Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Koldo]

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.

And why would he favor this sacrifice?
Why would he sacrifice something to himself?
What would the point be?

 

[meddlehaze]

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?

Yeah, gods and Christ.
Also, a Christian would say, "Life is Christ" not because of Him (Philippians 1:21, John 14:6).

It sounds like you're trying to assert a position that Christianity plagiarized the Aztecs.
First, we didn't even know the Aztecs existed until the late 13th century.
It's difficult for me to say that the Christians plagiarized Aztec mythology due to how ridiculously far they were from each other. Christianity began in Turkey and the Aztec in Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Also, most of their beliefs differ greatly.

 

[meddlehaze]

And why would he favor this sacrifice?

He told the Children of Israel to obey His ordinances, which they couldn't. Jesus fulfilled it for anyone who believes in Him.
Hosea 6:6 "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

Why would he sacrifice something to himself?

Because He is holy and we are not.

What would the point be?

Eternal forgiveness.

As I stated earlier, 'why questions' are often futile for the unbeliever.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Because we are humans and He took our place as a human.

Some people seem to think so.

He fulfilled what we can't fulfill and that is perfect obedience to His ordinances.

So humans cannot do this? Yet God became a human and he did this? Therefore, God did not become a human. He may have looked like one and said he was one but if the premise is true, he could not have been a human.

We don't sacrifice humans nor are we ever told to.

I never said you did or that you were told to, I said that God favored human sacrifice and that Christianity is buried in Pagan mythology and rituals.

God didn't favor human sacrifice, He favored fully human, fully God sacrifice. There is a difference.

You seem to be using the word "fully" incorrectly. This use of the term violates the logical law of identity. If Jesus was fully man, then he was a man, if he was fully God then he was a God. How can he be fully man and fully God unless being God entails being man or if being man entails being God.

So basically, for Jesus to be fully man and fully God, being fully one of them intrinsically entails being fully the other. So either all humans are Gods as well or all Gods are humans as well. Unless either of these are true, the original assertion cannot be true.

To each his own.

What else can be made of that statement? It devalues wisdom as something that will be counterproductive. If truth will be seen by the wise as folly then it can only be seen for what it is by fools. This statement could be taken to suggest that the Bible calls all of it's adherents fools. Do you agree with it? You tried to use it to suggest that I(being wise) could not see the truth of the matter because God made the wise see the truth as foolishness. By extension, those who are unwise(fools) are the only ones capable of recognizing the truth. You're the one who brought this up, not me.

 

[Koldo]

He told the Children of Israel to obey His ordinances, which they couldn't. Jesus fulfilled it for anyone who believes in Him.
Hosea 6:6 "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

This doesn't answer the question. Why would he favor this sacrifice?

Because He is holy and we are not.

And how would being holy be an explanation to this sacrifice?
You use this word as if it explained something.

Eternal forgiveness.

As I stated earlier, 'why questions' are often futile for the unbeliever.

As i said, he just had to say 'Thou are forgiven'. And it was done. No sacrifice needed. The sacrifice was useless to achieve eternal forgiveness.

'Why questions' are often useful to everyone.

 

[fishy]

As i said, he just had to say 'Thou are forgiven'. And it was done. No sacrifice needed. The sacrifice was useless to achieve eternal forgiveness.

Believers twist themselves inside out avoiding this very simple truth, why is that.

 

[meddlehaze]

So humans cannot do this? Yet God became a human and he did this? Therefore, God did not become a human. He may have looked like one and said he was one but if the premise is true, he could not have been a human.

See below

I never said you did or that you were told to, I said that God favored human sacrifice and that Christianity is buried in Pagan mythology and rituals.

Human sacrifice is very different from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ due to His hypo-static union.

You seem to be using the word "fully" incorrectly. This use of the term violates the logical law of identity. If Jesus was fully man, then he was a man, if he was fully God then he was a God. How can he be fully man and fully God unless being God entails being man or if being man entails being God.


So basically, for Jesus to be fully man and fully God, being fully one of them intrinsically entails being fully the other. So either all humans are Gods as well or all Gods are humans as well. Unless either of these are true, the original assertion cannot be true.

