Christians: Why Jesus had to die?

[idea]

I should probably refrain from discussing this further for the sake of avoiding debate lol, but I just wanted to point out that Jesus refuted the idea of an eye for an eye.

Maybe we can start a thread about this in a debate forum as Im sure we could discuss this on and on, but this isnt the place . I cant make a thread at the moment though, as I need to go unpack things for a garage sale.

Peace

have a fun garage sale!

 

[idea]

But I would also point out, that means that God sent his son to pay the ransom that He set in the first place.

God set justice, and justice is a good thing. (injustice is a bad thing)

 

[Cypress]

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians6:20)
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.


(New Testament | 1 Corinthians7:23)
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Does ye mean you?

But that doesnt address the question properly I think. Who set the price? We can assume God did I suppose, so why does God have to pay himself the price?

I think that is the question.

Yes, that is what I mean.

the price is set by the crime - eye for an eye.
God upholds justice.

Somewhere I heared that an eye for an eye was ment in such a way that when someone gives you something precious one is to give back something of equal value.
It was later misunderstood to mean that misdead should be punishedan eye for an eye.

Those who are harmed unjustly need compensation.

But who is harmed by our sins, God?
How can sacrificing his son pay for our sins?
When someone commits a crime against you, you do not kill your own child, that simply makes no sense.

God gave His Son, not Himself... (There are many trinity threads - let's not start that up again) just as a thought experiment - consider that God and Jesus are not the same being, that they are two separate people - that Jesus is God's Son - and not God?

When they are two separate people - then it works out.

No, it does only work out when they are one person:
God comes to earth as a human & absorbs our sins, for when he dies the sin-energies are destroyed.
But this does not explain why Jesus had to die by violence.

 

[dmgdnooc]

The idea is that Jesus died on the cross to free us from our sins.
But why was that necessary?
When God wants to forgive sins why can't he just do it, since he is almighty?
Why must he send someone to earth to die?

Jesus' death on the cross was necessary on a number of levels.
The question/s cannot be answered easily, there is too much to put in one post, and too much to hear all at once, so I will attempt to compartmentalise, pls bear with me.
　
The Jewish authorities required that Jesus be murdered, his teaching was hateful to the comfortable (for them) system over which they presided and derived their lucrative livings.
　
Jesus was a man of unimpeachable character who had wisely answered all the questions they had put to him and had asked questions of them that they dared not answer. They were embarrassed by his presence and his words which undermined their authority.
　
They could have had him murdered secretly or by stoning, on a trumped up charge of blasphemy, but the people held him in high regard and it was likely that the hypocrisy of such an action would rebound against them.
　
The Priests, Scribes and Pharisees needed it to be generally recognised that he was an accursed individual. They required that he not only be dead but also discredited in the eyes of the people. An assassination of his character, as well as his body, was the solution that was devised.
　
In the Law there is a verse that says '... he that is hanged is accursed of God' (Deut 21.23).
So, enter the Romans and the deal that was made with Pilate, that the Roman authority would execute Jesus by means of crucifiction.
　
The Jewish authorities got Jesus dead and accursed with the blame falling on the Romans, the Roman authority got the assurance of a continuing peaceful administration.
It was an excellent diplomatic solution to the problem of the troublemaker, Jesus, that met the needs of all the political players in Judea.
　
That is one aspect of why it was necessary that Jesus die on the cross.
There are other aspects that should be considered, and I know that you are more interested in the 'sin' aspect, but do you accept this political necessity. Does this scenario make sense to you?
It is, imo, as the Scriptures tell it.

 

[Cypress]

Does this scenario make sense to you?

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you.

