Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Falvlun]

Good question, dont know what i was thinking there Look, the human sacrifice was Jesus laying down his life and as an atonement for mankind. When someone does wrong, they need to be held accountable for it in Gods eyes. The death of Jesus covered that accountability. So what is the beef that you have with this??

Note the part of your post I highlighted. That's the entire problem right there. Under this system, we are not being held accountable for our actions. We are not paying any debt. We are not being punished. Jesus (according to Christian theology) was the person who was punished for my wrong doing. How is that ME being held accountable for my actions?

If my parents grounded my sister because I talked back to them, how does that teach me anything? How am I being held accountable for my action? And importantly, How is justice occuring?

The other half of the problem has already been pointed out. Jesus is God. So Jesus (God) sacrificed himself to pay for a debt we owed him. If he was going to pay it anyway- and not going to make us pay for it (hold us accountable)- why not just say "Okay, it's payed, I forgive you."? What is the purpose of sacrificing yourself in order to forgive someone a debt that they owed to you, and particularly when you can make up any of the rules you want?

 

[filthy tugboat]

Good question, dont know what i was thinking there Look, the human sacrifice was Jesus laying down his life and as an atonement for mankind. When someone does wrong, they need to be held accountable for it in Gods eyes. The death of Jesus covered that accountability. So what is the beef that you have with this??

The beef is the notion of vicarious redemption. How can atonement be made? How can people be absolved of responsibility? Did they commit the crime in question? Yes. How can someone stop that from being true? If God judges people and hands out consequences as per that judgement, how can someone else atone for that persons crimes or remove their responsibility for their actions? I don't understand how it works at all.

Also, why did Jesus have to lay down his life for this to happen? God, being capable of anything and everything, could have found a human sacrifice free way could he not? Why was human sacrifice a necessary part in the equation?

 

[Thief]

The beef is the notion of vicarious redemption. How can atonement be made? How can people be absolved of responsibility? Did they commit the crime in question? Yes. How can someone stop that from being true? If God judges people and hands out consequences as per that judgement, how can someone else atone for that persons crimes or remove their responsibility for their actions? I don't understand how it works at all.

Also, why did Jesus have to lay down his life for this to happen? God, being capable of anything and everything, could have found a human sacrifice free way could he not? Why was human sacrifice a necessary part in the equation?

At this point I agree with you.

Sacrifice is a practice handed down from Cain and Abel.
The story withholds...'why'.
The story shows Abel's effort to be more acceptable, and that leans to believing the bloodletting, is the difference.

The practice continued, and the death of an animal with your sin upon it,
became the method of 'atonement'.
It seemed that sin could be removed from you, by touch, and transfered to a 'scapegoat'.

See the old testament and how Moses applied blood.

The practice continued onward, even into the days of Jesus.
(did you notice, doves were kept in the temple)

After the crucifixion event, the upcoming Christian faith dropped the bloodletting...physically, and turned to the Last Supper ritual.
This was easy to do as the Carpenter had compared His blood to the wine,
and the bread to His body.

It was supposed to be a metaphor.

Christian faith took it literally.

 

[opuntia]

First of all, what is sin? John states that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4; KJV). Paul says we "all have sinned." (Romans 3:23). Everyone has violated divine law.

So, if we are subject to a law, then the violation of it brings forth punishment. Every day people are being sent to jail or prison for violating state or federal laws, so we cannot be ignorant of how a law works.

Now then, what is the remedy for violating divine law? We must of course pay the penalty in the next world, i.e. Hell. Or, we may rely upon someone else to pay for our penalties, i.e. Jesus. He stands between us and the law which demands payment for its violation. We may by our faith obtain mercy and justice through Jesus or we may choose to pay for it ourselves--we are free to choose, free to believe or not in Jesus.

This, simply, is the plan of Heaven written in scripture.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Note the part of your post I highlighted. That's the entire problem right there. Under this system, we are not being held accountable for our actions. We are not paying any debt. We are not being punished. Jesus (according to Christian theology) was the person who was punished for my wrong doing. How is that ME being held accountable for my actions?

If my parents grounded my sister because I talked back to them, how does that teach me anything? How am I being held accountable for my action? And importantly, How is justice occuring?

The other half of the problem has already been pointed out. Jesus is God. So Jesus (God) sacrificed himself to pay for a debt we owed him. If he was going to pay it anyway- and not going to make us pay for it (hold us accountable)- why not just say "Okay, it's payed, I forgive you."? What is the purpose of sacrificing yourself in order to forgive someone a debt that they owed to you, and particularly when you can make up any of the rules you want?