(A) is God who is the nature of God. (B) is Jesus Christ an unblemished human that had the fullness of (A) in Him to accomplish the purpose of the will of (A). (A)Resides in (B). Other than (B)the rest of humanity is (C) which is not equal to Jesus Christ. Both have DNA, but the economy of (B) encompasses the ability to accomplish the will of God when (C) does not because (C) is fallen.

Therefore, this does not conflict with the law of identity because the identity of Christ is different than human and God.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

God created the plan. He could have created any plan he wanted. Why not create a simple, sensible, and streamlined one?

It's not just about satisfying my desire for a rational belief system. It's a direct response to the Christian claim that God went out of his way to atone mankind, and that his sacrifice indicates the depths of his love.

If God just made things a whole lot more difficult than they needed to be then his level of heroism is also called into question. It would like me coming onto the scene of a car accident and dousing it in gasoline and throwing in a match, so that when I went to save the trapped woman, it would be that much more spectacular. To someone who didn't know that I set the car ablaze, my actions would seem to be selfless and truly heroic; to someone who knew I set the car ablaze, my actions would appear extremely unreasonable, my motives would be called into question, and my heroism would be greatly diminished, since I'm the one who caused that level of crisis in the first place.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Human sacrifice is very different from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ due to His hypo-static union.

Is it though? The reason most people suggest that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary is that in order to cover the debt and consequences of sin(death) Jesus(God) had to take human form and die as a human. So if he did not die as a human then this contention is false.

(A) is God who is the nature of God. (B) is Jesus Christ an unblemished human that had the fullness of (A) in Him to accomplish the purpose of the will of (A). (A)Resides in (B). Other than (B)the rest of humanity is (C) which is not equal to Jesus Christ. Both have DNA, but the economy of (B) encompasses the ability to accomplish the will of God when (C) does not because (C) is fallen.

So Jesus isn't/wasn't God, he just had God "residing in him". That makes it totally different, I know a lot of people who disagree with you though, they think Jesus is actually God.

Therefore, this does not conflict with the law of identity because the identity of Christ is different than human and God.

The conflict with the law of identity was that if two things are exclusive - God and man - someone cannot be both of those things simultaneously. So if someone were fully God and fully man, they would no longer be themselves. This is the conflict with the law of identity. If Jesus were fully God and fully man, Jesus would not be himself and what he would be is unknown, it's a logical contradiction, it's impossible, he wouldn't be. The only alternative that is supported (maybe) by the Christian worldview is that being a God entails being a human.

 

[Quantrill]

It is not.

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

No, God could not just say 'thou art forgiven'. Forgiveness with God is not the same as forgiveness with man. With man, we forgive in that we overlook a wrong done. With God, every wrong must be judged and punished due to His righteouss chracter.

God's forgiveness comes as a result of Him knowing the sin will be judged in Christ. Having sin judged in Christ, God can and does forgive. But that forgiveness is only based on the sin being judged in Christ.

Understand, Jesus Christ on the Cross was not forgiving the sin of the human race. He was paying the penalty for sin. When He said 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do', He was speaking to the act of those crucifying Him. Not for the sin of the world.

So, no, God could not just say we are forgiven and everythng is alright. The only thing at that point He could have just done is judged all to eternal damnation with no salvation.

The question you might consider is, could God have never allowed sin to enter in the first place? Could God have kept the serpent out of the Garden if He wanted to? Could God have kept Adam and Eve sinless and in an earth never touched by sin? Of course He could have.

But He didn't.

Quantrill

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Actually, it's futile because no rational answer can ever come from believers.

The system is irrational and believers will, as someone else said, bend over backwards making excuses for it, never seeing the very obvious flaws in it.

There are other, far more rational religious systems, so it is possible. It's just not possible in this one.

 

[fishy]

"God can and does forgive. But that forgiveness is only based on the sin being judged in Christ."

Is meaningless drivel, throwing words together without any intrinsic meaning isn't profound, it's rubbish. An all powerful being doesn't need anything at all in order for it to act in any way it chooses. If it demands a blood sacrifice to act, that can only be ascribed to it's unholy bloodlust. But I'm sure you will continue to deceive yourself, so have at it. :biglaugh:

 

[Thief]

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

And this is scripture that you believe in?
Can you pin point this?

 

[Thief]

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

I suspect only one Garden.
The experiment did not fail....the manipulation took hold.
The result was a creature that will seek knowledge even if death is present.
Such is Man.

