Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[waitasec]

Because God said so.

what evidence do you have to back that up with, and by what criteria do you determine that as evidence?

 

[1robin]

what evidence do you have to back that up with, and by what criteria do you determine that as evidence?

It is not necessary for something to be true that someone be able to suffeciently explain why it is true. It is true or not whether anyone can explain it. Since our primary source for the concept of Heaven derives from the bible then to discuss heaven it is logically consistent to accept what that same book from the same source says about getting to heaven if we have accepted heaven to start with. If you rule out the bible then you have ruled out the primary reason we are discussing heaven. This demand for proof you require of anything you don't like is a waste of time. If you dismiss the bible then say so and your question is unnecessary, if you accept it then your question is pointless. Most married men accept that their wives and children love them without demanding proof every 5 minutes. The real reason that I do not want to get into the proof you want is I know from the past that you aren't interested in it. You just want enough information in order to find a supposed or invented weakspot in order to have an excuse to dismiss what you have already dismissed.

 

[waitasec]

It is not necessary for something to be true that someone be able to suffeciently explain why it is true. It is true or not whether anyone can explain it.

so you have no criteria to determine what is true or not.
interesting

then what is the criteria that makes it sufficient?

 

[1robin]

so you have no criteria to determine what is true or not.
interesting

then what is the criteria that makes it sufficient?

It's existance is the criteria that makes it suffecient, and that is independant of whether I can prove it's existance. I am a believer because I have faith. Faith is required where absolute proof isn't available. Plenty of remarkable evidence is available to suggest the bible is true but not any absolute proof. If there were proof then faith is unnecessary. However the absence of proof is not evidence of ansence. There is more than enough evidence to make an educated decision to believe the bible but not to prove it. You are asking proof from a probability conclusion and claim.

 

[waitasec]

It's existance is the criteria that makes it suffecient

no it doesn't.

do you confuse water with fire?

i hope not...you do hold some sort of criterion to determine what makes water, water and what makes fire, fire. but i guess your god can't speak for itself, like water and fire can. which for me is the criteria that determines your god cannot exist without it's adherents speaking on his behalf. no wonder there are so many different christian interpretations.

but of course, those that do not understand it as you do are not sincere enough, right?

 

[1robin]

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. If the God of the bible exists then his existance and the existance of his revelation is suffecient. The same way that if evolution is true then that is suffecient for a belief in natural selection.

do you confuse water with fire?

These are temporal and materialistic and so have a material explanation. God is spiritual so the bible is his spiritual explanation.

i hope not...you do hold some sort of criterion to determine what makes water, water and what makes fire, fire. but i guess your god can't speak for itself, like water and fire can. which for me is the criteria that determines your god cannot exist without it's adherents speaking on his behalf. no wonder there are so many different christian interpretations.

This is rediculous. The new testament alone has 138,000 words considered to be theopneustas meaning God breathed. Since your criteria for some strange reason is (speak for itself) Then the bible proves god exists.

but of course, those that do not understand it as you do are not sincere enough, right?

This makes no sence. I don't decide who is sincere. The bible states who is and who isn't. It says those who teach consistently with revelation are sincere those who do not are not sincere. You are trying to overcome religous implications by trying to subject it to the die the death of a thousand qualifications, but you do not use the same criteria to accept other truths.

 

[F0uad]

Robin can i ask do you belief that a Soul/Spirit can die? If you don't then Jesus(p) actually never died won't you agree?

And what about the verses that say each person should be hold responsible for hes action/sin or misdoings?

 

[waitasec]

Yes it does. If the God of the bible exists then his existance and the existance of his revelation is suffecient. The same way that if evolution is true then that is suffecient for a belief in natural selection.

do you doubt the existence of water and fire?

These are temporal and materialistic and so have a material explanation. God is spiritual so the bible is his spiritual explanation.

you're funny. basically your faith justifies you moving goal posts...
impressive. most impressive.

This is rediculous. The new testament alone has 138,000 words considered to be theopneustas meaning God breathed. Since your criteria for some strange reason is (speak for itself) Then the bible proves god exists.

by what criteria do you determine that it is?

the bible speaks for itself, not for god.
what it claims still needs to be supported with the same criteria you use to determine if something is true or not...

