If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

[Frank Goad]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

 

[Eddi]

The fact that he rose from the dead is I think more important than the fact he died

He could never have rose from the dead if he didn't die

 

[Link]

You ask a good question. The religion that is true in all times, is a consistency through out time, before and after Jesus (a) came. God's religion is a manifestation of his wisdom, grace, favor, treasures, and light. It cannot be something different in one time to another.

This is why Quran emphasizes the creed of Ibrahim (a) is the same as creed of Mohammad (s).

Of course, some of the details morph time to time, place to place, situation to situation, but the over all archetype is the same.

This is one of the reasons I am sure when Quran talks about Twelve Successors to Musa (a), it's not just emphasizing about Musa (a) but about Mohammad (s) as well by flow.

 

[Alien826]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

Religions typically arise after the fact. Things happen and then people create a story around them.

 

[ChristineM]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

I thinks its just a story to attract people to the religion and keep those in the religion content. If the god had magicked a better situation then it wouldn't have made such a compelling catchall.

 

[Sir Joseph]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

The question itself is self evident. Of course God could do it different, but he chose a plan that is unique and ingenious if you think about it.

The Christian answer would be that God created us to have a relationship with him, and his perfect, holy nature mandates that we be right with that relationship. As part of his creation, we're here for his glory and pleasure - to serve him, not ourselves.

When man rebelled, choosing to serve himself over God, sin entered the world and has been prevalent ever since. How could God restore the relationship while retaining his righteousness? In other words, how could a perfectly holy God handle sin? Righteousness demands punishment for wrong doing. But he's a loving God. How could he be both loving and righteous dealing with sinful man?

For whatever reason, God has determined that man's sin requires a blood sacrifice for atonement. For 4000 years, that entailed the blood of animals time and again with each reocurring sin. These sacrifices though were temporary and limited. God sacrificing himself though, as his manifested son, created the perfect, one time sacrifice. It took a perfect being's sacrifice to satisfy a perfect being's holiness and need for justice. The world got justice AND love through Christ's sacrifice.

As the Bible says, Christ paid the penalty once and for all of mankind's sin. Those who accept his gift of grace and accept him as Lord and Savior are "justified" (made righteous) before God. That's what makes Christianity different from all other world religions. We're saved by faith in Christ's work on the cross, not by our own works. God accepts us as we are, but changes us afterwards through the Holy Spirit working in our hearts.

 

[dybmh]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

If God is the one and only which is perfect, then, nothing and no one else is perfect. Therefore each and everything except for God is imperfect and will need salvation to completely rectify their sins. Psalms 51. I do not think that Jesus is the only way to acheive this salvation. However there must be salvation in order for there to be communion with the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in truth. The implicit requirement is a consequence of God's magnitude.

 

[agorman]

Mainly Muslims and some Gnostics believe Jesus wasn't really crucified, but he was taken by God directly to the Sky (ascended) and Judas shapeshifted into the form of Jesus, and was crucified in his place.

See the gospel of Barnabas and the Qur'an. Both affirm the belief above, and also consider Jesus as just prophet, not the Son of God.

There's also the docetism heresy; the idea that Jesus just seemed human, but was like a tangible ghost.

I prefer this way of seeing the death of Jesus, ascending, really I find no point in his crucifixion.

 

[Alien826]

The question itself is self evident. Of course God could do it different, but he chose a plan that is unique and ingenious if you think about it.

The following is indeed the Christian answer as I have heard it many times. Nevertheless, though it is internally consistent, given the premises, there are many ways in which I find it problematic.

The Christian answer would be that God created us to have a relationship with him, and his perfect, holy nature mandates that we be right with that relationship. As part of his creation, we're here for his glory and pleasure - to serve him, not ourselves.

That makes us God's "playthings" and gives us no rights whatsoever. If we can assume that everything God does is "good" (problematic as God also defines "good") then it is marginally acceptable, but can we assume that?

When man rebelled, choosing to serve himself over God, sin entered the world and has been prevalent ever since.

Why did man rebel? Serious question. It suggests that God's creation was imperfect, but that is contrary to the idea of God's "perfection".

How could God restore the relationship while retaining his righteousness? In other words, how could a perfectly holy God handle sin? Righteousness demands punishment for wrong doing. But he's a loving God. How could he be both loving and righteous dealing with sinful man?

Why does righteousness demand punishment? Compared to God we are imperfect and essentially can't help sinning (there's a Bible verse that says exactly that). So what this boils down to is that people that can't help sinning must be punished for something they can't control.

For whatever reason, God has determined that man's sin requires a blood sacrifice for atonement. For 4000 years, that entailed the blood of animals time and again with each reocurring sin. These sacrifices though were temporary and limited. God sacrificing himself though, as his manifested son, created the perfect, one time sacrifice. It took a perfect being's sacrifice to satisfy a perfect being's holiness and need for justice. The world got justice AND love through Christ's sacrifice.

