Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

in order to sell something you have to create a demand for it, correct?
so in order to sell the idea that christ is our saving grace from death/hell, or what have you, one would have to create the idea that we need saving...now in the case of the context of the gospels and paul's letters...their savior was going to come back and bring the kingdom with him and save them from the bad guys...the romans....since the temple was destroyed and all the disciples died along with paul and his cronies...those that were left behind had to reconcile the obvious by improvising on what jesus "really meant", and created a demand to want to get to heaven...a way to avoid perishing/eternal sleep/hell or what have you.

it's all rather simple....well at least for me it is

Yeah, but it's not really all that simple. The political undertones are certainly there, as you state here, but that's only one aspect of what's written. Not all textual statements are politically-driven, and I don't think Jesus was completely politically-driven, either. There's just more to it than what you state here. I think that sorting out the separate meanings and their sources is important, though.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, but it's not really all that simple. The political undertones are certainly there, as you state here, but that's only one aspect of what's written. Not all textual statements are politically-driven, and I don't think Jesus was completely politically-driven, either. There's just more to it than what you state here. I think that sorting out the separate meanings and their sources is important, though.

curious, the other messiahs
beginning with these...
simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BCE),
athronges (ca. 3 CE)
menahem ben Judah (?)

i don't see why jesus would be any different.

they were all politically motivated. jesus and the temple. "i came for the lost sheep" references to salt and light
what about matthew 27...who exactly were the holy people that rose from the dead? were they also roman? doubt it.

even in luke jesus is very political...in fact, had jesus used the parable of the good roman instead of the good samaritan then the political implication would be debunked for sure...but it's the good samaritan...a group of people that belonged to the lost tribe of israel.

 

[sojourner]

curious, the other messiahs
beginning with these...
simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BCE),
athronges (ca. 3 CE)
menahem ben Judah (?)

i don't see why jesus would be any different.

they were all politically motivated. jesus and the temple. "i came for the lost sheep" references to salt and light
what about matthew 27...who exactly were the holy people that rose from the dead? were they also roman? doubt it.

even in luke jesus is very political...in fact, had jesus used the parable of the good roman instead of the good samaritan then the political implication would be debunked for sure...but it's the good samaritan...a group of people that belonged to the lost tribe of israel.

Remember that a lot of Luke derives from Q, which is rural and extremely wary of the Romans. Matthew, too. That's why Jesus seems so political. I think the thing about Jesus is that he wasn't a political messiah. Rome won. Rome crucified him. Jesus never claimed to be a politician. Jesus claimed that his kingdom was spiritual, not temporal.

 

[waitasec]

Remember that a lot of Luke derives from Q, which is rural and extremely wary of the Romans. Matthew, too. That's why Jesus seems so political. I think the thing about Jesus is that he wasn't a political messiah. Rome won. Rome crucified him. Jesus never claimed to be a politician. Jesus claimed that his kingdom was spiritual, not temporal.

i don't know about that...

in luke the jews were clearly responsible for jesus' crucifixion while pilate was finding ways to defend him

the same with john

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps you could point out the precise text to which you are referring? Many times, lifting something out of context and creating a whole theology based upon that text is the wrong thing to do.

You need a citation for the concept of Jesus' dying for other peoples' sins? I thought that was as basic as gravity in Christian theology.

 

[Thief]

You need a citation for the concept of Jesus' dying for other peoples' sins? I thought that was as basic as gravity in Christian theology.

Your observation is correct.

I for one, don't believe in that dogma.

 

[bnabernard]

Yeshuah being in the image that God would have a son to be he therefore represents an image for men to live up to.

bernard (hug)

 

[InChrist]

I do not have a wrong understanding. I am simply making an unpleasant observation based on exactly what scripture says.

If Adam and Eve were created, they did not possess the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was specifically left out of their makeup. One thing that scripture is very hard about is the intent behind the sinner; the knowledge of God's laws, which are deliberately broken by the person who sins, lies very heavily behind the visceral approval Christians give when they are made aware of a sinner paying for their sin.

