Substitutionary Atonement - A Big Problem for Christianity

[Rational Agnostic]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.

2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

I read it.

My questions are

1. What does hell mean to you?

2. In your words, what does it mean for jesu to pay for the penalty of your sins?

For example,

Some say they may still sin but their sins are not accountable to judgement

Some say they may still sin but they will be judged by their sins because they are servent to christ; breaking the law is, by nature they feel is justification for punishment

While others say those who believe in christ have no more sin even though they still sin, its no longer sin of the spirit but of the flesh that dies

Then others say that their flesh/sins died on the cross as jesus flesh so when he died, their flesh dies, and they live in spirit struggling withs in of the flesh and grace of the spirit

-

If someone breaks the law, by god, they are punished.

God only takes the sins of those who believe; when they believe, they no longer have motive to break the law

The former is based on motive (no god) and action (the sin itself) and without repenting and reinuting ones union with god, by direct opposite, they are separated from god: hell

If they dont repent and reunite, there is no reason why god (according to biblical examples) would take them back. Since he does not, they die.

Death can mean hell to someo r cease to exist for others. But unless those who believe in god and believe he gives them everlasting life, by what reason would god have not to put people in hell (he created the law) for their disobedience?

Can you justify no need for punishment for breaking a law god created himself?

 

[Katzpur]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

You've got a far different understanding of Jesus Christ's Atonement than I do. While I do believe that He went to Hell during the three days during which His body lay in the tomb, I don't believe the purpose of this visit was to endure the punishment for our sins. His time in Hell followed His death and was for the purpose of preaching His gospel to the spirits of those who had died before Him and had no knowledge of how they could be released from the Hell (aka Prison). 1 Peter and 2 Peter both mention this post-death but pre-resurrection visit. I don't believe God would condemn anyone to an eternity of suffering for their sins without first offering them the possibility to hear that there was another option. So, I have rephrased your two "core beliefs" in such a way that they clarify my understanding of them:

1) All humans who have reached the age where they can be expected to be able to understand the difference between right and wrong, have sinned. Sin is punishable by separation from God and emotional anguish over the wrongdoings committed.

2) Jesus Christ provided a means by which we could be reconciled to God. He would take upon Himself the sins of any who would be willing to repent of those sins and trust in His power to redeem them. This He did in Gethsemane and on Calvary. Those who lived before He did had no way of knowing that He would offer to take upon Himself their guilt and endure the punishment they would otherwise have to endure. When He preached His gospel to them in Hell, He was offering them the opportunity for an immediate release, contingent upon their sincere remorse for their sins and their acceptance of His sacrifice on their behalf.

 

[exchemist]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

I think you oversimplify. If you read this this you will find several alternative views: Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia

Personally, I find the moral influence theory of atonement is the only one I can reconcile with a loving and rational God. You will see this has had a highly respectable following in the church from earliest times.

 

[godnotgod]

I find the whole notion of substitutionary atonement ridiculous and based on ignorance and superstition. Man doesn't understand the nature of his actions, and so seeks a means to transfer his 'sin' to a host, a scapegoat. Psychologically, this is known as transference. This was the idea in Jewish temple animal sacrifice. What good is it if you don't understand the nature of your actions? In the Buddhist world, sin is not the issue, but is that which leads up to negative actions. That is ignorance and desire. So by overcoming these two conditions, one sees into the nature of what is the cause of negative action, or 'sin', but at the same time, one's consciousness is transformed onto another level, which means you see things differently, not driven by desire or entrapped by ignorance any longer. It's as if the character that was doing negative acts no longer exists, and a new man has emerged. This process is called Higher Consciousness, and is a transcendent experience. Just scapegoating the problem onto some host, whether it be a goat or a deity, leaves one in the same ignorant state that caused his 'sin' in the first place.

Besides all that, I give no credence to a sacrificial host called 'Jesus' who shed his blood for the redemption of man's sins. That pagan doctrine was overwritten onto the teachings of the very real Yeshua as a means of converting the pagans into Paul's new religion. Yeshua had no idea he was about to be sacrificed in that manner. Yeshua's Nazarene teachings did not include blood sacrifice. His was a breath-based, not a blood-based practice. The real and only reason for his crucifixion was for the crime of treason and seditioin on the one hand, and blasphemy on the other. The rest was woven into the story later on which incorporated 3 elements: one, that of Jewish history as backdrop to the myth to lend it credibility; two, that of the Logos descending from a supernatural realm to the earthly realm as teacher to mankind, taken from the Gnostics, and three, that of a dying and resurrecting god-man taken from the mystery religions, in which Paul was steeped as a child in his native Tarsus.

