Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Falvlun]

The money IS leaving God. Jesus spirit LEFT his body, and his body was dead. So Jesus' spirit left his body, and it went to not himself, but to the Father, who is the first person of the Trinity. So had to "take the money out", which is relative to his soul being "taken out" of his body when he died.

Creative explanation.

But (don't you hate the but's ), that really only works if God is 3 separate gods. If God is One, then that is analogous to me transferring the money from my right hand to my left hand. A different part of me now has the money, but it still has never left me.

It removed the consequences of spiritual death, which is separation from God (hell). This is the death that we all deserve. So his death remove that aspect, which is pretty big, especially if you believe in the literal hell. That is why John 3:16 says ".....whoever believes in him shall not perish...but have everlasting life." So in contrast to that, if you dont believe in him, you wont have everlasting life. Now, Jesus death did not cover God choosing to discipline us when we do wrong. Thats a different story.

Okay, I see what you are saying.

You keep comparing it to him paying himself, when this is not the case. It is not the same as me taking money out of my wallet, and the putting it back in to my wallet. The money that is paid is for the PURPOSE of fixing the damages to my car. Now yes, the money that I am paying is going to a third party. But so did the spirit of Jesus. His death was for the PURPOSE of fixing the damages (or repairing the relationship) between fallen man and God. The "money" that Jesus paid was his life, when his spirit left his body, and went to a third party (The Father). Damage repaired.

Again, if God is One God, and not 3 separate gods, the payment is going to himself. This is apparent because God is not diminished by Jesus' sacrifice; he is still complete, no? The sum of his parts still equals 100%. This would not be the case if the payment was going to someone outside the Trinity.

The thing is, there are other issues with the whole analogy that I was trying to touch on with the lack of logical necessity bit.

The cost of sin is not a universal constant, nor is it set by someone/thing other than God. In other words, God had control over how much sin cost, and the method in which it must be payed. It's not like a car window where the cost of the damage done is set by someone besides you.

This scenario is more like the cost associated with the damages of a friend deeply offending you. A consequence (damage) is incurred and amends need to be made, but what sort of consequence and amends depends on you; there is no set price on offense. You can choose whatever consequence and whatever payment that is required to fix the damage done to you. You have decided that the consequence (the damage) is that you can't be friends until the price is paid. The price you have chosen is a pint of moon dust, retrieved by unicorn. There is no way your friend can repay you and he must suffer the effects of the consequence that you chose.

Alas, you decided that you don't like the consequences you set because you still want to be his friend. But you're in luck! You own the only space-unicorn in the galaxy. So, being a good friend, you offer to take your space-unicorn to the moon and bring back the pint of moon dust. The cost of the offense will be payed. You will be able to be friends again.

This is how I see what God did. Yes, it's very kind of him to want to be friends with me despite me being a jerk, and yes, it's kind that he ultimately decided to pay the cost incurred by my damages. But, the whole thing comes off as rather unwieldy and unnecessary, does it not?

 

[Falvlun]

That is your opinion. In my eyes, it makes perfect sense. Instead of having every single person die for their sins, God set up a system where only one person died and that death covered everyone. That makes a lot of sense to me.

It really doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or I. You made a point that since God is super-holy, it is logically necessary that he cannot accept sin in his presence.

Okay, fine. God cannot have sin in his presence. But nothing else-- none of the ways God chose to deal with this-- are logically necessary.

God didnt allow one man to let sin enter the world. God gave everyone free will, and you cant "make" someone "freely" choose to do something.

How do you interpret Romans 5:12? ( Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned&#8212. I do know some Christians don't ascribe to original sin theology, but I'm curious as to how you reconcile it with other aspects.

For instance, I didn't get the choice not to eat the fruit. I am being punished by Adam's sin since I was born into a world cursed by the effects of his sin, which in turn, makes it much harder, if not impossible, for me to make it through life without sinning.

Under the new covernant, Jesus death was sufficient enough to cover all types of sins, from murder to petty theft.

They still all cost the same, though. Don't you find it strange that a serial murderer and Mother Theresa were equally hell-destined, if not for Jesus' atonement?

It is a logical necessity when it is a sin against a Holy God

If you sin against a Holy God, death awaits.

