adam fell. Only a sinless man could be the unblemished sacrifice necessary to pay for human sin.

Only in your imagination.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

???
Paul is referring to Adam as the one through whom sin entered the world, which obviously refers to what we call the "Fall" or the original disobedience of Adam and Eve, after which all their progeny were born with the sin nature, all of us born in sin, sinners and inclined to sin from birth because of their original sin. The King James Bible puts extra words in brackets that help the meaning in English although they aren't in the original language because of the difference in structure, which is very honest of them considering that some "translations" don't bother with brackets. Perhaps you aren't aware that languages differ?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

\God said not to eat of that particular tree. They disobeyed and ate of that tree. Disobedience of God is sin. Odd that anyone should have to spell out something so obvious. Clearly they knew it was sin and yet they did it. God said if they ate of that tree they would die, showing that until that point there was no death. The Romans verses I quoted are quite clear that death was passed down to all of us because of the original sin of the first man Adam. It does make it clear that death entered as a result of their disobedience. God told them they would die if they ate of the tree so we know that death did result from their eating of the tree. Beyond that, we are to understand the Old Testament through the New. It often takes the New Testament to bring out the meanings of the Old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Although it was Eve who sinned first, scripture always refers us back to Adam and not Eve, as the one responsible for passing on the sin nature. This is at least moral responsibility as the man is given the role of authority above the woman and therefore the responsibility, but when it comes to explaining how Jesus could have been born without sin it's also the only explanation that makes sense. I haven't studied this enough to know whether we're talking about IMPUTED sin through the male line -- Adam's sin imputed to all of us as Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers -- or actual inherited sin, but either way scripture indicates that it only counts through the male line. Considering the parallel with Jesus' righteousness I'd say it is probably imputed. Those incidents are presented as a matter of God's sovereign will. Although they were exceptionally righteous men, (as were Noah and Job who did die), they could not have been sinless because they were children of Adam. Some think they will be the "two witnesses" of Revelation who eventually get killed, because they do have to die, but I'm not sure about that. We are told that the last generation living when Christ returns will be instantaneously transformed and rise to meet Him in the air, apparently not having to experience death, although in themselves that generation will certainly not be sinless. Some things we aren't going to understand until it's all over. I'd guess that it's through Christ's death in our place that this is possible but it's still God's sovereign choice to do it that way. I think it comes from the Reformers but I'd have to research it. But I did give jar some texts to support the scriptural claim that we inherit sin "through one man," that is, Adam, leaving out the phrases that say that just as all inherit sin in Adam so now through Christ we inherit life.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.