Goodo, but that was the easy part.
　
It appears that you accept the idea of 'sins', as in 'free us from our sins'.
The idea that all human beings miss the mark, or fall short in some way, of their true potential and transgress.
You may, or may not, be aware of the difference between 'sins' and Sin.
Because I am unsure, I will preface 'free us from our sins' by saying something about the idea of Sin (as a Bible principle).
　
Paul, in Romans, says that we commit sins because of Sin which is in our members.
In other words, there is an aspect of human nature (called Sin) that causes us to commit sins.
He found that even when he would do good, evil was present with him; that the good that he willed to do, he did not, but the evil that he willed not to do, he did..
Human beings, Paul says, are a duality, with each side of that duality in constant warfare one with the other.
He teaches that this Sin nature, an aspect of our duality, is inherited from Adam via the events in Eden.
　
If we look at Genesis 3 it can be seen that Adam was a different man after partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
His original good nature remained within, but now his eyes were opened, he perceived the world, and especially himself, in a different way.
He became aware of his nakedness and was ashamed to stand before God uncovered.
He was afraid of God and sought a place to hide himself among the trees.
He implied fault to God, for giving him the woman, Eve.
And sought to lay the blame for his action on her.
　
He had acquired a new aspect to his psychological make-up, one contrary to his original nature, that sought to justify himself at the expense of others and was as slippery, evasive and cunning as a serpent. It (the Sin nature) even sought to deceive God by hiding its presence and covering his nakedness with the works of his hands.
　
All his offspring have inherited the affliction of this sin nature and we all need to be cured, or delivered, freed, redeemed, from it. It holds us (our true selves) in bondage as strictly as any master holds his slave.
　
It is not just that we need to be freed from our sins, which are, more often than not, a minor affair; it was necessary that Jesus die on the cross in order that there would be a way open for us to be freed from 'captivity to the law of sin which is in my (our) members.' Rom 7.23
　
So, there is another of the aspects that your question/s raise.
Shall I move on to 'free us from our sins' or should more be said about Sin (the principle)?
I do intend to deal with the 'how' in due course (if that's on your mind also).
　

 

[Cypress]

So Jesus death on the cross he

1.) freed us of our sins (the deeds) and when Christians pray for forgiveness of sins, strictly speaking this is thanksgiving prayer for something that already has been granted?
2.) bestowes the empowerment upon us to get free of Sin (the nature)?

 

[dmgdnooc]

So Jesus death on the cross he

1.) freed us of our sins (the deeds) and when Christians pray for forgiveness of sins, strictly speaking this is thanksgiving prayer for something that already has been granted?
2.) bestowes the empowerment upon us to get free of Sin (the nature)?

It seems that you need something on the 'how' at this point, so I will bring my attempt at that a little forward.
　
More correctly, Christ on the cross should make a person feel sorry enough to repent (change their mind about their sins) sins are not OK; and convert (change their direction) begin following after Christ.
A person must respond to the crucifiction in a positive manner to have a part in its benefits.
And a person must continue responding; the cross is not a getoutofjailfreecard, it is not a licence to sin but a motive to not sin.
　
There comes a time, in contemplating Christ on the cross, when a person, as the thief did, realises the fitting justce in their own suffering and the gross injustice that was perpetrated on that innocent man.
For me, and I believe this is the usual, there was a moment when I perceived these 2 facts in juxtaposition and simultaneously.
I understood that I was going to die, and rightly so, and though I hoped for a quick end its unlikely - most linger and suffer - if an innocent man could not avoid it, I certainly had no right or expectation to do so.
I felt sorry at the manner of his death for I held Jesus in high regard, understanding something of his words and mission and I wanted to be a person more like him than like me.
From that moment I began to change my thinking and my ways and eventually I put on Christ, as Paul says, as one puts on a garment.
A new man was born, that man is me, the man I want to be.
　
I didn't really begin this with the idea of speaking about me.
I did though for this reason, everyone comes to Christ by a different road but all those roads meet at the cross.
The cross is the first hard test for someone destined to be a Christian, all stand before it on our various journeys.
My understanding is, and maybe I can be corrected on this, all have the same response in echoing the words of the thief, 'we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man has done nothing amiss'.
　
The problem with forgiveness is not with God, it is with humans.
Humans don't believe that God will forgive them, Sin nature prevents us.
We don't believe that He is favourably disposed towards us, that He desires mercy not sacrifice, that His motive is love.
Like our father, Adam, we blame those around us and God Himself for our faults.
We are afraid of God and try to hide ourselves from Him.
And knowing that He sees us, we devise ways to disguise the fact of our nakedness.
　
But God sees through our feeble coverings and discerning our need has pity on our plight, and, prompted by love, Himself provides the garment that will cover us, will make us feel comfortable in His presence.
That is what He did in Eden, that's what He did at Golgotha, all a human need do is put the garment on.
　
So, that having been said, I think that when a Christian, or anyone, prays for forgiveness it must be because they feel the need for forgiveness.
They are sorry that they sinned and don't want to be held to account for it as it does not represent their true character.
When they get to the point where they believe they have been forgiven, and that may be immediately after the words come out of their mouths or some time later, thanksgiving is an appropriate response.
　
For a Christian the internal warfare is continuous.
Sin nature does not disappear, it just gets more cunning, more deceptive, more persuasive; when its put down here, it pops up there: when its put down there, it pops up somewhere else and so on round the circle of our lives.
Death is the only thing that will end it, Christ the only hope of overcoming it.
　
I see that you are a devotee of the Mother, is the way that I am representing the matter (of sins and Sin) in accord with your understanding in Her?
　

