Yeshua¹ did not die for our sins; this traditional religious element must be transcended to allow for greater clarity. While Jesus may have been born to assist in the removal of sin, that was not the purpose of his death. A closer examination of scripture reveals that only a single passage in the Bible directly tethers his death to our sins—and it warrants a deeper look:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”
The concept of Jesus dying for our sins fails to satisfy the demands of both logic and theology. Nevertheless, centuries of conditioning have rendered this a foundational belief for the majority. We must re-examine the Church’s interpretation of this ‘sacrifice.’
If ‘dying for our sins’ literally meant that sin was eliminated through his death, we must ask ourselves: what has actually changed? Think about it.
▪ If the elimination of sin is contingent upon belief, then sin should effectively vanish for the believer. Yet, has sin been truly eliminated from anyone? Not to any credible knowledge. Logic suggests that if Jesus died to remove our sins, that removal has not actually occurred. If, conversely, the removal of sin is deferred to the ‘Seventh Day’ or the ‘Final Kingdom,’ then we are looking at an event prophesied long before the earthly life of Yeshua—one triggered by neither his birth nor his death.
▪ If the ‘debt’ of sin was fully paid, and the mission of redemption absolute, the necessity of a ‘Second Coming’ becomes an illogical paradox. If the job was performed with divine perfection the first time, why is a return required? To suggest a sequel is necessary, is to admit that the first act did not achieve its ultimate aim—the total restoration of humanity. In truth, the ‘return’ is not a return of the person, but the awakening of the Christ Consciousness within the collective.
While many theologians find it impossible to depart from traditional dogma, we must courageously examine 1 Corinthians 15:3. The phrase ‘for our sins’ is the pivot upon which the entire substitutionary theory turns.
By looking at the original Greek in the Westcott-Hort 1881 edition, we can see a different story emerge. Here is the Greek text, along with a standard translation for comparison:
χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων
Christ died for our sins
A more appropriate translation would be:
χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων
Christ died as a result of our sins
The Greek preposition υπερ [uper] is the original root that has morphed into the English preposition “over” and the German “über.”
Yeshua died “as a result of our sins”, or “because of our sins.” He did not die “for” our sins.
The text is thus saying that Yeshua died as a result of our sins; meaning:
• someone sinned by killing him
• piercing him with a lance
• torturing him to death
• crucifying him etc.
In other words: some people committed “sins,” and Yeshua died.
Also, the passage of 1 Corinthians 15:3 and after refers to “according to Scriptures”. The scriptures referred to are those of the Old Testament.
There are well known prophecies about the death of the Messiah in the Bible that also show the same error. The Hebrew text, however, is not ambiguous.
“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”
The Hebrew preposition “for” that is used in “…he was crushed for our transgressions…” is “Mi.”
The most literal meaning is spatial or foundational. “Mi” indicates the source from which something originates. In this context, it suggests that the “piercing” or “wounding” mentioned in the verse originated from the transgressions.
מִפְּשְֵָּׁענו
Mi-pe-sha-ei-nu¹
Strangely, nowhere in the Old Testament (Dan 9:26, Zech 13:7, Isa 53 et al.) does it state that Yeshua would die for our sins. All the passages are consistent in stating that the death came from our sins; it did not occur as a guilt sacrifice for anyone’s transgressions.
By juxtaposing the Greek and the Hebrew texts—the Hebrew text being more authoritative—we see that the Greek translation is flawed.
It could be correct to assert that the physical birth of Jesus and his coming to visit humanity in person was done to try to change an out-of-hand course and prepare for the upcoming age of Ascension.
It could also be correct to assert that a major concern of his was the direction of mankind and making sure we understood the real essence of the Kingdom of God, Love.
Jesus was born for our Love, and did not die for our sins.
“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’”
This passage is interesting from an Ascension perspective, because it refers to Yeshua while he was alive.
The broader question could be: does, or did, Yeshua remove the sin of the world.
Directly, no; indirectly, yes.
The Ascended Master Yeshua is actively involved in leading us on an Ascension path to the 5th Dimension, where the egoic mind—the root cause of our inconsiderate behavior—is almost completely subdued.
As a positioned link in that process, we can safely say that he assists us in removing karma. He also did so while he was alive, for example when he fast-tracked his disciples into 5th dimension at the famous Pentacost meal.
14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.16 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.
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
18 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.
• The traditional doctrine that Yeshua (Jesus) died for humanity’s sins is challenged; this belief is based on questionable interpretation and longstanding conditioning rather than clear logic or scripture.
• If sin were truly removed by Yeshua’s death, observable human behavior should reflect that—but it does not, suggesting a flaw in the doctrine.
• Reinterpreting key Greek text (1 Corinthians 15:3) shows the original meaning is that Yeshua died because of human sins (i.e., human actions led to his death), not as a sacrificial payment for them.
• Reinterpretation of Hebrew scripture (e.g., Isaiah 53) asserts that the wording indicates causation (originating from sin), not substitution or atonement.
• Yeshua’s true purpose was to guide humanity toward higher consciousness, love, and an “Ascension” path—not to act as a sacrificial figure removing sin through death.
• The transformation of humanity comes through awakening (Christ consciousness) and inner evolution, not through belief in a one-time redemptive event.