The problem with this however, is, as I mentioned, that Adam and Eve were prevented, by God, from understanding Good from Evil. Thus they were unaware of the concept of disobedience, nor could they understand the concept of consequences regarding sin. Therefore, their punishment, individually, is unjust, because they were essentially idiot children specifically when it came to the idea of right and wrong.

I still think you have the wrong understanding, whether it is sincere ignorance or deliberate as simply a way to excuse yourself from being accountable to God, I don’t know. I do think it is a false presumption to say that Adam and Eve were essentially idiot children. The text plainly states that God communicated with them and gave instructions and dominion over the plants, animals, garden and the earth. This clearly signifies that they were intelligent beings capable of comprehension and carrying out these responsibilities. So they certainly were able to know it was right to obey the one command God gave them and wrong to disobey. Even a little three year old at times looks a parent in the eyes understanding what the parent just said and goes ahead and deliberately does what they were just told not to do. Adam and Eve were more advanced than a three year old and probably more advanced than us today because they had direct communication with God. It’s not that Adam and Eve didn’t understand God’s clear command it was that they choose to disobey His instruction and gain judgment of good and evil for themselves rather than trusting that such a position belonged to God. They wanted autonomy, they wanted to be a law unto themselves, and they wanted to be like God …instead of obeying God. Only God the Creator has the right or wisdom necessary to determine good or evil. The account in Genesis shows that for humans to attempt to be judges of good and evil by themselves without considering God’s revealed will is to claim complete autonomy for our existence and eliminate accountability to anyone, including God. This is rebellion and sin because the creature by definition is accountable to and dependent on the Creator. God is the only Being who is autonomous. This type of existence is not possible for humans. Attempting to live in total independence from the Creator ultimately leads to extinction. God gave humanity a certain amount of freedom and choice, but our existence is dependent upon Him and our search for knowledge and understanding requires that we rely upon His wisdom.

Then, we come to the separate injustice of passing this unjust verdict on to all subsequent people.

If Adam and Eve were conceived whole, as spotless beings without the stain of Original Sin, then we must ask what exactly changed about them, the instant the ate the Apple. Is Original Sin some kind of physically inbred detail, in other words, is it in our genes literally to sin? Or, is it only a spiritual aspect? If it is a spiritual aspect then there is no rational ability whatsoever to question the fact that it is God's deliberate fault that we all have this tendency. Only God' willful power could alter some aspect of our spirit.

If instead it's genetic, then we come to another look at the same fact of God's guilt: Adam and Eve were once genetically without sin, so, why deliberately allow their offspring to have this 'mutation', but rather why not fix it immediately? If Adam and Eve were able to be made that way, then the blueprint is already there, the creator simply allowed the faulty version to be reproduced instead. You cannot deny it when I say that God makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the passing on of sin to either of them, at any time, when telling them not to eat of the Tree. So the idea that they knew of the consequences is blown apart, particularly in this most important aspect of it; the passing of Original Sin is by far the most important detail about eating of the Tree and it's never mentioned by God once. Only after it's already too late does he gloat about it. So he deliberately lies by omission about it.

In either case it would be God's direct 'magic' which would cause this mutation; it's nothing natural in terms of cause/effect. So it was a deliberate 'miracle' performed by God himself.
Though you repeat the same incorrect statement, no, if we are born with Original Sin in place, we are held responsible for it too. Whether it is spiritual or genetic, we still die and we still need saving. Nobody can create nor impose such a situation on us except for God. The inbred tendency to sin itself is punishment for that first sin, in which not a single one of us ever took actual part. If there is punishment, then we are being held responsible.

The thing that changed is that the relationship they shared with God was broken. It was the choice to sin and rebel which altered this relationship between God and Adam and Eve and it is still sin and rebellion now which still alters it. God is not the cause.

