Jesus, the crucifix, and salvation

[MarleVVLL]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons? Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

[Scooby_Snacks]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons? Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

Hi MarleVVLL,

I did find an area of scripture that Jesus speaks of laying down His life, and of course taking it up again.
There are probably others, but this is a beginning, unless you were meaning something else, of course.

So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
(John 10:7-18 ESV)

[BroRog]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons? Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

For most of his ministry he kept the crucifixion a secret. Jesus tended to wait until people were ready before he revealed information to his disciples.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Later, when they were ready, he explained both his death and his resurrection to them, to prepare them for his departure.

[smcllr]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons?

Well first of all, the crux was actually two-fold: 1) how one walked or lived and 2) the crucifixion. Jesus emphasized that both were necessary.

Second, he never revealed anything in his public ministry because when the disciples asked in Matthew 13, "'Why do You speak to them in parables?' Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted". He spoke in parables in order that they would not understand.

Now if you mean why didn't he mention specifically that he would be crucified I think maybe he didn't know he would be crucified up until a certain point although he did know he would be killed fairly early on. However, curiously enough, he did say in Luke 9 that "if anyone would come after [him] they must first deny themselves and take up their cross and follow [him]" as if he knew he was going to be crucified.

Anyway, Jesus alluded to his crucifixion many times saying the elders were going to kill him and he would be raised on the 3rd day but they never really understood until the upper room in John 16. He also said that the only sign that his wicked generation would see would be the son of man in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights which is an allusion to the importance of his death. He also said, "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days" to which John adds he was speaking about himself. And In John 12 he said that if he be lifted up he will draw all men to himself, which would make no sense if it was not a crucifixion. A much more difficult one to gather is in John 14 where he said that "in [his] Father's house are many dwelling places", which he gives meaning to in verse 23 when he says, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling place with him. Every time the term "Father's house" was used by Jesus he was referring to the temple. And every time the house of God was referred to in the Old Testament it referred to the Temple. Also, the word that is translated as dwelling place in John 14 is only used twice in the entire bible and that is in John 14; in those two locations that I just mentioned. So it seems to me that the "many dwelling places" of verse 2 refer to the many who "...keep his word" in verse 23. However, when he said, "in my Father's house are many dwelling places" he said that he is going to make ready a place for them which sounds to me like Jesus is pointing out the importance of his having to go to the cross before they could be a dwelling place in his Father's house.

So I don't know why you don't think he mentioned his crucifixion but I'll take your point one step further and then answer.

"If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why"... didn't the apostles emphasize it when recording Jesus' teachings in the gospels?

My answer is because the crucifixion was his part of the two-fold crux so he spoke mostly about our part. That was the part that we needed to know; to keep his word that him and the Father would come and make their dwelling place with us.

Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

Yes early Christians like Paul who received it from Christ; and Peter who also received it from Christ; and John who received it from Christ. So it was "his own". It was Christ who finally did establish the crucifixion as the crux of salvation, only it was after his resurrection and ascension and it was taught through the Holy Spirit by the apostles just as Christ also taught by the Holy Spirit. But I don't know that that matters to the importance of the doctrine that the Crucifixion is a crux. Do you suppose any teaching that Christ didn't teach specifically in his public sermons may not be from Christ himself? What about the obsolescence of circumcision? Or the fact that drunkenness is a sin? Or did you just not realize how much Jesus did speak about his death?

Does that answer your question or am I missing something?

[David Taylor]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons? Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

Jesus didn't keep His crucifixion secret.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonahwas three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Matthew 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

Matthew 26:61 I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Matthew 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mark 10:32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Mark 14:58 I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. "

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. "

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

[watchinginawe]

If Jesus' crucifixion is the crux of humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in his public sermons? Why is it linked only to early Christian preaching and not his own?

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that it was Jesus' death and resurrection that is the crux of humanity's salvation? The cross then is the historical location of Jesus' death. We do know that Jesus publically preached about His death. For example, Matthew 21:23-46.

[MarleVVLL]

Thank you everyone for your contributions and discussion points. I read everything and will reply with the following comments and questions.

The synoptic tradition (linked to the crucifixion) is vague and limited to the disciples. If Jesus dying is central to the message of remission of sins, then why did Jesus only tell the future Apostles in secret? Would he not have wanted the masses to know? He was sent to them, had compassion on them, and preached the "gospel" to them; yet his awaiting death seems evasive in light of what he emphasized in his messages (love God by loving people). While the synoptic do detail him saying that he would die (even cryptically), he rarely, if ever, connects it with salvation (although Christian orthodoxy sees all parts of Jesus' reported life as instrumental).