 

[Cypress]

I see that you are a devotee of the Mother, is the way that I am representing the matter (of sins and Sin) in accord with your understanding in Her?

I believe that Mother is the source of everything.
She is also Atman, the soul.
Sin is an illusion, as is virtue.
We have forgotten who we truly are, believing to be different from Mother.
When we realize our real self, the question of sin or virtue does not arise any more.

 

[idea]

Does ye mean you?

yes

But who is harmed by our sins, God?
How can sacrificing his son pay for our sins?
When someone commits a crime against you, you do not kill your own child, that simply makes no sense.

God is not the only one harmed by our sins - we harm one another, and harm ourselves. When you steal form someone - you harm them. When you lie to someone, you cause harm -


did you read the civil-war story?

 

[idea]

I felt sorry at the manner of his death for I held Jesus in high regard, understanding something of his words and mission and I wanted to be a person more like him than like me.
From that moment I began to change my thinking and my ways and eventually I put on Christ, as Paul says, as one puts on a garment.
A new man was born, that man is me, the man I want to be.
　

Thanks for sharing dmgdnoc!
For me, it has to be more than words... I mean you can say "I love you enough to die for you"

the greatest love possible:
(New Testament | John15:13)
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

so you can say it - but until you actually do it, the love is just a theory, it isn't real... There is a big difference between saying "I would die for you" and actually dieing for someone - until the death happens, the love is not real, it's just a good intention...

so Jesus really did die for us, the love is real.

We do things for those who love us, I mean really love us. Say your parents, grandparents, or spouse, or kids love you, think the best of you, their joy and happiness is all wrapped up in you - if you fail, they feel horrible, if you succeed - they are filled with joy. Because their well-being is so wrapped up in yours, you puch yourself, try to be good, succeed - not for selfish endeavors to make yourself feel good - but for them. You go to school / work / etc. etc. for your parents/spouse/kids... it's like that with Jesus. He loves us - loves us more than our parents, spouse, kids - loves us so much he died for us. What we do/don't do either causes him pain or joy - so we act, not for ourselves, but for him... it's not about us not wanting to feel guilt, but about accepting the love that is offered us, we don't want to cause Jesus anymore pain/sufferring. We don't deserve it, we didn't earn it, but if we don't accept it, it would be like not accepting the gift your mom tries to give you at Christmas, or telling your spouse "I don't want to stay with you anymore" when they love you and you are their entire life... so the love - real love (real death, real sacrifice, not just words) - binds us together, and changes how we act... it's not just about "me, myself and I" anymore, because everything we do affects not just "me myself and I" - everything we do affects Jesus, and others who love us - so we end up living for them.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I believe that Mother is the source of everything.
She is also Atman, the soul.
Sin is an illusion, as is virtue.
We have forgotten who we truly are, believing to be different from Mother.
When we realize our real self, the question of sin or virtue does not arise any more.