As a side note:
You can define exactly what this means, if you so choose, but on its face these ideas are just prosy words that don't mean anything. You will have to justify how being in 'perfect communion' and having the spirit 'indwelt' can still allow one to make mistakes of this magnitude. Merely tossing in the idea of free will doesn't provide any rational argument in the face of these poetic phrases. Please clarify this conundrum of how spiritual perfection can allow for spiritual mistakes.

[/quote]

If one rejects, by their free choice, the wisdom of God then they have turned from spiritual perfection and life to foolish error and death.


[FONT=&quot]Bridge of Restoration[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
In the persons of our original parents, Adam and Eve, God once walked with man. However, when sin came into the heart of man, that communion was broken. A righteous God could not walk arm in arm with sinful man. God had two choices. He could destroy these two people and not bother with mankind, or He could provide some way to restore that communion which was lost. We see His decision in Genesis 3:15.
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/phillips/phillips127.html

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm simply insisting that we be realistic with the texts, based upon cultural awareness and understanding. Since the fireman metaphor does not appear in the text, I don't understand either why he's using it, or what his point is -- unless it's to illustrate a twisted interpretation of some kind. since he's insisting that the laws be taken literally by us, I'd have to say that's what his motivation is here. Except that his insistence carries neither sense nor authority. Merely nuisance.

'Correct interpretation'

Your understanding is not congruent with a developed exegetical understanding of the text.

You're "observing" nothing. You're interpreting a text out of context and claiming "it is what it is."

Since your version of an exegetical understanding includes your deep, personal bias, your opinion of my conclusion is inconsequential. You reject anything taht actually anylizes the content, rather than the intent, of teh texts. To quote some flabby philosopher, "There's just more to it than what you state here."

I was presented with a metaphor concerning the text; it doesn't have to be present in the text, to discuss the text. I stayed within it and blew apart the hoped-for conclusion.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I still think you have the wrong understanding, whether it is sincere ignorance or deliberate as simply a way to excuse yourself from being accountable to God, I don’t know.

As a Heathen I am not acceptable to your God; I don't care what his rules are, they do not apply to me.

You can think what you like, but my observations are accurate given the actual content of the text.

I do think it is a false presumption to say that Adam and Eve were essentially idiot children. The text plainly states that God communicated with them and gave instructions and dominion over the plants, animals, garden and the earth. This clearly signifies that they were intelligent beings capable of comprehension and carrying out these responsibilities.

No, the text plainly states they were kept ignorant of Good and Evil. You are leaving out the most salient detail, because it renders this rather poorly-written story void of its hoped for message.

So they certainly were able to know it was right to obey the one command God gave them and wrong to disobey.

Except, they didn't. If they knew the difference between Good and Evil, then there is no reason to have a Tree in the Garden, whose fruit embodies and bestows this knowledge.

Even a little three year old at times looks a parent in the eyes understanding what the parent just said and goes ahead and deliberately does what they were just told not to do.

lol, really, they don't.

Adam and Eve were more advanced than a three year old and probably more advanced than us today

Please, this is just desperate now

because they had direct communication with God. It’s not that Adam and Eve didn’t understand God’s clear command it was that they choose to disobey His instruction and gain judgment of good and evil for themselves rather than trusting that such a position belonged to God. They wanted autonomy, they wanted to be a law unto themselves, and they wanted to be like God …instead of obeying God. Only God the Creator has the right or wisdom necessary to determine good or evil.

They had no idea of these concepts, so they could not desire them

The thing that changed is that the relationship they shared with God was broken. It was the choice to sin and rebel which altered this relationship between God and Adam and Eve and it is still sin and rebellion now which still alters it. God is not the cause.

So you cannot actually answer my question.

Was it spiritual or genetic?

If one rejects, by their free choice, the wisdom of God then they have turned from spiritual perfection and life to foolish error and death.

Choice is only morally culpable if it's informed; theirs was not, as I have shown.