The experiment did not fail...nor did Man.
The garden served it's purpose and like a specimen from a petri dish....
Man was set loose upon the earth.

The concept of a 'spiritual fall' is a religious notion.
Dogmatic.

 

[Koldo]

No, God could not just say 'thou art forgiven'. Forgiveness with God is not the same as forgiveness with man. With man, we forgive in that we overlook a wrong done. With God, every wrong must be judged and punished due to His righteouss chracter.

Then God is not omnipotent. He can't do something.

 

[fishy]

I suspect only one Garden.
The experiment did not fail....the manipulation took hold.
The result was a creature that will seek knowledge even if death is present.
Such is Man.

The experiment did not fail...nor did Man.
The garden served it's purpose and like a specimen from a petri dish....
Man was set loose upon the earth.

The concept of a 'spiritual fall' is a religious notion.
Dogmatic.

Then there was no need for Jesus and his erstwhile sacrifice. The story of the garden, without doubt, depicts Adam & Eve doing precisely as they were meant to. Therefore sin is meaningless.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Forgiveness with God is not the same as forgiveness with man.

Then you really cannot call it 'forgiveness'

It's not forgiveness at all.

It's merely some alien form of punishment

Man clearly does something much better than God does

 

[filthy tugboat]

No, God could not just say 'thou art forgiven'. Forgiveness with God is not the same as forgiveness with man. With man, we forgive in that we overlook a wrong done. With God, every wrong must be judged and punished due to His righteouss chracter.

God's forgiveness comes as a result of Him knowing the sin will be judged in Christ. Having sin judged in Christ, God can and does forgive. But that forgiveness is only based on the sin being judged in Christ.

Why can't the sin be judged in God? Why did Christ have to be sacrificed in order to be able to judge?

Understand, Jesus Christ on the Cross was not forgiving the sin of the human race. He was paying the penalty for sin.

Why? How was he paying the penalty for sin? Can sin be payed for with another's life? How does the responsibility for one's actions move from one person to another?

 

[fishy]

He was paying the penalty for sin.

A penalty set by the being to whom the penalty was being paid. A penalty that was arbitrarily set by that same being and was therefore just as arbitrarily expunged.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

He has also caused you a lot of inconvenience. How long will that car take to get fixed? How do you get to work, take care of family and go out with friends without your car? This person has damaged your life in a way that money cannot just cover. He is responsible for all of the damage caused, not just the cost of repair for the car.

Of course it was an inconvience, but only in the sense that I think that Jesus would have rather NOT had to lower his Godly position in heaven, and come on earth as a mere man, get betrayed, beat, and put to death by man that he created. But thats all water under the bridge. Jesus said (John 20:29), that we are blessed if we believe that he raised from the death. So the damage has been done, and now it is water under the bridge. The next step is the acceptance part, which is the problem.

You have asserted this many times but if our actions have direct consequences which result in our death, how can someone remove the consequences for those actions? Or are we not responsible for our actions due to Jesus' sacrifice? Does Jesus remove our responsibility or just the consequence?

Jesus' death removed the hell sentence, which is the eternal separation from God.

So now sin cannot happen? The moment someone does what used to be called sinning, God is no longer offended and damage(as per the analogy) is non-existent?

Yes sin can still happen. Lets use the "broken windows" analogy. Now this may not happen in real life with the way that people are nowadays, but I am just trying to drive home the point. Lets say you have a friend, who is upset that his girlfriend left him. He gets drunk one day, and bust out the windows of your car. You understand that this is a mistake, so you offer to pay for the damages to your own car. Now lets say that your friend is jobless and broke, so he could never be able to repay for the damages. So you say to your friend "I know that you cant repay for the damages, but you are still my friend, so I will cover the damages." Now with that being said, lets say your friend developed a habit of getting drunk and vandalizing property (relative to humans having a habit of committing sin), and yet he still has no money to pay for the damages. So instead of having your friend pay for the damages, you have him do work around your house as restitution for the debt owed from the damages. So every time he vandalizes your property, you have him work for you, sometimes small and petty work, and sometimes hard and tough work. Get it?

So Jesus did not cover all of the damages?