This makes no sence. I don't decide who is sincere. The bible states who is and who isn't. It says those who teach consistently with revelation are sincere those who do not are not sincere. You are trying to overcome religous implications by trying to subject it to the die the death of a thousand qualifications, but you do not use the same criteria to accept other truths.

the fact that you are attempting to refute my understanding of the bible says you have decided i am not sincere about it.

:foot:

 

[Rocky S]

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

Now that is a deep subject to get into, I can see why this thread is still around. First of all it was Gods will, and because Man is a free moral agent and is given a choice to accept Christ and him crucified by faith as a means of atonement for sin.

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? .

No biblically not half man half God but 100% God and 100% man the theological term is the Copostatic union of Christ you see there are two terms in the bible the explain this "Son of God" which refers to his divinity and "son of man" which refers to his humanity, or God made flesh. Demigod is a pagan concept like hercules.

And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

The sadness cant compare to the gain we get because of the cross..

 

[Azazelthedazzle]

As with devil, Jesus will forever be one whom weak minded animals shake their finger to and claim carry the burden of the life they drew up for themself.

No. He didnt have to die. But if he didnt, who else would Christians blame or feel made new by?

 

[Thief]

but if hitler repented
you'd be floating on the same cloud

A repentant soul...compared to a non-believer?
Now there's a thread starter!.....

Go for it!

 

[sojourner]

ah...ok a straight answer...finally.


why does god have to reconcile humanity to himself?

Because we turned away from God.

 

[jasonwill2]

This thread is about Jesus dying for our sins.
As if A Deity would require a blood letting for atonement.

All through this thread the discussion sways back and forth.
The believers want to keep their rant....
The nonbelievers are just making conversation.

And though I point it out repeatedly....
No one wants to be held responsible for their own sins.
Lay it all on the shoulders of a Carpenter that died two thousand years ago.

No one seems willing to 'fess up'....
It is the teaching of that Prophet that removes sin.
His word...His parables...are the means to remove sin.

You can't remove sin by a scapegoat.
That practice failed.
Read the Old testament to see how Moses dealt with sin....
Really?....lay hands on the sinner...then a goat....take the animal to the wilderness....leave it there to die.

Yet people believed such things.
Why do you think birds were kept at the temple?
Why do you think the Carpenter set them free?... as He also overturned the tables of the money changers....

Sin is not something tangible....though it takes manifest when performed.

Sin is of mind and heart.

So what if you cleanse the outside of the cup....and wash not the inside.
(ritual bathing and baptism don't work)

And laying your faults own someone else...and then letting him die....
is scapegoating.

It doesn't work.

What sin?

Why not?

Universalism. If there is a Heaven at all Universalism MUST be true, or so I am persuaded.

Because God said so.

This can also be read: "Because I say so and because I have a really outdated collection of books [bible] to back me up.

As with devil, Jesus will forever be one whom weak minded animals shake their finger to and claim carry the burden of the life they drew up for themself.

No. He didnt have to die. But if he didnt, who else would Christians blame or feel made new by?

To be made to feel good and listen to? Oprah? Oh, to blame? The President, even when it's not his fault or only in the power of congress. Wait, people already do that too. They would find something though, humans are good at making scapegoats and finding dubious leaders. Group psychology just works like that.

 

[waitasec]

Because we turned away from God.

it's impossible to turn away from god.

 

[waitasec]

A repent soul...compared to a non-believer?
Now there's a thread starter!.....

Go for it!

wow, the hubris is astonishing.

 

[sojourner]

it's impossible to turn away from god.

On one level, yes it is. On another level, no it's not.

 

[waitasec]

On one level, yes it is. On another level, no it's not.

there's that double standard again...

 

[sojourner]

there's that double standard again...

How is it a double-standard?

 

[1robin]

What sin?

Yours. You can claim you don't have any sin if that makes you feel better. You can also claim the pyramid of Cheops is made of marshmellows if you want. If God is who he said he is your opinion on the matter will be less than useless.
International Standard Version (©2008)
If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we're not being truthful to ourselves.

This can also be read: "Because I say so and because I have a really outdated collection of books [bible] to back me up.

That is pretty funny. However the only issue is, is the bible true. If so then all the implications inevitably follow. Since the bible contains thousands of prophecies, tens of thousands of accurate historical, scientific, and philisophical facts and since even some of it's most supernatural claims were witnessed by hundreds, and that it has by far the most reliable textual record of any ancient document then it is a reasonable conclusion that it is true.

 

[waitasec]

How is it a double-standard?

didn't you say there were 2 levels?