I can't believe the amount of Christians who have replied to this post, who have apparently not recognized that Dialogue's premise is incorrect. D, the fact is that Jesus did tell his disciples that he was going to die, and why his death was necessary for their salvation. Consider John 3:16...
I don't recall anyone saying they agreed with the initial post about what Jesus did or didn't say, least of all myself. I wasn't responding to his post and I found the content of the initial post rather ignorant even of view that dissent from traditional/conventional Christianity.
That is not to say that the general idea of what he was alluding to was a non-issue. I have simply been expressing disagreement over replacement theology and what some consider to be the purpose of the crucifixion as defined by fundamentalist and traditional Christianity.
The discussion in this thread doesn't have to be defined by the initial poster and his post.
Now, we know that all people die; that was the curse that God gave to Adam as a result of his disobedience. Yet the one who believes in Jesus will have eternal life. Thus, the one who believes in Jesus is forgiven, as it says in the very next verse...
.........
Thus, the sacrifice that Jesus made was a symbol of God's love for us (remember 3:16), and it is through that love that we have reason to believe, and through our belief forgiveness for our sins. Had Jesus not sacrificed himself, we would know that God loved us to an extent, but not unconditionally. God was and is willing to give up everything for us. And his son, who has been given the power to judge, forgives.
If you intend only to address Dialogue's initial post, fair enough. Your explanation above is the standard response.
The problem that I see, however, is whether or not Dialogue will actually benefit from a conventional/fundamentalist Christian response. The Gospel of John gives a theological perspective of Jesus' mission. Theology, however, is about things we physically can't see, things we see as a part of our imagination. A theological system only has value to other people who also subscribe to the same theology. The Gospel of John (GoJ) is an exposition of Christian theology. A Muslim, however, does not believe in the theology described in the Gospel of John. This is why I would wonder whether it would be of any value to a Muslim.
This is the Abrahamic forum, not the Christianity forum. In the Christianity forum it wouldn't be as much of a problem discussing theology GoJ's theology, because many Christians are aligned with that theology. But for people to understand Christianity, there has to be something one could offer that all people can find valuable, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Christian theology is only of value to Christians. It has little value outside that scope.
This is why I put more emphasis on the social and political because this is the common ground for all human social and political systems. People who are not Christian won't agree with Christian theology because it is not a reality grounded in the physical, material, social and political, something common to all or most humans in our world, but something in the imagination of an individual Christian believer. The Gospel of John is dominated by heroism, adventurism and theology. For it to have value to a Muslim, a Muslim must first agree with the heroism, adventurism and theology as a valid description of the reality that he sees. If he cannot agree, the theology in the story-telling in the Gospel of John is of little value to him.
If it is of little value to a Muslim, it does little to educate him about Christianity.
To clarify, this is not to say that a Muslim will never learn anything about Christianity. I distinctly said (and to reinforce it again here), Christian theology, which is only a subset of Christianity, doesn't really help a Muslim learn more about Christianity. You can't educate a person by talking about a reality he doesn't even believe in, especially if he thinks that that description of reality is a load of rubbish.
I think if we were indeed to educate Muslims better on Christianity, it is to put aside the theology and discuss the social and political side because as I said, that is where most of us humans would find common ground. An important thing to understand about why theology is of less value to outsiders is that it doesn't have a clearly identifiable foundation in this world. For example, there are no legal documents or organisations to represent what we define in our theology. Theology doesn't depict real-world entities and nor does it depict human states of mind that are compatible with the thinking of secular and mainstream culture. The start of meaningful discussion and learning about Christianity begins with real-world entities and phenomena.
This is also why it's been rather hard for me to understand Islam as well. I just can't connect with the theology or culture in any meaningful way. Common antics include praising God, calling for peace upon a prophet's name, talking about the infallibility of a text, corruption in Jewish and Christian texts, etc. The main problem I have with many of these antics, declarations, statements, attitudes and sentiments is that they aren't associated with real-world phenomena and entities. I'm not saying they have to refer to physical objects. They may, for example, refer to emotions, cultural attitudes, politics, national boundaries, political organisations, etc. They may have a grounding in social and political reality.
I can see that it has meaning to a Muslim, but this theology means nothing to an outsider, not even to a person in mainstream culture. This is why it's been easier for me to understand and learn about Judaism. Expositions of Jewish ideas, attitudes, beliefs and sentiments often start with something in the real world, whether it is social, political or intrapersonal.
Because this is the Abrahamic forum, not the Christianity forum, I think it is more practical if we find things to say that are of a more universal and less theological nature.