I must add that it is fascinating that John is the most explicit record of Jesus' words relating to his death. It is the latest gospel and therefore the most developed. I find it begging a question why Mark (most likely the earliest) gives little information, and its contents are linked to private conversations. As time progresses (Matthew and Luke), more references begin to appear and by John (the latest), it is explicit.

I am not suggesting that these are 'creations of the Church' and therefore, have no relevance to the 'historical Jesus', but find this observation intriguing. If his death was so central to the preaching of the early Church, then why is he not reported as preaching it to the masses if he desires all men come to the knowledge of the truth?

Thank you again!

[smcllr]

If Jesus dying is central to the message of remission of sins, then why did Jesus only tell the future Apostles in secret?

Because Salvation requires only one thing from us which was trust leading to obedience. The death was something Christ did for us apart from us. I don't know why that was necessary to know. By the same token, why didn't God tell Moses that he was going to part the Red Sea back in Egypt before he left? I mean in later Jewish writings it was constantly talked about so why was it a secret up until it happened?

Why didn't God tell Jonah that he would spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a whale? I mean, that's all people remember about him. If it played such a huge role in typology regarding the future messiah why was it such a secret up until it happened?

Why didn't God tell the priests that the sacrifice that they performed represented a type of what the future Christ would do? I mean, it was essential for them to know that right?

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and many many more never knew that the Christ would justify them by his death and resurrection. It seems it took God 4,000 years to give this good news. But they knew how to behave. Do you see what is the important part?

These questions don't make sense to me. If the death and resurrection was later revealed and elaborated upon by the Apostles, (not "future Apostles" as you say, but the same Apostles: I know you know that, but how you word something throws some people off so I thought I'd add that) what difference would that make? Jesus said he had many more things to say but that he would leave it up to the Holy Spirit and so he did. However, it was no less than 10 days after Christ's ascension that the first teaching on the importance of the death and resurrection took place (not so much later as you suppose or suggest: again you probably know that, but your phraseology would lead one to believe that it was years possibly decades later before any of it was elaborated on but it really was only 50 days after the resurrection).

Would he not have wanted the masses to know?

No. He said so himself. "To you (disciples) it has been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom." To the rest it had not been given.

He was sent to them, had compassion on them, and preached the "gospel" to them; yet his awaiting death seems evasive in light of what he emphasized in his messages (love God by loving people).

You left out that the ones he "had compassion on" and "preached the 'gospel' too" also rejected and killed him. Not sure who you are trying to make these people out to be but the Bible is clear that they were his murders. The ones he told in secret weren't instrumental in his murder. Even I can understand why he would do it that way.

While the synoptic do detail him saying that he would die (even cryptically), he rarely, if ever, connects it with salvation

But he spends a lot of time emphasizing their part which was trust leading to obedience and linking that to salvation. That's all Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. heard. That is pretty significant I think.

I must add that it is fascinating that John is the most explicit record of Jesus' words relating to his death. It is the latest gospel and therefore the most developed. I find it begging a question why Mark (most likely the earliest) gives little information, and its contents are linked to private conversations. As time progresses (Matthew and Luke), more references begin to appear and by John (the latest), it is explicit.

Mark 8:34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be [r]delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.”

It's seems that it is just as explicit in Mark as the rest. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but I think I would not trust the source of it anymore.

I am not suggesting that these are 'creations of the Church' and therefore, have no relevance to the 'historical Jesus', but find this observation intriguing. If his death was so central to the preaching of the early Church, then why is he not reported as preaching it to the masses if he desires all men come to the knowledge of the truth?

I bet if you take the number of times Jesus speaks about trust unto obedience versus his death and resurrection you won't find a different ratio in the Apostles' speaking about the same. They elaborated on it more but I bet they did not speak about it any more than Christ comparing apples to apples.


Now I'm not picking it apart to be facetious or malicious but I'm really curious how you can be so intrigued about what seems to me misguided evidences. Maybe you don't know it is misguided or maybe you know something I don't. If so, please share. I don't find what you say to be true in the Bible though. I think that that is very significant and am highly intrigued regarding your argument.