 

[Ellen Brown]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

orgiven. Let's choose something extreme shall we? I can get a traffic ticket and be forgiven. ThoAnd, some teach the "Atonement" for our sins, but factually for them, some sins can not be fugh Jesus speaks strongly against adultery,

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. Of course, this contradicts the doctrine that Jesus took our place and atoned for our sins by paying the penalty for them. So, the only option for Christians who want to remain logically consistent is to drop the idea that sins are punishable by an eternity in Hell, or to adopt the idea that Jesus is in Hell forever. I have heard all kinds of strange rationalizations as to how Jesus somehow suffered an equivalent of an eternity in Hell in three days. But of course, this is not a satisfactory explanation. In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

My own view is closer to the Mormon view because I want a God that is more like a real Father, not some punisher who is roaming about seeing who he can smite.

My issue with the Atonement is the philosophy of those here on Earth who administer it. I'll freely admit that perhaps there have been too many differing influences in my life. So, from Islam and the Mormons, I see sin and what follows as a mostly non-vindictive teaching, though some experiences in life are most certainly very harsh.

If there is Earthly forgiveness for sin, some do not share that idea because there is far too much poorly concealed glee at someones suffering in this life for their supposed sin. And, some say that the effects of the forgiveness don't show up until the next life. I'd be much more specific but I do not want anyone to think I am attacking "their" religion. My own grief at their lack of mercy is sufficient.

 

[lukethethird]

In the end, there is no evading the issue. The two beliefs I highlighted are simply not logically compatible.

Out of curiosity, just what two Christian beliefs are logically compatible?

 

[godnotgod]

My own view is closer to the Mormon view because I want a God that is more like a real Father, not some punisher who is roaming about seeing who he can smite.

It seems to me that there are two phases to this image of a heavenly 'Father', the first being the image of the stern and cruel Jewish father who won't budge on the principle of the Law, as exemplified, or anthropomorphically projected by the character of Yawheh, who delivered terrible punishments to man, over and over again. But the Jews kept on breaking the covenants. So in the second phase, a more motherly figure emerges, that of Jesus, who loves, nurtures and forgives you. It is the mother figure to whom the punished child always runs to for comfort. So a new covenant had to come into being, that which occurred at the Last Supper, in which the ultimate sacrifice by God himself was the only acceptable host, all previous hosts, animal and grain, did not quite measure up, as evinced by the imagined continuing punishments delivered by God in the form of locusts, disease, floods, etc. And today, even after the covenant that was to end all covenants, Christians still look toward some non-existent future, as they also did during the 1st century, for the ultimate finality, that being the return of Jesus to conquer and rule with an iron rod, representing a return to the harsh, stern punishing Father figure. The world is still unrepentent and sinful, as the Christian sees it, and is in need of a firm hand. The pendulum swings back and forth between these two essences, otherwise known as Yin and Yang. But the difference is that in Yin and Yang, each contains a corresponding opposite essence which creates balance and harmony between the two, rather than the two colliding with one another in conflict. It manifests today as the conflict between liberals and conservatives; those to whom obedience and the Law are of prime import, and those to whom freedom and creativity are. The problem seems to stem from patriarchal Abrahamic culture itself, in which all three of the religions empower male dominance. But the real goal of all religious endeavor is to gain union with the divine nature, and the divine nature is beyond all dualities, which includes gender. God is androgynous, split into masculine and feminine, the union of which end up in divine union. To seek a father or mother figure is to still be in the child stage of religion, a stage in which nurturing and comfort are still important from an external source. But divine union only occurs from within, as Jesus has stated:

"Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise"

'turn' meaning to turn away from socially imposed moral laws of right and wrong, and inward to divine essence, and to 'become as little children' meaning to see things without judgment, that is to say, without seeing right or wrong. This kind of insight is known as 'innocency' (not innocence). It simply sees things as they are, and not as dictates of morality say they are. When we follow social morals and rules, we always end up in conflict. This type of individual is 'other-directed', while those who turn inwards to the Source are self-directed from the divine nature within. As exemplified by the character of Jesus, this kind of behavior and outlook do not always co-incide with external moral laws, which become corrupt.


The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 38

Tao Te Ching - Chapter 38 - Translation by Stephen Mitchell

 

[1213]

There are two beliefs that are central to Christianity, or at least the majority of its sects. However, these very two core beliefs are quite obviously contradictory. They are:

1) All humans are sinners, and the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of humans by taking the penalty for their sins by dying on a cross and going to Hell for three days.

I know of no Christian who believes that Jesus currently resides in Hell, and will be there for an eternity. Instead, they believe that he went to Hell for a mere three days. ....