OK, I see now that you do not accept the idea of sins, they are 'an illusion'.
Is that the point, in the OP, of asking 'why was that (freedom from sins) necessary': because you do not recognise sins, or indeed virtue, as valid concepts applicable to human beings?
From there it would follow that there could be no necessity to be free of sins; only to be free of the illusion of sins.
　
The Bible would agree that sins and Sin have no applicability to the creatures or mechanisms of the Mother, Gaia, the Earth, this living Planet upon which we dwell.
The Bible only applies the concepts to human beings, the 'special' creatures that were given dominion on this Globe and instructed that their purpose was to 'tend the garden' and eat of its fruit.
Human beings, through Adam, introduced Sin into the world and brought, thereby, ruin upon themselves and the good Earth that birthed them.
We are in the process, and near the end of that process, of murdering our Mother, is that not evidence, if not definitive proof, of our sins?
　
Now, back to the cross, and 'why must he send someone'.
　
Sin nature makes us fear God, it makes us imagine that God condemns us for our sins, and no matter what He says to the contrary we can't find it in ourselves to believe Him.
　
In the wilderness the Isaelites feared God and kept their distance.
God was a pillar of smoke and fire before and behind them, when He spoke they heard a terrifying sound of thunder and trumpets (the sounds of warfare).
Never mind that He had just saved them from the Egyptian army and brought them out from slavery to give them a land flowing with milk and honey; that didn't convince them that He was favourably disposed towards them, they trembled and imagined God's enmity would now be against themselves.
They asked Moses to speak with God on their behalf.
Moses was a man, like they were, they would not be afraid of him, so they reasoned.
　
When Elihu stood up to answer Job 33.6 he said, 'Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed of the clay. Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee.'.
He recognised that even Job, a perfect (mature in understanding) and upright man, was in need of a mediator to stand between him and God to reassure the fearful Job of Gods favourable disposition towards him.
Elihu was a man, a person with whom Job could relate empathetically and sympathetically, who was like Job, afflicted with Sin and understood, by experience, what Job was going through in his turmoil of spirit, mind and flesh. A man who, at that point in time and space, could 'lay his hand on them both' and bring them 'together in judgement'.
　
Paul says, in 1Tim 2.5, that 'the man Christ Jesus' is the one (the antitypical) mediator between God and men.
　
A man had to be on the cross in order that the one who was crucified could understand the weaknesses of the flesh, and in order that those who looked at him there would be aware that he does, experientially, understand them and has compassion for them, for their situation.
God had to send a man, encompassed with infirmity; if He had come Himself all would have fled before His face, hid under the nearest rock and stopped their ears at the sound of His voice.
　
It was for our sakes, in consideration of our weaknesses, our fear, distrust and unbelief, that God sent a man to show us the way in which we should walk.
We, the society of humanity, thought it best to nail him to a tree, lest the things that he said and did should interfere with our way of life and upset the delicate status quo we had established.
We behaved as expected; yet God still sent him to show us the way.
　
The necessity was in our need to be shown; shown our nature, his faith and innocence, and God's love and favourable disposition towards us.
　
I'm wondering how this can make any sense to you if you do not accept the dual nature of humanity and the dominance of the force of Sin in that duality, and Sin's effects on our relationship with God.
Maybe you could say something about how you see our duality (if indeed you do see it at all),
　

 

[dmgdnooc]

　
'For me, it has to be more than words... I mean you can say "I love you enough to die for you" '


idea
yes, good point.
　
John says 'herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us'.
Seems the best we can do is to recognise, in Jesus on the cross, the love of God towards us and reflect that love back to those around us.
'We love him (God), because he first loved us' and 'there is no fear in love'; so we can now appraoch God with boldness no longer with fear.

 

[Cypress]

I'm wondering how this can make any sense to you if you do not accept the dual nature of humanity and the dominance of the force of Sin in that duality, and Sin's effects on our relationship with God.
Maybe you could say something about how you see our duality (if indeed you do see it at all),
　

I do accept the duality of human nature, but I think it is a duality between realization/non-realization of one's true self.