I just got out of the military, and in the military, when someone get in trouble, depending on how serious it is, their punishment would be what is called "extra duty". And what that consist of is doing some weekend cleaning, either outside mowing the lawn, raking leaves, or inside wiping windows, sweeping, or mopping the floors. Now lets say that a particular building is filthy, and it needs to get clean because it is vacant now but it will be occupied in a few days. So it definately needs to get clean. Now lets say a soldier, named Peter, got in trouble for whatever reason. The person in charge of Peter, Sgt Jehovah, puts him on extra duty, and he had to spend the whole weekend cleaning whatever needed to be cleaned in the building. That was his punishment. This is the perfect punishment for him because he is being disciplined while simultaenously accomplishing another goal at the same time. Two birds with one stone. Now lets say Peter has a friend named Jesus, who just heard of all this. Jesus recognize the fact that his friend is in trouble and is being punished, which is unusual for Peter. Jesus, being the friend that he is, goes to Sgt Jehovah and says, "I understand that Peter has done wrong. I know him very well and this is not like him. He messed up this one time, and he is really sorry." Sgt Jehovah says, "Ok, I can understand that he is sorry, but he really screwed up, and something must be done. Besides, I could use him around here to clean up this place, because you know some new personnel will be occupying this building in a few days, and it must be clean by then." Jesus thinks to himself, and said to Sgt Jehovah, "I have an idea, if you can accept Peter's apology and let him off of the hook, I will clean this whole building for you, and it will indeed be clean in two days." Sgt Jehovah asks, "Dont you have something better to do this weekend?" "Yes I do", Jesus responded, "But Peter is my friend and I want to help him out in his time of trouble." Sgt Jehovah said to Jesus, "We need more like you. Ok, I accept. Tell Peter not to do it again. And you better get to work, because it is getting late" Now is this fair?

Now lets say that Jesus told Peter that he will only do this if Peter promised that he will try his very best not to get in trouble again. Peter accepts. Jesus does the work. Peter is pardoned for his wrongdoing, and the task of cleaning the building has been complete.

This is more accurate in how the atonement worked. Is this fair? Of course it is. Jesus wanted to save us just in the same way he wanted to save Peter. I dont see anything wrong with this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The beef is the notion of vicarious redemption. How can atonement be made? How can people be absolved of responsibility? Did they commit the crime in question? Yes. How can someone stop that from being true? If God judges people and hands out consequences as per that judgement, how can someone else atone for that persons crimes or remove their responsibility for their actions? I don't understand how it works at all.

Easy. So if my car is sitting in front of my house, and a drunk driver crashes in to it and totals it, I will want redemption. Lets say the drunk drivers friend knows that his friend is unable to pay for the damages, so he volunteers to pay for the damage that was committed by his friend. Now am I to say, "No, I dont want your money, i want his money!!!" Me personally, I wouldnt say that. I dont care which one pays for the damages, as long as it gets paid. Now yes, the drunk driver is liable, but there isn't a law that says that the person liable is the ONLY one that has to pay for the damages, if a third party chooses to pick up the tab.

Also, why did Jesus have to lay down his life for this to happen? God, being capable of anything and everything, could have found a human sacrifice free way could he not? Why was human sacrifice a necessary part in the equation?

Not really. God cannot do anything. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. God is the ultimate source of good and holyness. He is so holy that he cannot stand sin. He is so holy that sinful eyes cant even look at him and live. So with that being said, he cannot tolerate it. That is why when sin is worthy of death, and spiritual death marks the end, eternal separation from God. So the human sacrifice was absolutely necessary.

 

[Pegg]

Easy. So if my car is sitting in front of my house, and a drunk driver crashes in to it and totals it, I will want redemption. Lets say the drunk drivers friend knows that his friend is unable to pay for the damages, so he volunteers to pay for the damage that was committed by his friend. Now am I to say, "No, I dont want your money, i want his money!!!" Me personally, I wouldnt say that. I dont care which one pays for the damages, as long as it gets paid. Now yes, the drunk driver is liable, but there isn't a law that says that the person liable is the ONLY one that has to pay for the damages, if a third party chooses to pick up the tab.

Well said. thats a great illustration.

It helps us to see how Psalm 49:7 applies. "Not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him"
All mankind are like that drunk driver... lawbreakers without the means to pay the damages for our lawbreaking.

Then in Matthew 20:28 we see Jesus coming to the rescue to pay what we owe (our lives) to God ""Just as the Son of man came, not to be minstered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many"

Jesus had the means to pay and he gave it in our behalf...it was his perfect human life. ""Life for Life, Soul for Soul""

 

[SageTree]

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.