There are at least 2 major problems in that. Firstly, Bible doesn’t tell Jesus was in hell, Bible tells he was dead.


Go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.' Behold, I have told you."
Matt. 28:7

And secondly, Jesus had right to forgive sins even before his death, so death was not required for forgiveness of sins.


The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus gave that same right also for his disciples:

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

 

[Katzpur]

There are at least 2 major problems in that. Firstly, Bible doesn’t tell Jesus was in hell, Bible tells he was dead.

The Bible tells us that His body lay in the tomb for the three days between His death and His resurrection but that during this time, He visited (in spirit form) the spirits of the wicked who were in prison (i.e. hell) and preached His gospel to them so that they might have the opportunity to be forgiven of those sins through Him.

 

[1213]

The Bible tells us that His body lay in the tomb for the three days between His death and His resurrection but that during this time, He visited (in spirit form) the spirits of the wicked who were in prison (i.e. hell) and preached His gospel to them so that they might have the opportunity to be forgiven of those sins through Him.

And if I remember correctly, it is not hell, but hades according to the Bible. And Hades is not hell, because hades itself will be thrown to hell, in the end.


Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12-15

But, perhaps you could give the scripture that tells Jesus was in hell, so that we can check how it was?

 

[Valjean]

For a society used to unloading their sins onto a goat, a human parallel might not seem all that odd.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think you oversimplify. If you read this this you will find several alternative views: Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia

Personally, I find the moral influence theory of atonement is the only one I can reconcile with a loving and rational God. You will see this has had a highly respectable following in the church from earliest times.

It's really the most substantiated theory, considering everything, including Isaiah.

 

[Katzpur]

And if I remember correctly, it is not hell, but hades according to the Bible. And Hades is not hell, because hades itself will be thrown to hell, in the end.


Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12-15

But, perhaps you could give the scripture that tells Jesus was in hell, so that we can check how it was?

1 Peter 3:18-20 state, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." And 1 Peter 4:6 says, "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." You may (and probably do) interpret these differently than I do, but I believe they are referring to Jesus' visit to the spirit prison during the three days His body lay in the tomb.

 

[Deeje]

I can get a traffic ticket and be forgiven.

I agree. The "forgiveness" comes in paying the fine. Or if a good friend comes and pays the fine for you.

I want a God that is more like a real Father, not some punisher who is roaming about seeing who he can smite.

True that....if God portrays himself as a Father and Jesus was like him in all respects, then there is no place for the smiter.

If all God wants to do is keep people alive forever just to punish them with much suffering....that doesn't sound like any "father" I would like.
How could such a Being expect humans to love him? All his activity would invoke, is fear. Definitely not a good basis for a relationship.

My issue with the Atonement is the philosophy of those here on Earth who administer it. I'll freely admit that perhaps there have been too many differing influences in my life. So, from Islam and the Mormons, I see sin and what follows as a mostly non-vindictive teaching, though some experiences in life are most certainly very harsh.

Isn't it true that all of God's teachings try to prevent bad outcomes for us. If only we would simply listen and obey....God can forgive anyone, even gross sinners who have a change of heart. King Manasseh of Judah comes to mind. He was devoted to false gods, even to the point of making his son pass through the fire in sacrifice to them. He was one of the worst examples of wickedness that God had ever seen in Israel. Manasseh’s zealous pursuit of false worship made him like the bloodthirsty deities he worshiped, shedding innocent blood in very great quantity. (2 Kings 21:1-6; 16) In sharp contrast with this, worshipers of the true God endeavor to be imitators of their Perfect Creator, displaying the fruitage of his spirit which is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control. (Ephesians 5:1; Galatians 5:22-23)

God allowed "the army chiefs of the king of As·syrʹi·a, to capture Ma·nasʹseh with hooks and bound him with two copper fetters and took him to Babylon. 12 In his distress, he begged Jehovah his God for favor and kept humbling himself greatly before the God of his forefathers. 13 He kept praying to Him, and He was moved by his entreaty and heard his request for favor, and He restored him to Jerusalem to his kingship. Then Ma·nasʹseh came to know that Jehovah is the true God." (2 Chronicles 33:11-13)

So we see that it is not impossible to come back from such a wicked life. God's forgiveness is bigger than we are.

But what does God do to the the unrepentant ones? Does he torture them forever to satisfy some fiendish feeling of superiority? Nowhere does the Bible teach that. God has no use for those who want to willfully disobey him. He will simply strip them of their gift of life. He has no need to even keep them alive, let alone punish them forever.