Only because that is the price God chose to set upon the damages done to him. He could have chosen a different price. An all powerful God is not forced to do anything, which includes setting death as the consequence for sin, or a spotless sacrifice as the only acceptable payment.

Far from "choices". God makes decisions based on his holy character.

Who made God's character? Does not God get to decide what he wants? He has complete control.

So far you have done a good job of claiming that a being that cant make a wrong decision, that he made a wrong decision.

I apologize for getting carried away. My main point in this whole thing is that God's price, consequence, and plan for paying it were not inherently necessary; the cookie could crumble differently, and God is in control of how it crumbled. I think a good case can be made for that claim.

You are right in pointing out that any inference based upon that point is much more dependent upon personal taste. You can look upon such a plan, and believe that it is probably the best possible of plans. Or, you can look on such a plan, as I have done, and think that it really makes no sense at all.

 

[Quantrill]

I've been told by believers that Lucifer was the overseeing (guardian) angel of Eden, how then could Satan have done anything. If Lucifer was still an angel then Satan didn't exist.

I haven't heard of Lucifer having been a gaurdian angel over Eden. I do believe Scriptures indicate that Lucifer had access to the Eden upon earth prior to his fall. But that Eden was different than the one where Adam and Eve were placed. Possibly the same area, but different in time, and condition.

So, Lucifer prior to the fall had acess to the Eden of God and did visit it. After the fall he went to the Eden where Adam and Eve were, and indwelt the serpent.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

interesting...they were kicked out of the garden for attaining knowledge
gen 3:22
so that means when you're in paradice you'll be just as ignorant...
does that mean that good and evil acts can happen while not being aware of it...cool :sarcastic

No, they fell because they disobeyed God. They were kicked out because God didn't want them to eat of the tree of life lest they live forever in their sin.

No, as I said, we who are believers of God, Christians at this time, will grow in knowledg of God forever.

If there is anything God doesn't want me to know, then I don't want to know it.

Quantrill

 

[meddlehaze]

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.

God in His omnipotence, love and grace provided a way of escape for us undeserving sinners.

How can you prove to God that you have never lied, cheated, stole, hated, gossiped, etc?

Jesus is the one who justifies us of our wrong-doings because He did no wrong. We cannot justify ourselves because we have certainly committed these crimes.

 

[fishy]

I haven't heard of Lucifer having been a gaurdian angel over Eden. I do believe Scriptures indicate that Lucifer had access to the Eden upon earth prior to his fall. But that Eden was different than the one where Adam and Eve were placed. Possibly the same area, but different in time, and condition.

So, Lucifer prior to the fall had acess to the Eden of God and did visit it. After the fall he went to the Eden where Adam and Eve were, and indwelt the serpent.

Quantrill

Exactly how many Edens did we have and what were the others used for? Other failed experiments?

 

[filthy tugboat]

God in His omnipotence, love and grace provided a way of escape for us undeserving sinners.

How can you prove to God that you have never lied, cheated, stole, hated, gossiped, etc?

Jesus is the one who justifies us of our wrong-doings because He did no wrong. We cannot justify ourselves because we have certainly committed these crimes.

This didn't really answer the question though did it? The question was, why was human sacrifice necessary? Why did Jesus have to die in order to accomplish what he supposedly accomplished? Couldn't God have just made it happen without the Jesus fiasco? Or does God really like human sacrifice? I don't think Christianity is ever going to be able to escape it's pagan roots, it still comes off as a pagan religion.

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly how many Edens did we have and what were the others used for? Other failed experiments?

that's the first I've heard of more than one Eden too. :sarcastic

 

[Falvlun]

God in His omnipotence, love and grace provided a way of escape for us undeserving sinners.

Okay. Why didn't he just forgive us, if he was going to pay for it anyway?

 

[fishy]

God in His omnipotence, love and grace provided a way of escape for us undeserving sinners.

How can you prove to God that you have never lied, cheated, stole, hated, gossiped, etc?

Jesus is the one who justifies us of our wrong-doings because He did no wrong. We cannot justify ourselves because we have certainly committed these crimes.

What are you on about? It's your omnipotent god's decision, he can decide whatever he wants. Why would he demand an obscene human blood sacrifice?
Does this seem familiar?