 

[Thief]

As a Heathen I am not acceptable to your God; I don't care what his rules are, they do not apply to me.

Except, they didn't. If they knew the difference between Good and Evil, then there is no reason to have a Tree in the Garden, whose fruit embodies and bestows this knowledge.


Was it spiritual or genetic?


Choice is only morally culpable if it's informed; theirs was not, as I have shown.

It was spiritual and genetic.
The garden event was done to alter the body and spirit of Man.

And ignorance does not prevent consequence.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It was spiritual and genetic.
The garden event was done to alter the body and spirit of Man.

And ignorance does not prevent consequence.

It does if the consequence is based on morality, which is the case here

And since here you state it was done deliberately [reinforcing the idea of a set-up], well, that just flushes it farther down the toilet.

 

[Thief]

It does if the consequence is based on morality, which is the case here

And since here you state it was done deliberately [reinforcing the idea of a set-up], well, that just flushes it farther down the toilet.

There was no law.....only that one choice.
And the setup was performed only to be sure the alteration had taken hold.

Man was then released back into the environment.

And this digression helps your relationship with that Carpenter?

 

[FearGod]

it make no sense to me that someone will die because of the sins done by the
others,then the most funny of it that god the one to sacrifice for the sinners.

i do respect each one choice,but for me that is far from logic.

 

[Thief]

it make no sense to me that someone will die because of the sins done by the
others,then the most funny of it that god the one to sacrifice for the sinners.

i do respect each one choice,but for me that is far from logic.

Better late than never.
And several of us agree to that point.

Still the ministry of the Carpenter has sufficient teaching in it.
To walk in heaven without such learning?....without His word?

Salvation is being able to say, as heaven would say.
If your speech is deliberately contrary...why let you hang around?

That much keeps the Carpenter in the lead.

I suppose you could take the risk and speak for yourself....
However...
'Man is not defiled by what enters the mouth...but rather by what comes out.'

 

[sojourner]

i don't know about that...

in luke the jews were clearly responsible for jesus' crucifixion while pilate was finding ways to defend him

the same with john

Right. Which is why not everything about Jesus is politicized against the Romans. some sources skew that way -- others don't.

 

[sojourner]

You need a citation for the concept of Jesus' dying for other peoples' sins? I thought that was as basic as gravity in Christian theology.

Substitutionary atonement is not the only viable theological construct. It makes less sense to me than other constructs do.

 

[sojourner]

Since your version of an exegetical understanding includes your deep, personal bias, your opinion of my conclusion is inconsequential.

Hey, Einstein: "exegetical understanding" and "deep, personal bias" are mutually exclusive terms. Seems to me that you want the text to mean something dopey, so you say "well, that's what the text says" and then neglect to actually exegete it out.

I was presented with a metaphor concerning the text; it doesn't have to be present in the text, to discuss the text. I stayed within it and blew apart the hoped-for conclusion.

Ok, Young One, that method would constitute eisegesis.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hey, Einstein: "exegetical understanding" and "deep, personal bias" are mutually exclusive terms.

Then, as I keep pointing out, you're not presenting valid exegesis.

Ok, Young One, that method would constitute eisegesis.

Hey, Mary, I was reacting to a metaphor presented by someone else and therefore it matters not if that statement was itself exegesis. Wow. I think you need to take a break. Funny to watch you lose your fudge so easily though.

 

[IdiosyncrasyZ]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

They say God can do anything, but can he do anything without consequence. Does God create, or does he format?

Right off, I will say I don't know the answer but hear me out. I have always found it interesting how there must be opposites of symmetry. God and Devil. Angels and Demons. Heaven and Hell. Son of God and Son of Devil. I theorize that for God to let something happen he must also let the opposite happen. Good cant be good if there isn't something bad relative to it. He didn't kill the Devil, but banished him to his own dimension and allows him to have equal influence in the world.

That being said and following these same laws of symmetry. Maybe something pure needed to die for those who are impure to live. Just a thought.