In a well known scripture often cited as an example of God's love, John 3:16 says.... “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." People concentrate on the first part of that verse without much thought for the second....the opposite to "eternal life" is to "perish". The Greek word used there is "apollymi" which means.... "To destroy.....to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin.....render useless.....to kill....to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed"

So the opposite of eternal life is actually eternal death. I find that so much more just and loving than torturing people forever just because he can. There is no justice in such an outcome. To eliminate rebellious humans and angels from existence once they have proven themselves unworthy of the gift, means that those left will enjoy the life God promised for his children in Eden....unhindered....like it was supposed to be in the beginning.

If there is Earthly forgiveness for sin, some do not share that idea because there is far too much poorly concealed glee at someones suffering in this life for their supposed sin. And, some say that the effects of the forgiveness don't show up until the next life. I'd be much more specific but I do not want anyone to think I am attacking "their" religion. My own grief at their lack of mercy is sufficient.

Anyone who rejoices over the death of the wicked is not a true worshipper of God of whom it is said in 2 Peter 3:9....
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

God doesn't want to lose a single soul, allowing ample time for a change of heart.....he allows us to prove ourselves to him and in the end those who deserve to live will enjoy God's blessing and reward....those who don't will simply be eliminated from existence. It appears as if some want to read so much more into a fairly simple scenario for some reason....

 

[exchemist]

And if I remember correctly, it is not hell, but hades according to the Bible. And Hades is not hell, because hades itself will be thrown to hell, in the end.


Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12-15

But, perhaps you could give the scripture that tells Jesus was in hell, so that we can check how it was?

Yes, you make a good point. I had always understood that in the Apostles Creed* the phrase "He descended into Hell" does not refer to the place of eternal torment for the damned, but where the sprits of the dead were "in prison" and where Christ preached the gospel to them too, according to 1 Peter 3 and 4, as Katzpur points out. In Mediaeval theology this suggestion of a place of confinement of those who died before Christ's sacrifice was given the name "Limbo", from the Latin for an edge or boundary (i.e. of hell), though the idea always remained speculative rather than a formal doctrine. After the Reformation, I understand some Protestants adopted the concept of "Abraham's Bosom" to signify the same general idea.

The whole issue seems to wrestle with the conflict between the idea of Christ needing to redeem humanity through his sacrifice on the cross, with the dilemma such an idea presents in respect of good people who died before Christ came. They could not have had the opportunity to be "saved", but that was not their fault for being born too soon, clearly. So some sort of retrospective saving of the already dead had to be provided for in Christian theology, as indicated by these somewhat tantalising phrases in St Peter's letter.

* I wonder if it is significant that this phrase does not appear in the Nicene Creed. Too contentious?

 

[1213]

1 Peter 3:18-20 state, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." And 1 Peter 4:6 says, "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." You may (and probably do) interpret these differently than I do, but I believe they are referring to Jesus' visit to the spirit prison during the three days His body lay in the tomb.

Thanks for the scriptures, yes, I believe the prison is same as hades, or grave.

 

[1213]

...
The whole issue seems to wrestle with the conflict between the idea of Christ needing to redeem humanity through his sacrifice on the cross, with the dilemma such an idea presents in respect of good people who died before Christ came. They could not have had the opportunity to be "saved", but that was not their fault for being born too soon, clearly. So some sort of retrospective saving of the already dead had to be provided for in Christian theology, as indicated by these somewhat tantalising phrases in St Peter's letter.

Maybe, I think sacrifice should not be understood so that Jesus paid something with his death, but it seems to be Biblical truth that Jesus died and delivered the message for those who had already died.

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God's voice; and those who hear will live.
John 5:25

And generally, for those who have not heard of Jesus, I think this is for them:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

If person has “law written in heart”, he can be counted righteous and eternal life is for righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

 

[metis]

It was Paul who especially pushed this concept, but what I wonder is whether he took this literally or used it symbolicallyly. At the literal level it makes no sense since Judaism never allowed for human sacrifices, plus how can God be sacrificed to God if one accepts the trinitarian concept. But at the more symbolic level it can make sense as the early Church gradually walked away from observing most of the Jewish Law. .

 

[exchemist]

Maybe, I think sacrifice should not be understood so that Jesus paid something with his death, but it seems to be Biblical truth that Jesus died and delivered the message for those who had already died.

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God's voice; and those who hear will live.
John 5:25

And generally, for those who have not heard of Jesus, I think this is for them:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

If person has “law written in heart”, he can be counted righteous and eternal life is for righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

Yes that all seems reasonable. (I have always myself inclined to the Moral Influence view of Atonement. I can't stomach the idea of a vengeful God the Father requiring a human sacrifice to expiate the sins of others.)