Sacrifice was a common theme in Mesoamerican cultures. In the Aztec "Legend of the Five Suns", all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a body of Franciscans confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows:
Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life.... They produce our sustenance... which nourishes life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture)

 

[meddlehaze]

This didn't really answer the question though did it? The question was, why was human sacrifice necessary? Why did Jesus have to die in order to accomplish what he supposedly accomplished? Couldn't God have just made it happen without the Jesus fiasco? Or does God really like human sacrifice? I don't think Christianity is ever going to be able to escape it's pagan roots, it still comes off as a pagan religion.

The answer is in the last 2 sentences of my previous post.

 

[meddlehaze]

Okay. Why didn't he just forgive us, if he was going to pay for it anyway?

What are you on about? It's your omnipotent god's decision, he can decide whatever he wants. Why would he demand an obscene human blood sacrifice?
Does this seem familiar?

Sacrifice was a common theme in Mesoamerican cultures. In the Aztec "Legend of the Five Suns", all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the , a body of Franciscans confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows:
Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life.... They produce our sustenance... which nourishes life

It humbles His people, to fulfill Isaiah 53, blah blah blah. It was part of His plan. Why questions are ultimately futile for the person of disbelief. It's hard to say that any answer will appease you.

Fishy, the Aztecs do not compare to Christianity or the cross of Christ. For one, the Aztecs ritualistically sacrificed humans, did they not? Christ was the first and last for Christianity and He didn't even deserve it, like I do.

 

[Koldo]

The answer is in the last 2 sentences of my previous post.

It is not.

God could just say 'Thou are forgiven'. And that is it. No sacrifice needed. No need for justification.

 

[meddlehaze]

It is not.

God could just say 'Thou are forgiven'. And that is it. No sacrifice needed. No need for justification.

We can come up with alternatives, but does that really object anything? He chose the foolish things of the world to confound the "wise". (1 Cor. 18-21)

 

[filthy tugboat]

The answer is in the last 2 sentences of my previous post.

That's not a response to the question, it has nothing to do with the motives for human sacrifice. Why did God favor human sacrifice over alternatives that accomplished the same goal without sacrificing people?

 

[filthy tugboat]

We can come up with alternatives, but does that really object anything?

It shows either that the Bible is a bit ridiculous and illogical, or that God favored human sacrifice over non-human sacrifice, exposing Christianity for the Pagan rituals it still observes.

He chose the foolish things of the world to confound the "wise". (1 Cor. 18-21)

Are you calling me wise? Why thank you. It's a shame that the rest of it is complete hogwash. It's a justification for stupidity to be believed in the face of logic, reason and evidence.

 

[meddlehaze]

That's not a response to the question, it has nothing to do with the motives for human sacrifice. Why did God favor human sacrifice over alternatives that accomplished the same goal without sacrificing people?

Because we are humans and He took our place as a human. He fulfilled what we can't fulfill and that is perfect obedience to His ordinances.

It shows either that the Bible is a bit ridiculous and illogical, or that God favored human sacrifice over non-human sacrifice, exposing Christianity for the Pagan rituals it still observes.

We don't sacrifice humans nor are we ever told to. God didn't favor human sacrifice, He favored fully human, fully God sacrifice. There is a difference.

Are you calling me wise? Why thank you. It's a shame that the rest of it is complete hogwash. It's a justification for stupidity to be believed in the face of logic, reason and evidence.

To each his own.

 

[fishy]

It humbles His people, to fulfill Isaiah 53, blah blah blah. It was part of His plan. Why questions are ultimately futile for the person of disbelief. It's hard to say that any answer will appease you.

Fishy, the Aztecs do not compare to Christianity or the cross of Christ. For one, the Aztecs ritualistically sacrificed humans, did they not? Christ was the first and last for Christianity and He didn't even deserve it, like I do.

This might help.
Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life ...Aztec
Life is because of Christ: with his sacrifice he gave us life.......Christian

Notice anything?

 

[Sleeppy]

This might help.
Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life ...Aztec
Life is because of Christ: with his sacrifice he gave us life.......Christian

Notice anything?

Aztec? What's the point here?

 

[Koldo]

We can come up with alternatives, but does that really object anything? He chose the foolish things of the world to confound the "wise". (1 Cor. 18-21)

Shall i understand it as that you are unable to explain why the sacrifice was performed?