I found this OP was too looonnngg and exceeded the limit of the BB. So, I have broken it into two groups. I present my thinking so that the good (and bad) of the BB may understand (though they may not agree) that this old man is not fully demented, though my wife calls me "crazy." Have a good read of a too long OP. _ _ _ _ _ In the recent thread on "who killed Jesus," I made the statement that the death of Christ was not sinful and those who put him to death did not sin. I understand this is contrary to probably most on the BB. But, I thought it wise to lay out a bit of the reasoning for that thinking. As already mentioned on the other thread, there are Scriptures that teach the following: 1) That it was God's direct purpose and command that the Son obeyed. Scriptures have been shared on the other thread that show this as fact. 2) That the Son states no one could take His life from Him, He laid it down and took it up as the authority His Father had given Him to do. Again, the other thread show Scripture proof of this statement. 3) Often God has, does and will use heathen folks to accomplish His purpose. Does that make the purpose or the action sinful? If it does then God is the author and instigator of sin. This is contrary to the character and nature of God. OT Scriptures show that God using heathen for His purpose is not unique or even a singular occasion. God does not sin, nor do those who are used by God to His purpose committing sin - though they may be sin filled. Nor does this mean that sin filled folks do not often run to excess and in that excess (going beyond the command of God) it is sinful. Just as Peter cutting off the ear in attempt to "contend for the faith" and would later "deny with an oath." These are examples of sin by going to excess (or beyond) the command. 4) In EVERY statement made concerning assignment of blame, it is coupled with the resurrection. History declares that during this time there were quite a few who proclaimed them self or were proclaimed by others as the "messiah." Even the disciples of John the Baptizer were sent to ask and observe. Apparently, Jesus didn't fit exactly what John thought about the Messiah, and wanted to know if there was some other that needed the attention, instead. Therefore, all accounts present the fact of the crucifixion not as an assignment of blame, but contrasting just which of the many was the actual redeemer. 5) Paul said,"...17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Now, I realize that this passage isn't directly related to the crucifixion, but it does bring out the aspect that one dies that they may live. In the broadest rendering, there is the same attainment given to Paul as was given to Christ. That of glorification - not through the flesh and law and sin - but through love and righteousness.