No. It only covered the consequences of us going to hell. John 3:16 ".......whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life"....so in contrast if you dont believe in him, you will perish, and not have everlasting life. Jesus gave his life so that you wont perish in hell.

This was not the issue I took with your argument. If someone is still liable for punishment but merely has someone else pay the fines, it is clear that they are still responsible for their actions(as per the analogy). If they are responsible for their actions and the consequences for those actions do exist, then how can someone else take away that responsibility? For your argument to work, Jesus must have removed the consequences. So are the consequences still in place or not?

Jesus DID remove the consequences, as I said before, we dont go to hell because of this. This doesnt remove the consequences of God disciplining us for sin in general. As I said before, If i rob someone one day and God disciplines me by allowing me to sprain my ankle badly, then I am suffering the consequences of my actions.

As per your analogy, a prison sentence(or community service or whatever) is a second part of the consequences that exist for certain actions. You are presenting an analogy and asking me to ignore the part of that analogy that does not work with your argument. Sorry, that's not how it works.

We deserve hell. Anything less than hell is just a slap on the wrist based on any human standards of punishment

That is not how we should look at the analogy though. The analogy has three consequences involved for the crime, the cost for damages, the fine for drink driving and last but not least, the loss of license and/or potential prison sentence. You brought the analogy up, you have to look at it honestly.

I gave an analogy that is similiar to someone that is sacrificing something of their own to cover for someone elses actions. If someone is driving drunk and totals my parked car. I have a choice one whether I can call the police, or we can work out some other sort of settlement. The damage was done to me, and it is my choice on how I want to have resitution for my damages. In the analogy, whichever one that is used, a person is sacrificing from their own personal resources, whether it is invested time or money, to help someone else out. Regardless of the consequences that the person "in the wrong" faced, his friend offered to help him in his time of need. Thats the only point that I was trying to drive home.

Where did you get this definition?

Microsoft Works dictionary. Look up the word in any other dictionary and Im sure you will find the same definition.

Is punishing sin a part of his nature?

Yes. Would you not agree that a good parent disciplines their children when they do something wrong?

If so, how does the human sacrifice of Jesus affect this? So basically God has to punish sin, he is obligated to, it is a part of his nature. The punishment for sin is death, so everybody that sins must die. Now explain how Jesus can change that?

Either sinning is no longer punishable by death or sinning is no longer possible. The last possibility is that Jesus absolves the responsibility of the people that commit sin, he someone makes them nor responsible for the things that they did and therefore undeserving of the consequences. What other possibility is there?

As I said before, under the old system, man had to sacrifice animals as a atonement for their sins, because God, in his holiness, requires justice. But under the new convenant, instead of sacrificing animals every time we sin, one man sacrificed himself, and his death covered everyone. So one man paid the penalty for everyone. Even Jesus said in John 11:50 "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish." That is how he changed it.

I am very cautious of people that I have no grounds to trust.

And I am uncautious of people that have given me no grounds to not trust.

I see quite the opposite, sorry.

Show me a scripture where God lied.

A little immature don't you think? No point derailing the thread over a little hissy fit though.

If it wasnt true, then I wouldnt have said it

Why don't you deserve to live? What makes someone "deserve to live" and what makes someone "deserve to die"? What standard determines who deserves life? Why should we trust that standard?

If Jesus was who he said he was, then his words are true. So based on that we would have good grounds for believing in the Christian God, and the Christian God (Jesus) is the standard and basis on how we should live our lives.

I understand what you've said, I don't understand how the death of an animal can atone for the actions of the man though.

Instead of taking your life, God accepts the animal sacrifice. This is being lenient. Kind of similiar to a plea bargain.

"Remember"? What is their to remember, this is patently false.

So when a lion takes the life a hyena, does it kill it, or does he murder it??

Why do we have to believe? Wouldn't Jesus death apply with or without belief? I am well aware of Christian theology so this is nothing new to me, you still didn't explain the concept of vicarious redemption though, you just repeated the assertion. I am arguing that vicarious redemption is not logically consistent. You are arguing that it is, can you support your argument. How does vicarious redemption work?

Why do you have to believe? Why should his death apply to people who dont believe in him??? Why should his death apply to anyone that doesn't accept the fact that he even existed, let alone died for our sins. So you are telling me that you should be able to reject him AND get the free gift of eternal life??? How absurd.