Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Thief]

I have no idea what you mean by those last two lines, your writing style is very hard to understand at times. Why do you type like that?

Many participants here attempt to dismiss a line of thought by saying it's all a myth.

If so, then events such as the Garden never happened.
Moses lied.
Jesus was delusional.
And most of the world is insane.

Interaction with the Creator is essential.
But the intent of Man's creation would be your unique perspective.
His Voice in your ear would lessen that development.

So some of us listen and then report....proselytizing.
And here at the forum we label that by the word.... 'believe'.
A fine line, but one that the mods seem to insist upon.

The method of display is developed.
I've been here for a while.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

We were discussing the obvious malicious intent of God holding an ingenue pair responsible for a moral choice they were incapable of making, thanks to his deliberate meddling with their awareness. Also at issue was what the manner of transformation their punishment took: genetic or spiritual. Can any valid posters take a shot at either of these issues?

Sorry lads and lasses, I've been gone for two weeks so let's resurrect an old thread!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

FINE.

Simple fact is if Jesus 'HAD' to die to accomplish some goal (such as for our sins to be forgiven) then that implies that there is a limit to God's power in that such a sacrifice was -required- (mandated according to what rules or limitations is unspecified) in order to accomplish that goal, that such an achievement could not have been done without the sacrifice.

Therefore if one holds to an omnipotent god concept, Jesus did not have to die, but rather for whatever reason God and/or Jesus decided to that Jesus would die.

 

[John Boanerges]

FINE.

Simple fact is if Jesus 'HAD' to die to accomplish some goal (such as for our sins to be forgiven) then that implies that there is a limit to God's power in that such a sacrifice was -required- (mandated according to what rules or limitations is unspecified) in order to accomplish that goal, that such an achievement could not have been done without the sacrifice.

Therefore if one holds to an omnipotent god concept, Jesus did not have to die, but rather for whatever reason God and/or Jesus decided to that Jesus would die.

We must understand that God is omnipotent in His potential BUT that He has made promises to us through His Word that now limits His powers in this world. God cannot lie and therefore must hold to those promises which in turn limits His power (basically saying, if you do this, I will do that).

This is the topic of the "sovereignty of God", something that EVERYONE should study. If we understood this, then we would stop pointing an accusing finger at God for the evil in this world and point it where it belongs...at man.

For instance, He cannot make us do things against our will.Therefore, the goal of sanctification is to have us voluntarily convert our will to His so that He can empower us to accomplish His will here on earth...as it is in Heaven. Every man is given a measure of faith but it is by choice that we act on this faith. In other words, He knocks but we must answer.

Free will was an essential part of Creation, but...it unlocked Pandora's Box. MAN chose "sin", opening that Box, bringing sin into the world. And...ALL of us are guilty. Therefore, we ALL need a Savior...a Redeemer...everyone, without exception (Jesus being the only one to be without sin).

And God offers this salvation freely to EVERYONE. Most have still not grasped what Jesus meant when He said "It is finished". (Might wanna look that one up.)

 

[waitasec]

We must understand that God is omnipotent in His potential BUT that He has made promises to us through His Word that now limits His powers in this world.

*sigh*
where did you get that idea from and how do you establish that as a fact?
if you tell me you got that idea from the bible, then you are stuck in circular logic mode...you need to qualify the bible with a criteria in order to establish what the bible is saying is true...you cannot. the bible isn't the criteria the bible is a claim...it's all fluff with nothing to back it up other than making these baseless claims...which come from the bible
i getting dizzy.
:faint:

why else would god be limited?

 

[sojourner]

God cannot lie

God lied to Adam and Eve.

He cannot make us do things against our will.

God made Uzzah die. That was certainly not Uzzah's will.

 

[PolyHedral]

God cannot lie

It is not possible for you to support this statement.

 

[waitasec]

God lied to Adam and Eve.

i never understood that logic. god didn't lie...a & e died, didn't they?
metaphorically speaking of course...

 

[sojourner]

i never understood that logic. god didn't lie...a & e died, didn't they?
metaphorically speaking of course...

Yes, but not that day. the text reads that they would die the day they ate the fruit. The serpent stated that they would not die -- that their eyes would be opened and that they would become like God.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, but not that day. the text reads that they would die the day they ate the fruit. The serpent stated that they would not die -- that their eyes would be opened and that they would become like God.

i don't see that. "you will surely die" doesn't mean that they will die that day, metaphorically speaking...

the serpent lied and told the truth...they did die and their eyes were opened.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Yes, but not that day. the text reads that they would die the day they ate the fruit. The serpent stated that they would not die -- that their eyes would be opened and that they would become like God.

