Christ's suretyship?

[Giant_Hunter]

I am trying to understand the legal relationship that a historical Jesus may have had for his saviorship to be legally significant from a rational, secular standpoint.

I'm not interested in theological ideas on this matter. I understand the "original sin" nonsense and the immaculate conception and all of that business. If that's the basis of Christian political impact, I file it with superstition.

I'm interested instead in how historical Christianity had its impact in ending slavery and how this relates to Jesus's opposition to the usury of the Pharisees. This would seem to suggest that there was some kind of legal relationship, binding upon the Pharisees, that allowed Jesus, a descendent of the House of David, to take upon himself a SURETYSHIP for the rest of us. I'm interested in the historical and legal nature of this surety relationship.

Again, I understand the "God's son" bit. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in how that makes him able to die for our apparent debts to Jews here on Earth.

Is anyone here equipped to explain this? Does it have to do with a historical, royal trustee relationship with the House of David that makes Jesus a sort of trustee, or something of that sort?

[Loki]

"..die for our apparent debts to Jews here on earth"

What are you talking about? This is not about any debts to Jews. God is not the God of the Jews, he is the creator of everything, of all humans. And we all must answer to our creator one day, whether our deeds were good or evil. And because God is holy and will not tolerate anything unclean or wicked in his presence, we must be cleaned of all unrighteousness in order to enter his abode. And only the sacrifice of God became flesh, in Jesus Christ, was sufficient to pay for every human on earth. All we need to do is accept his gift of salvation, and live our lives according to his will.

Have you read all of the New Testament yet? Because that should answer most of your questions.

[rothaer]

I am trying to understand the legal relationship that a historical Jesus may have had for his saviorship to be legally significant from a rational, secular standpoint.
(...)

I think that were simply two points:

1.
He was (allegedly) from the house of David and hence a legit candidate for being a leader/king.

2.
He had followers with power. Joel Carmichael elaborates in his book about Jesus of Nazareth that considering both the size of the temple mount as well as the fact that there was a police-like roman stronghold intergrated or in direct proximity that Jesus needed and will have had abt. 5,000 armed men to occupy the temple mount for that time described in the New Testament. And Carmichael further elaborates that a lot of information about violence has been removed from the evengelical narratives but that that cleansing was not perfect and you still have a number of places where you can see that it all was somewhat more violent then told. F. i. when Jesus says that his followers should put on their belts with their swords.

[Giant_Hunter]

I don't believe that story about God, Loki. I'm not superstitious. But if you have an answer based in natural philosophy or natural religion I can entertain that.

I am quite familiar with The Bible, as my deeply religious mother born to my preacher grandfather nursed me on it and since I went to private church school.

It's interesting a Christian with the screenname Loki, the Nordic variant of Lucifer.

I'd offer a historical basis for my claim that debts were owed to the Jews, but I asked for a historical basis and got a religious reply, so I don't imagine it would be fruitful.

[Giant_Hunter]

Thanks for the reference, rothaer, I will look into Carmichael!

[Loki]

I don't believe that story about God, Loki. I'm not superstitious. But if you have an answer based in natural philosophy or natural religion I can entertain that.

I am quite familiar with The Bible, as my deeply religious mother born to my preacher grandfather nursed me on it and since I went to private church school.

It's interesting a Christian with the screenname Loki, the Nordic variant of Lucifer.

I'd offer a historical basis for my claim that debts were owed to the Jews, but I asked for a historical basis and got a religious reply, so I don't imagine it would be fruitful.

I'm also not superstitious. Believing in God is not superstition, it's also not blind faith. It's the realisation of reality.

There is still hope for you, though, since I am quite sure your deeply spiritual mother and family would have prayed for you a lot. So, God would be reaching out to you at the right time. Of that I have no doubt. He's in the life changing business

On that point, the username "Loki" was chosen when I was still lost. Maybe I should change my username to something more appropriate. I'll think about it.

[Annihilus]

I'm also not superstitious. Believing in God is not superstition, it's also not blind faith. It's the realisation of reality.

There is still hope for you, though, since I am quite sure your deeply spiritual mother and family would have prayed for you a lot. So, God would be reaching out to you at the right time. Of that I have no doubt. He's in the life changing business

On that point, the username "Loki" was chosen when I was still lost. Maybe I should change my username to something more appropriate. I'll think about it.

I'll take Loki, fits me better anyway

[Loki]

I'll take Loki, fits me better anyway

That won't work, it will confuse people

[Giant_Hunter]

Loki,

I use superstition as corollary to supernatural, being belief in the supernatural. Anything other than a pantheist deity supposes supernaturalism, something existing outside of Nature. Is your deity synonymous with or within the fold of Nature? If not, the deity would be supernatural and belief therein superstitious. This is by my definition, of course, but that is not an uncommon one at all. Do you disagree that superstition is belief in the supernatural, or that the Christian God, commonly understood, is supernatural?

I hear you about your screen name. My own position is that Christ and Lucifer, both being the Morningstar, are the same archetype fitted for different times, each representing Light or Logos, meaning the Reason or Logic necessary for Existence to Be, a concept naturally related to and in affinity with Telos.

I think we may be moving into off-topic territory unless we can use this to find common ground upon which to pursue the original topic, but I'd be happy to discuss this as a fresh topic.

[Loki]

Loki,

I use superstition as corollary to supernatural, being belief in the supernatural. Anything other than a pantheist deity supposes supernaturalism, something existing outside of Nature. Is your deity synonymous with or within the fold of Nature? If not, the deity would be supernatural and belief therein superstitious. This is by my definition, of course, but that is not an uncommon one at all. Do you disagree that superstition is belief in the supernatural, or that the Christian God, commonly understood, is supernatural?

I hear you about your screen name. My own position is that Christ and Lucifer, both being the Morningstar, are the same archetype fitted for different times, each representing Light or Logos, meaning the Reason or Logic necessary for Existence to Be, a concept naturally related to and in affinity with Telos.

I think we may be moving into off-topic territory unless we can use this to find common ground upon which to pursue the original topic, but I'd be happy to discuss this as a fresh topic.

All these questions of yours....I think you're intelligent enough to know what my answers would be.

But in short -- God created nature. He is the source of everything, including nature.

As for equating Jesus with Lucifer, that's just pure blasphemy that I won't tolerate on this website. I have to draw a line somewhere.