[MarleVVLL]

Because Salvation requires only one thing from us which was trust leading to obedience. The death was something Christ did for us apart from us. I don't know why that was necessary to know. By the same token, why didn't God tell Moses that he was going to part the Red Sea back in Egypt before he left? I mean in later Jewish writings it was constantly talked about so why was it a secret up until it happened?

If a Muslim trusts God in full submission to God's will but rejects that Jesus died, is he saved? Concurring to Jesus' death is of supreme importance in Christian orthodoxy.

You left out that the ones he "had compassion on" and "preached the 'gospel' too" also rejected and killed him. Not sure who you are trying to make these people out to be but the Bible is clear that they were his murders. The ones he told in secret weren't instrumental in his murder. Even I can understand why he would do it that way.

The Romans killed him, not the Jews. Secondly, it was the corrupt priestly leadership in Jerusalem and not the masses in Galilee that condemned him. The Jews weren't murderers; the leadership wanted peace and saw Jesus as a threat - hence they had him killed.

Mark 8:34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be [r]delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.”

It's seems that it is just as explicit in Mark as the rest. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but I think I would not trust the source of it anymore.

The first never mentions his death and the second is only given to his disciples.

I bet if you take the number of times Jesus speaks about trust unto obedience versus his death and resurrection you won't find a different ratio in the Apostles' speaking about the same. They elaborated on it more but I bet they did not speak about it any more than Christ comparing apples to apples.

I understand the theology of your statement but my question is one rooted in history. If the Christian gospel focuses on Jesus' death as atonement for sins, and if faith in his death is the prerequisite for ultimate salvation, then why did he not tell his audience this?

Now I'm not picking it apart to be facetious or malicious but I'm really curious how you can be so intrigued about what seems to me misguided evidences. Maybe you don't know it is misguided or maybe you know something I don't. If so, please share. I don't find what you say to be true in the Bible though. I think that that is very significant and am highly intrigued regarding your argument.

I love when my arguments are picked apart - thank you for dealing with my statements. I heartily appreciate it. I am simply sharing an observation which I feel is important to discuss: If faith in Jesus' death is required for humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus leave this aspect out of his preaching (for the most part)? Why was this not his focus? If it is THE theme of Christian preaching, why was it not his?

[rejoice44]

If a Muslim trusts God in full submission to God's will but rejects that Jesus died, is he saved? Concurring to Jesus' death is of supreme importance in Christian orthodoxy.

Your statement is an oxymoron. If a Muslim trusts God in full submission then he will accept God. To reject Jesus is to reject God.

I understand the theology of your statement but my question is one rooted in history. If the Christian gospel focuses on Jesus' death as atonement for sins, and if faith in his death is the prerequisite for ultimate salvation, then why did he not tell his audience this?

I love when my arguments are picked apart - thank you for dealing with my statements. I heartily appreciate it. I am simply sharing an observation which I feel is important to discuss: If faith in Jesus' death is required for humanity's salvation, then why did Jesus leave this aspect out of his preaching (for the most part)? Why was this not his focus? If it is THE theme of Christian preaching, why was it not his?

Jesus came to fulfill the promise to the Jews for a saviour and king. While it is true that it was necessary for Jesus to die for the sins of the world, it was not God's pleasure that the chosen people would reject their High King, High Priest, and Holy Temple. The main course for Jesus was to be king of the Jews, and therefore Jesus did not promote the idea that the Jews would reject him. Jesus did convey to his disciples what was going to happen, so that when it did happen, it would be understood. Would you expect Jesus to say, hey you guys here I am come get me and crucify me. If Jesus had done that then he would have been complicit in his own death, and would have given the Jews an excuse to reject him.

[Dani H]

If Jesus dying is central to the message of remission of sins, then why did Jesus only tell the future Apostles in secret? Would he not have wanted the masses to know?

The Jews at the time expected their messiah to be a military/political leader (still do). They wouldn't have gotten it. The disciples barely got it, and even so, the lights really only came on after the resurrection.

I think you're asking a little much from the masses, honestly. Their messiah dying and being raised from the dead again wasn't a concept they would have gotten their heads around. Until it happened.

People were looking for their messiah to come rescue them from the Romans, not sin. They most certainly were not thinking globally.

[Noeb]

The synoptic tradition (linked to the crucifixion) is vague and limited to the disciples. If Jesus dying is central to the message of remission of sins, then why did Jesus only tell the future Apostles in secret? Would he not have wanted the masses to know?