In modern terms, punishing an innocent being for the sins of the guilty is a horrible idea. Think of it outside the religious area. If I commit a crime, does it make sense to imprison an innocent person in my place? It does make sense when God is seen as a more powerful version of a human king. Human kings can be bribed to forgive the guilty, and will accept the substitution of an innocent person if it furthers some end of their own.

As the Bible says, Christ paid the penalty once and for all of mankind's sin. Those who accept his gift of grace and accept him as Lord and Savior are "justified" (made righteous) before God. That's what makes Christianity different from all other world religions. We're saved by faith in Christ's work on the cross, not by our own works. God accepts us as we are, but changes us afterwards through the Holy Spirit working in our hearts.

And none of this comes close to addressing the "problem of evil", which doesn't need the absolute argument about "omni" attributes to be a problem for the Christian view. If God can lessen the suffering in the world even a tiny amount, say by curing someone with a painful disease, then his loving attribute should mandate that he does so. Yet we see endless examples of suffering that is not remotely deserved. But why should an all powerful being that created us simply for his own pleasure do that if it doesn't give him pleasure? And that makes God simply an all powerful being whose actions are "right" by definition, not by some rules of morality that don't apply to him.

And thus all the rationalization in your post collapses down to one thing. God is right because God is all powerful and we have to accept what he says or does.

 

[Sir Joseph]

The following is indeed the Christian answer as I have heard it many times. Nevertheless, though it is internally consistent, given the premises, there are many ways in which I find it problematic.

That makes us God's "playthings" and gives us no rights whatsoever. If we can assume that everything God does is "good" (problematic as God also defines "good") then it is marginally acceptable, but can we assume that?

Why did man rebel? Serious question. It suggests that God's creation was imperfect, but that is contrary to the idea of God's "perfection".

Why does righteousness demand punishment? Compared to God we are imperfect and essentially can't help sinning (there's a Bible verse that says exactly that). So what this boils down to is that people that can't help sinning must be punished for something they can't control.

In modern terms, punishing an innocent being for the sins of the guilty is a horrible idea. Think of it outside the religious area. If I commit a crime, does it make sense to imprison an innocent person in my place? It does make sense when God is seen as a more powerful version of a human king. Human kings can be bribed to forgive the guilty, and will accept the substitution of an innocent person if it furthers some end of their own.


And none of this comes close to addressing the "problem of evil", which doesn't need the absolute argument about "omni" attributes to be a problem for the Christian view. If God can lessen the suffering in the world even a tiny amount, say by curing someone with a painful disease, then his loving attribute should mandate that he does so. Yet we see endless examples of suffering that is not remotely deserved. But why should an all powerful being that created us simply for his own pleasure do that if it doesn't give him pleasure? And that makes God simply an all powerful being whose actions are "right" by definition, not by some rules of morality that don't apply to him.

And thus all the rationalization in your post collapses down to one thing. God is right because God is all powerful and we have to accept what he says or does.

I appreciate the thought and time you put into your response Alien 826. It's actually much more fair and civil than what I'm accustomed to here on this site.

You have disected my post with questions and points going far beyond the scope of this thread and upon issues that would warrant lengthy answers on each. Let me just respond simply to your own concluding point.

You say "God is right because God is all powerful and we have to accept what he says or does." I can't say whether that's a certain or complete Christian doctrinal truth, but it does sound pretty close to me. Here's another way I'd put it, though agreeing with your same conclusion:

Since God created the universe and all life within it, he gets to establish the naturalistic laws and moral standards. Maybe we'd each do things differently, but we don't own and manage a universe.

This is certainly a barrier for most unbelievers in the world today. They don't want to submit to a higher authority. They'd rather serve and please themselves than a supreme being that doesn't seem real to them. I understand this view but consider it an irrational, losing proposition.

The evidence for God's existence is evident for all to see. It makes sense then that he created each of us for a reason - to have a relationship with him. My Christian faith and logic dictates that embracing this creator and ruler of the universe is both prudent and rewarding.

 

[Alien826]

I appreciate the thought and time you put into your response Alien 826. It's actually much more fair and civil than what I'm accustomed to here on this site.

I try. There's really not much point being rude on the internet. It's too easy to ignore someone.

You have disected my post with questions and points going far beyond the scope of this thread and upon issues that would warrant lengthy answers on each. Let me just respond simply to your own concluding point.

OK. If you want discuss any of the other points, let me know. I'm not sure if you want to continue with a discussion of this one point. I'll start and see if you respond.

You say "God is right because God is all powerful and we have to accept what he says or does." I can't say whether that's a certain or complete Christian doctrinal truth, but it does sound pretty close to me. Here's another way I'd put it, though agreeing with your same conclusion:

Since God created the universe and all life within it, he gets to establish the naturalistic laws and moral standards. Maybe we'd each do things differently, but we don't own and manage a universe.

That's true for naturalistic laws. I'm not so sure about moral standards.