Jesus as a Man, God or what ever mix/ratio, imo, doesn't effect how I practice and understand Christianity.

I see a huge allegory for selflessness in the Crucifixion account, for instance...
Also, I see the resurrection as a way to visualize/understand our continual rebirth and rising to godly ways...

To me he didn't die FOR my sins, not to get into what sin means to me, rather Jesus showed a WAY to purify ourselves and correct our ways.
To come closer to the mark of goodness so I can be a better beacon of Light,
full of kindness and compassion, Illuminating my Life and if I can, those around me.

 

[SageTree]

I guess another way theologically speaking would be to say that Jesus and Mary's acceptance of God's will, was reconciling Adam and Eve's willing disobedience.

I could reason it out... and maybe find meaning in that... but it's not literally how I understand it.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Easy. So if my car is sitting in front of my house, and a drunk driver crashes in to it and totals it, I will want redemption.

Your want for redemption has nothing to do with the responsibility that is and always will be the drunk drivers.

Lets say the drunk drivers friend knows that his friend is unable to pay for the damages, so he volunteers to pay for the damage that was committed by his friend. Now am I to say, "No, I dont want your money, i want his money!!!" Me personally, I wouldnt say that. I dont care which one pays for the damages, as long as it gets paid.

The money is not the charge of responsibility, the money is to cover damages. The crime itself cannot be absolved by a third party, it is the responsibility of the offender.

Now yes, the drunk driver is liable,

I'm glad we agree. I would go so far as to suggest that this admission counters your entire argument.

but there isn't a law that says that the person liable is the ONLY one that has to pay for the damages, if a third party chooses to pick up the tab.

Can a third party pick up the responsibilities and take the punishment? No.

Not really. God cannot do anything. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.

Why not?

God is the ultimate source of good and holyness.

Maybe, maybe not. Even allowing God's divine inspiration as a part of the Biblical authorship does not necessarily guarantee this, if anything, it brings it more in question. He could have lied about this.

He is so holy that he cannot stand sin. He is so holy that sinful eyes cant even look at him and live. So with that being said, he cannot tolerate it.

Granted for the sake of your argument.

That is why when sin is worthy of death, and spiritual death marks the end, eternal separation from God. So the human sacrifice was absolutely necessary.

I'm still waiting for an explanation. You have provided several premises that I will grant and then presented a conclusion that does not follow from the aforementioned premises. If sin is worthy of death, how is human sacrifice needed to change it so that sin is no longer worthy of death? If sin is worthy of death, how does human sacrifice allow for vicarious redemption? How can someone absolve the sins of others or bare the responsibility?

 

[idav]

Jesus as a Man, God or what ever mix/ratio, imo, doesn't effect how I practice and understand Christianity.

I see a huge allegory for selflessness in the Crucifixion account, for instance...
Also, I see the resurrection as a way to visualize/understand our continual rebirth and rising to godly ways...

To me he didn't die FOR my sins, not to get into what sin means to me, rather Jesus showed a WAY to purify ourselves and correct our ways.
To come closer to the mark of goodness so I can be a better beacon of Light,
full of kindness and compassion, Illuminating my Life and if I can, those around me.

I have a way of reconciling it but it isn't mainstream. The main idea is god forgiving. If Jesus being sinless, whether god or son of god, forgives man then we are forgiven by god. As he stated "forgive them for they know not what they do", it was a pivotal moment of forgiveness especially if it is really god asking himself to forgive them for crucifying an innocent man who happens to be a son. Just the sign of being forgiven for such a transgression means that we can be forgiven for just about anything however I don't feel that it is an automatic thing especially not for mere belief.

 

[Koldo]

Easy. So if my car is sitting in front of my house, and a drunk driver crashes in to it and totals it, I will want redemption. Lets say the drunk drivers friend knows that his friend is unable to pay for the damages, so he volunteers to pay for the damage that was committed by his friend. Now am I to say, "No, I dont want your money, i want his money!!!" Me personally, I wouldnt say that. I dont care which one pays for the damages, as long as it gets paid. Now yes, the drunk driver is liable, but there isn't a law that says that the person liable is the ONLY one that has to pay for the damages, if a third party chooses to pick up the tab.

Another flawed analogy.
In this analogy, you are also the drunk driver's friend that pays for the damage.
In other words, you are paying it to yourself.