Sure he did, but after offering the kingdom restored and claiming to be Messiah, he was rejected. Had he not been rejected he would have been made king of Israel as he was supposed to be and he then would have been crucified anyway. Certainly in there the gospel would have been preached openly.

He was sent to them, had compassion on them, and preached the "gospel" to them; yet his awaiting death seems evasive in light of what he emphasized in his messages (love God by loving people).

But you just said he did not preach the gospel to them.

While the synoptic do detail him saying that he would die (even cryptically), he rarely, if ever, connects it with salvation

He did several times.

I must add that it is fascinating that John is the most explicit record of Jesus' words relating to his death. It is the latest gospel and therefore the most developed. I find it begging a question why Mark (most likely the earliest) gives little information, and its contents are linked to private conversations. As time progresses (Matthew and Luke), more references begin to appear and by John (the latest), it is explicit.

They each have their purposes. No point in 4 saying the same things. I don't consider them "synoptic".

[smcllr]

If a Muslim trusts God in full submission to God's will but rejects that Jesus died, is he saved? Concurring to Jesus' death is of supreme importance in Christian orthodoxy.

Acts 10:34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is accepted by Him.

Not sure I agree still.

The Romans killed him, not the Jews. Secondly, it was the corrupt priestly leadership in Jerusalem and not the masses in Galilee that condemned him. The Jews weren't murderers; the leadership wanted peace and saw Jesus as a threat - hence they had him killed.

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Acts 3:14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men,

We know who acted but the Apostles accused the Jews without any sympathy to your differentiations. Still not sure.

The first never mentions his death and the second is only given to his disciples.

I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't know that anyone carrying a cross in that day was going to his death. I merely mentioned it because it indicated crucifixion which is either a lucky stroke or he knew. But carrying a cross was an indication of imminent peril.

And two, my point at the beginning of my last post, if you read all of it, was that he specifically said that he was not interested in revealing the mysteries to the those outside of his inner circle. So of course it was private to his disciples. You said that Mark "gives little information". I pointed out that he gave as much as the rest, IMO.

I understand the theology of your statement but my question is one rooted in history. If the Christian gospel focuses on Jesus' death as atonement for sins, and if faith in his death is the prerequisite for ultimate salvation, then why did he not tell his audience this?

I'm sure you mean faith in his resurrection but again, if it was necessary to believe in that then Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, and on, and on, and on, all have a problem. And so does Paul for that matter because he is the one who keeps telling us it is our faith like Abraham that saves us. Abraham didn't know anything about the death of Christ. Our faith is obedience not merely belief. If you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead you will be saved but because it will change how you approach Jesus teaching not because you are constantly convincing yourself Jesus was raised. All we need to know is that it was God's part in the plan of salvation and it was enough. Jesus said as much and did as much. If it was revealed only to the ones that he had decided to reveal things to in order to serve as future witnesses of his earthly life and ministry, then it was taught exactly as Christ wanted and that is a good thing. You are right that it is spoken of more by the apostles because their earthly ministries were longer and occurred at a time after the resurrection and they spoke to people who they were required to be witnesses to about such events. That happened a lot with a lot of things in the Bible. I just don't understand your question if this is not the answer.

Here is my take on your whole question. I will paraphrase in order to shorten everything down to a short, understandable concept of our exchange.

You: Isn't this imbalance something to ponder?
Me: I don't really consider it an imbalance. It actually seems quite natural. Why?
You: Well it isn't natural because of this information.
Me: But I am of a different opinion about your information so it still seems quite natural and doesn't seem like something to ponder.
You: but it is. Because I see your information differently.
Me: That doesn't seem right either. Idk

I love when my arguments are picked apart - thank you for dealing with my statements. I heartily appreciate it.

Thank you for that. Me too. I feel helpless because of my lack luster presuppositions about this whole topic though.

I am simply sharing an observation...

Sure

which I feel is important to discuss:

Uh huh

If faith in Jesus' death is required for humanity's salvation,

I'm sure you meant resurrection but I'm with you

then why did Jesus leave this aspect out of his preaching (for the most part)?

In the spirit of the discussion you mentioned, I would like to suggest that it is similar to your boss telling you what your role is and even though your boss' role is actually more important and closely related to your role and without both performances the job is incomplete, it is really not necessary for you to know about your boss' role except the parts where your roles interact especially if you are a new employee and you haven't got to that part yet.

Why was this not his focus? If it is THE theme of Christian preaching, why was it not his?