On the contrary they did die that day, Spiritually and the the physical death followed which continues till this day as a result. Spiritual death does not have to continue though.the serpent was the liar though. He presented a half truth which in essence was a lie. Yes, we would become "like" God knowing good and evil, but the lie that was implied was that we would become gods ourselves.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

i don't see that. "you will surely die" doesn't mean that they will die that day, metaphorically speaking...

the serpent lied and told the truth...they did die and their eyes were opened.

The actual Hebrew does not specify a distant future; it essentially reads like a warning against eating poison. The serpent did not, actually, lie at all, and God definitely did. he also lied by omission concerning the subsequent passing on the sin and death [not that Adam and eve knew what death was, anyway] to their offspring.

The concept of 'spiritual death' is an apologetic falsehood made up after to cover for the fact that God clearly lies.

 

[waitasec]

The actual Hebrew does not specify a distant future; it essentially reads like a warning against eating poison.

ah, that i did not know. thank you for pointing that out.

The serpent did not, actually, lie at all, and God definitely did. he also lied by omission concerning the subsequent passing on the sin and death [not that Adam and eve knew what death was, anyway] to their offspring.

metaphorically speaking, that thought has occurred to me...how would they understand what death was...?

The concept of 'spiritual death' is an apologetic falsehood made up after to cover for the fact that God clearly lies.

agreed... but i would change it to lied (metaphorically speaking). man made gods do not lie, man does.

hence this meaningless tangent...

On the contrary they did die that day, Spiritually and the the physical death followed which continues till this day as a result.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's all good, mate

 

[sojourner]

i don't see that. "you will surely die" doesn't mean that they will die that day, metaphorically speaking...

the serpent lied and told the truth...they did die and their eyes were opened.

Gen 2:17
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

The text is clear that God told them they would die the day they ate the fruit. According to the story, that did not happen.

God lied. They didn't die the day they ate it. The serpent told the truth: Their eyes were opened.

Again: You're reading too much into it.

 

[sojourner]

On the contrary they did die that day, Spiritually and the the physical death followed which continues till this day as a result. Spiritual death does not have to continue though.the serpent was the liar though. He presented a half truth which in essence was a lie. Yes, we would become "like" God knowing good and evil, but the lie that was implied was that we would become gods ourselves.

You're superimposing subsequent Xtian theology onto the theology that's inherently in the story. You're committing eisegesis -- reading into the text what isn't there. It's not talking about "spiritual death." It's talking about physical death. Which didn't happen the day they ate the fruit.

The theology inherent in the story is that there is a line between humanity and divinity that may not be crossed. It was, and consequences eventuated. The story is congruent with other wisdom myths of the time and place.

 

[waitasec]

Gen 2:17
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

The text is clear that God told them they would die the day they ate the fruit. According to the story, that did not happen.

yes i see that now....selective memory loss

thanks.

 

[John Boanerges]

God lied to Adam and Eve.

How did God lie to Adam and Eve? He was talking about their spiritual death, not their physical death. There was immediate evidence of this spiritual death - their shame, covering their bodies and hiding from God.

God made Uzzah die. That was certainly not Uzzah's will.

Apples and oranges. God did not make Uzzah kill himself, which would be more in line with making him do something against his will.

Yes, in OT times, God did smite many of his enemies and even some for violating what seemed like petty violations or disobedience of direct orders/laws (e.g Uzzah's touching of the Arc of the Covenant when expressly told not to). They even tied ropes around the priest's ankles to pull them out of the Holy of Holies if they were smitten while in there due to not worthy of being there. (Yes...Raiders of the Lost Ark kinda stuff.)

God handled things quite differently in the OT, but for good reason. If I have to explain that to you, then we are both wasting our time replying to each others posts.

 

[waitasec]

How did God lie to Adam and Eve? He was talking about their spiritual death, not their physical death. There was immediate evidence of this spiritual death - their shame, covering their bodies and hiding from God.



Apples and oranges. God did not make Uzzah kill himself, which would be more in line with making him do something against his will.

Yes, in OT times, God did smite many of his enemies and even some for violating what seemed like petty violations or disobedience of direct orders/laws (e.g Uzzah's touching of the Arc of the Covenant when expressly told not to). They even tied ropes around the priest's ankles to pull them out of the Holy of Holies if they were smitten while in there due to not worthy of being there. (Yes...Raiders of the Lost Ark kinda stuff.)

metaphorically speaking, god ordered the massacre of the midianites, did they want to die? ...but that's ok just as long god condoned it, right?

God handled things quite differently in the OT, but for good reason. If I have to explain that to you, then we are both wasting our time replying to each others posts.

how quaintly convenient for you...must be nice.

 

[sojourner]

He was talking about their spiritual death, not their physical death.

No. He wasn't. It's a difference between eisegesis and exegesis.

God handled things quite differently in the OT, but for good reason. If I have to explain that to you, then we are both wasting our time replying to each others posts.

No, we perceived God as handling things quite differently in the OT.

Based on your posts thus far, I'm doubtful you could adequately explain "cold" to an eskimo.