Not really. God cannot do anything. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. God is the ultimate source of good and holyness. He is so holy that he cannot stand sin. He is so holy that sinful eyes cant even look at him and live. So with that being said, he cannot tolerate it. That is why when sin is worthy of death, and spiritual death marks the end, eternal separation from God. So the human sacrifice was absolutely necessary.

Are you really saying God is not omnipotent?

 

[waitasec]

Because God is righteouss. Sin cannot exist in His presence without judgement.

Quantrill

but the sin isn't gods...
so why must he deal with it?

 

[Quantrill]

but the sin isn't gods...
so why must he deal with it?

Because He wanted to create man to live and dwell with Him forever. And they cannot do that with sin.

Quantrill

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Another flawed analogy.
In this analogy, you are also the drunk driver's friend that pays for the damage.
In other words, you are paying it to yourself.

No im not. Dont see how you got that out of the analogy

Are you really saying God is not omnipotent?

God is not omnipotent in the sense that he cant do things that are logically impossible. He cannot make a squared circle or a married bachelor. Those are logical contradictions, categorical errors.

 

[Falvlun]

No im not. Dont see how you got that out of the analogy.

That was the part that was missing in your analogy. Jesus is God, right? All your analogies liken Jesus's atonement of our sins to be like a friend offering to pay off our debt for us. The problem with this form of analogy is that in the case of God and our sins, our debt is to God and the friend paying off our debt is also God. So God is paying himself the debt that we owe him.

God could have just as easily payed off that debt by saying "Okay, I forgive this debt, it's gone." If my friend owed me money for damaging my car, does it make sense for me to take money out of my bank account and then pay myself the money my friend owed me in order to absolve him of his debt? Or would it make more sense to just say "Hey, buddy, don't worry about it. I forgive your debt to me."?

God is not omnipotent in the sense that he cant do things that are logically impossible. He cannot make a squared circle or a married bachelor. Those are logical contradictions, categorical errors.

Even if we grant your claim that it is a logical impossibility for God to be in the presence of sin, there is still no logical impossibility for him coming up with some simple and sensible plan for removing that sin. There is no universal law stating that a sacrifice is the only way to remove sin. And there is also no universal law saying that every single instance of sin must be punished with eternity in hell. God (according to your theology) made up both those rules, both which are completely unnecessary.

He could have made it possible for us to absolve our own sins, by doing acts of kindness or working off our debt as a janitor in heaven or something like that for a decade or so. It was his call.

 

[waitasec]

Because He wanted to create man to live and dwell with Him forever. And they cannot do that with sin.

Quantrill

if god wants man to live and dwell with him forever, without sin, why not just create him with out the predisposition of being able to understand or know good from evil? isn't that going to be the end result as god himself said

gen3:21 ... 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

so in order to live and dwell with god one has to go back to the original state god created man to be in...ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your want for redemption has nothing to do with the responsibility that is and always will be the drunk drivers.

So what. The drunk driver has done me wrong (my property), and this wrong was made right by his friend offering to cover the damages. We do God wrong (by sinning), and our wrong is made right by Jesus dying and covering the damages (offending a holy God and deserving death).

The money is not the charge of responsibility, the money is to cover damages. The crime itself cannot be absolved by a third party, it is the responsibility of the offender.

Right, the money is to cover the damages, and the death of Jesus was also to cover the damages for the sin of mankind. Now of course, there are times when a person still has to suffer the consequences of their actions, but this is only a small debt compared to what they would receive if Jesus did not cover us with his death.

I'm glad we agree. I would go so far as to suggest that this admission counters your entire argument.

I dont see how. Show me a law where it states that the person held liable is the only person that can pay a debt. If a judge orders me to pay 5k in restitution, I can ask my friend to lend me 5k to cover the restitution. Thus, restitution is paid.

Can a third party pick up the responsibilities and take the punishment? No.

Depends on the punishment. You keep looking at it in terms of prison sentence. But according to the bible, we should look at it in terms of a ransom (Mark 10:45, 1Tim 2:6, Heb 9:15), and in this context, a ransom is defined "as rescue or redeem somebody: to rescue or redeem somebody, especially by a self-sacrificing act, and especially from sin or its punishment (literary)"

Why not?

Because he is a God of logical and reason and bound by the laws of logic and reason. This mean that he cant do things that are contrary to his nature. He cannot contradict logic, like creating squared circles and such.

Maybe, maybe not. Even allowing God's divine inspiration as a part of the Biblical authorship does not necessarily guarantee this, if anything, it brings it more in question. He could have lied about this.