Well I kinda answered the first already and the second I would say in the spirit of discussing, I never really caught that it was a big theme. Reconciliation, forgiveness, obedience, and then the blood works regardless. I see the first three as the major themes. I think the shift in modern preaching from the major themes over to this merely referenced theme is quite unnatural. It emphasizes the emotions of death for a response and the hope of a resurrection no doubt to bring everyone back to dreamy hopes without reference to reconciliation, forgiveness, obedience. Sad. However right you are about modern preaching, I don't think it is true so much in the apostles' teaching. Even when death and resurrection is mentioned it is in the middle of the other three themes with exception to two or three places where Paul is clearing up false doctrines that had been started.

My take. prove me wrong. I love it too, bro. God bless you and this discussion, because secretly I liked it.

[MarleVVLL]

Thank you to everyone who responded. I will do my best to respond, but as everyone knows, replying to 4+ people becomes difficult, so if three people make the same point, I will simply quote one of you. Thank you.

Your statement is an oxymoron. If a Muslim trusts God in full submission then he will accept God. To reject Jesus is to reject God.

I know; I fashioned my sentence on purpose. My point is that Christian preaching emphasizes the cross (and resurrection) of Jesus to be saved. However, smcllr emphasized obedience instead of doctrine, without diminishing the role of theology. My response was that Christian history reversed the two (maybe not in theory but in practice) where doctrine became primary (something that never existed before in Jewish religiosity; even the sectarian Essences emphasized behavior much more than belief). If one does not believe that Jesus died and rose again, you are damned. While having faith in God is at the core of belief (Jesus did stress this), belief in his death took preeminence (Jesus did not stress this, which is my overall observation in this entire discussion) afterwards.

If believing in Jesus' death and resurrection is required for man to love God, and if Jesus' message was to love God, then why did he not stress this facet?

But you just said he did not preach the gospel to them.

I never said Jesus did not preach the gospel. John the Baptist and Jesus preached the 'gospel' before Jesus died (Mt 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:15; Lk 3:18; Lk 9:6; and Heb 4:2, 6 [the people of Moses' day had the gospel preached to them]).

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

I understand, but this cannot be seen as Peter making a historical statement, because Jews did not kill Jesus - they gave him to the Romans to kill. This is more of a literary device for blame, like someone saying, "You Americans voted Obama into office!" Whether or not I voted for him does not matter; America as a people elected him (God ultimately did). I may not have historically voted for him.

Regarding your earlier quote, I understand the importance of obedience. However, I am unsure those statements fit because I am not having a theological or theoretical discussion, but rather looking at what has been recorded of Jesus words and comparing history. Before Jesus died, there was little content regarding his death in comparison with other topics he emphasized. After he died, the Christian community did. This is, on one hand, a 'duh' remark. It would not have made sense for Jesus to say, "I am going to die for your sins and you will need to believe.. but wait for a bit, because I am not dead yet!" On the other hand, after his death, Christians began to speak of it as if the connection was indeed 'duh'.

My object of discussion is focused on the shift of content. Why? I do not understand why - if it is so important in the role of God to redeem mankind - did Jesus not speak of it more?

I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't know that anyone carrying a cross in that day was going to his death.

Jewish teaching is filled with metaphor and analogy. Instead of superimposing his atoning death into this phrase, is it possible that he used an image of his day to communicate the cost of obeying God?

My take. prove me wrong. I love it too, bro. God bless you and this discussion, because secretly I liked it.

By quoting, "My take", I am including everything else you said in order to save space. By the way, I have read everything in this discussion thus far.

I believe you have helped me reach one important line of thought. I may be responding to modern preaching, opposed to the message of the Apostles. I have read hundreds of times, "It is all about the cross!" They emphasize Jesus' work, of which is truly important. However, I am left to ponder why Jesus did not emphasize this too, but rather, chose to spend energy on the topics you summarized earlier.

I believe I need to make a separation between modern emphasis of the Church with what the early followers preached. I need to re-study the sermons of the early followers as well as late 1st century - 3rd century Christian development.

Thank you for the discussion. I am open to continue relaying ideas, but I have found the next step in my research. Thank you!

[Noeb]

MarleVVLL, you said his death for remission of sin was not openly preached, right? An essential part of what we call "the gospel". Then you said he preached the gospel, right? How is that possible? Obviously, the good news Jesus came and offered to Israel only and Moses preached to Israel, did not include his death for remission of sin.