This is certainly a barrier for most unbelievers in the world today. They don't want to submit to a higher authority. They'd rather serve and please themselves than a supreme being that doesn't seem real to them. I understand this view but consider it an irrational, losing proposition.

I'm sure that's true of some though you come close to something that atheists hate which is "you reject God because you want to do sinful things". Hopefully you are not saying that, but I'll address it anyway. The problem is that not only is it somewhat patronizing, but that it attributes an emotional motivation that doesn't have to exist. Let's say that an atheist has examined the world as far as he can, considered religious claims and arguments, and honestly concluded that there is no "god" telling us how to behave. The most rational thing is to continue with what he has, which involves making rules based on certain principles that seem right. It would be much more irrational to decide that there might be a god, so better do what it says just in case.

The evidence for God's existence is evident for all to see.

Ah, there I disagree. Once, when that scripture (you know the one) was written, yes. Now we know so much more about how the world works that it's much less obvious. (Simple "god of the gaps" argument, I'm sure you're familiar with it).

It makes sense then that he created each of us for a reason - to have a relationship with him. My Christian faith and logic dictates that embracing this creator and ruler of the universe is both prudent and rewarding.

Faith I can't argue with.

I challenge you though to show why an evil sadistic god is less likely than the loving guy. Just looking at the world would suggest the former. I did have a brief religious period in my life (long story), but even then I decided to assume a loving god simply because the opposite was too horrible to contemplate. I suggest you will struggle with the definitions of "good" and "evil", given that, as you agreed, God defines both words, essentially removing all meaning form either one.

 

[wellwisher]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all powerful?

My theory is connected to God resting on the seventh day. There is no direct indication when that 7th day of rest ended. I looked for something that said God was done resting and back to work, but I could not find anything. I inferred that it did not end until near the end of Revelations, when God makes another heaven and earth. After day 6, until the end of Revelations, nothing epic is created that would have needed God. As God rested the universe was done and all it needed would have been maintenance, that did not require God, but rather could be done with hired hands. When God makes a new heaven and earth, he is definitely back to work.

The human Sabbath of day of rest is a reflection of heavenly things. If we assume what humans are required to do, is the same as God was doing, one is not supposed to work on the Sabbath, like God. If any works needs to be done, you make arrangements in advance for others to do the work. It appears God made arrangements with Satan, in the Garden of Eden, on the 6th day to see how Satan and Adam and Eve would get along. Adam and Eve seemed to like Satan and accepted his arguments to bite the big apple. God, as the Chairman of the Board of Heaven Inc., hires Satan to be his CEO in charge of the Earth and the Humans. He even gives him the title, Lord of the Earth.

What is normally being blamed on God, was actually due to the hired help; Satan. Satan and God went way back and Satan was very helpful in his younger days as Lucifer or the bringer of light. This explains why the "Lord of good and evil" was not good like Jesus, but rather was both good and evil, like the tree of knowledge of good and evil and law.

When Jesus began his ministry, he went to the desert to pray and was visited by Satan. Satan, among other things offers Jesus all the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the earth if Jesus was bow and serve him. Had Jesus accepted the offer, he would have become the Messiah that had been prophesied; rich and powerful able to subdue all the enemies of Israel. But Jesus declines the offer. He did not say Satan did not have this authority as Lord of the Earth, rather he politely declines, since Jesus had his eye on a bigger prize; Satan's job. Jesus by declining the offer to be the Messiah, undermined the prophesy of CEO Satan, as Lord of the Earth. The Messiah is still in limbo.

When Jesus was killed and resurrects, he fulfilled the law. Death is the pinnacle punishment according to the law. Once you are condemned t death and killed, you cannot be killed again by the law, since you are already dead. When Jesus resurrects, he was no longer under law or even under CEO Satan, due to a legal double jeopardy loophole. This throws sand in the gears of Heaven and creates a political battle in heaven. It escalated and then leads to a war in Heaven. Micheal the Archangel and his Angels, win the war and throw Satan and his Angels from heaven. Satan gets fired and is no longer condoned in heaven. Jesus is caught up to God, and sits with him to learn his wisdom, since that is one of the things parents do on the Sabbath; sacrificial lamb near the throne of his father, God.

 

[Saggath]

Just a thought:
It seems that Jesus had the power to forgive sins whether he were crucified or not:
Matthew 9
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

 

[Tomef]

If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die for us?Couldn't God made it different?Being all poweful?

Nobody would take the story seriously if there were no suffering, failure and final overcoming the odds victory. Imagine a version of die hard where McCain (McClain?) arrests all the terrorists within the first 5 minutes and they all decide to give up crime and open a flower shop, oh and then McCain and his mrs get back together and get baptised, and it turns out unicorns are real too. People like stories with a tough struggle that is all worth it in the end, it makes life seem worth living.

 

[MJ Bailey]

How I see it, we as humans being self absorbed at times needed a harsh lesson. God is loving and Omnipotent. When we humans receive certain gifts and abuse them, He always wins