Well, do you go about life assuming that people are liars until they can first prove to you their truthfulness? Or do you go about life assuming that people are truthful until they give you a reason to think otherwise. When I read biblical scriptures, I dont see God as a liar, I see him as someone that is morally perfect and truthful, and when I begin to see otherwise I will abandon the religion and believe in absurdities like evolution, and the universe creating itself from nothing, like some of you people on here believe.

I'm still waiting for an explanation. You have provided several premises that I will grant and then presented a conclusion that does not follow from the aforementioned premises. If sin is worthy of death, how is human sacrifice needed to change it so that sin is no longer worthy of death? If sin is worthy of death, how does human sacrifice allow for vicarious redemption? How can someone absolve the sins of others or bare the responsibility?

I answered this question in another post that didn't get any responses. People just blew it off and continued to make misleading posts based on ignorance. But in a nutshell, this is pure Christian theology.

First of all, God is morally perfect. He is the ultimate source of what it means to be good. So with that being said, anything less than that is pure filth to him, an abomination to him. So he creates man, and man sins. Now, when you sin, you are sinning against someone that is morally perfect. You dont deserve to live. So since the fall of man, God created a system to where sinful man could live in his presence, and have atonement for their less than perfect lifestyles. This system consisted of offering animal sacrifices to God. Since the wages of sin is death, the animal (who is not a moral agent) was offered to take the place of the human that sinned. The animals were put to death instead of man. Get it so far??

Under the new covenant (thus, Christianity), there is a different system in place. Under this system, we no longer have to slaughter animals for our sins. Jesus, choose to come on earth and shed his perfect blood for the sins of EVERYONE. That is why he is called "The lamb" (John 1:29, Acts 8:32, 1Peter 1:19). Remember, animals are not moral agents, they dont sin. Since Jesus was morally perfect, his death was sufficient to provide that "old school" atonement for sins. But his death was sufficient was not just one person, but for EVERYONE. All we have to do is believe it. So that is Christianity to the core. Do you understand?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That was the part that was missing in your analogy. Jesus is God, right? All your analogies liken Jesus's atonement of our sins to be like a friend offering to pay off our debt for us. The problem with this form of analogy is that in the case of God and our sins, our debt is to God and the friend paying off our debt is also God. So God is paying himself the debt that we owe him.

Jesus covered our sins in the same way I can cover the cost of damages done by my friend, even if I am paying towards my own coverage. If my friend gets drunk and picks up a bat and bust out the windows of my car, I can FREELY choose to pay for the damages myself. Can I not?? I dont know about you but that sounds like a good friend, a friend that you shouldnt take advantage of.

God could have just as easily payed off that debt by saying "Okay, I forgive this debt, it's gone."

Forgiveness only means that you wont walk around with a grey cloud over your head. Sometimes we still have to bear the consequences of our actions. When David sinned with Bathesheba, he was forgiven, but he still had to suffer the consequences of his actions, the death of his child. Once his disciplinary action was over, his sin was never remembered by God again.

If my friend owed me money for damaging my car, does it make sense for me to take money out of my bank account and then pay myself the money my friend owed me in order to absolve him of his debt? Or would it make more sense to just say "Hey, buddy, don't worry about it. I forgive your debt to me."?

Kind of like the same example i used above lol. Depends on the type of friend you are. You can either choose to forgive the friend AND pay off his debt, or you can forgive your friend, and still make him pay off the debt. Forgiving someone doesnt necessarily mean that you wont have a person pay you restitution. You can either say "Hey buddy, dont worry about it, I got it covered, you dont owe me anything", or you can say "Hey buddy, i forgive you and all, but this Xbox that you smashed cost 300 bucks, so you should pay for it sense you smashed it". Now in both cases, there is forgiveness, but both cases differ in whether or not RESTITUTION will be paid.

Even if we grant your claim that it is a logical impossibility for God to be in the presence of sin, there is still no logical impossibility for him coming up with some simple and sensible plan for removing that sin. There is no universal law stating that a sacrifice is the only way to remove sin. And there is also no universal law saying that every single instance of sin must be punished with eternity in hell. God (according to your theology) made up both those rules, both which are completely unnecessary.

Well, on judgement day, bring that to Gods attention. Say to him "your system of allowing sinful beings to go to hell is completely unnecessary".

 

[idav]

Call of the wild: It seems to me that your saying two contradictory things. On one side your saying that we need to be held accountable but then your saying in the same breath that jesus died so that we are forgiven without needing to be held accountable. How are you reconciling this contradiction, I must have missed it? Are we to be held accountable or not?