Why did Jesus die again?

[Blackdog22]

I often wonder about the idea that Jesus actually died for our sins. I am even more curious as to why people actually believe he accomplished that..

When talking about the reason why Christ had to die we need to go back to Genesis where the original sin took place. It is said that sin was brought in by a perfect man(Adam) and thus a perfect man(Jesus) was needed to take away that original sin. However, this is obviously not so.

When discussing whether Jesus actually took away the original sin I often ask people whether they actually know what the original sin was. The original sin according to Genesis included: Death, Pain in Childbirth, Snakes Eating Dirt and Losing Their Legs, A need work for our food, and the Earth being cursed; which many assume to mean natural disasters.

So we look around us and what do we notice. Do people still die? Yes. Do women still have pain during Birth? Yes, less so with drugs though. Do we have to work for food? Yes. Do Natural Disasters Exist? Yes. Then finally the double whammy, apparently if Jesus died for our sins then snakes not eating dirt would make sense, but their legs not growing back and the above "after effects" of the original sin still being present make very little sense.

If Jesus died for any sins it definitely wasn't the sins the Bible refers to in Genesis. So why did Jesus die again?

 

[waitasec]

the penalty of sin is as you said...
the original sin was making a choice based on limited reasoning...
why did jesus die?
a second chance to make a right choice based on limited reasoning...

 

[Blackdog22]

the penalty of sin is as you said...
the original sin was making a choice based on limited reasoning...
why did jesus die?
a second chance to make a right choice based on limited reasoning...

Lol, quite right.

I am curious as to how Christians believe sin was actually taken away by Jesus however, given that sin has physical effects that we can see in accordance to Genesis.

 

[Blackdog22]

Oh come on! I know someone has some valuable input on this topic.

 

[Masourga]

I can't say I know whether the original sin was supposed to be included in the proposition that Jesus' death accounted for, or absolved human "sin" in general... but if there are people that attempt to incorporate that into their belief, you've handily pointed out that the lasting effects make this a completely broken absolution, and therefore quite worthless.

From what I've heard described (and again, these are only interpretations), the sins we're absolved of are those committed throughout our own lilves if we are willing to accept Jesus as the savior, etc.

My big qualm with it all is that, for some reason, it is said to have taken what could arguably be the worst sin of all time (that is, humanity taking part in the murder of God's mortal son/self), to obtain the forgiveness of sin. In what whacked out universe does that make any sense, I ask you?

 

[truseeker]

The sin was not death, pain in childbirth and snakes eating dirt. That was the punishment for the sin of not obeying God. People still don't obey God and still need punishment.

 

[McBell]

The sin was not death, pain in childbirth and snakes eating dirt. That was the punishment for the sin of not obeying God.

I agree

People still don't obey God and still need punishment.

Yes, we are right back to the same old same old as waitasec pointed out:

a second chance to make a right choice based on limited reasoning...​

The really sad part is that theists cannot agree on what all it is exactly god wants us to do.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Jesus died because it was supposed to provide an emotional impact to the narrative. The story is clearly nonsensical and illogical, so the story needed to illicit a strong emotional reaction in people so that they would accept it on that level.

 

[PolyHedral]

The sin was not death, pain in childbirth and snakes eating dirt. That was the punishment for the sin of not obeying God. People still don't obey God and still need punishment.

Why? Eating the fruit didn't harm Adam or Eve.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Why? Eating the fruit didn't harm Adam or Eve.

Didn't it? :areyoucra

It caused both of them to die, physically and spiritually.

 

[Blackdog22]

The sin was not death, pain in childbirth and snakes eating dirt. That was the punishment for the sin of not obeying God. People still don't obey God and still need punishment.

The death was the result of the sin however. It was a punishment that resulted from sin. We were still dying, having pain in childbirth, working fields, etc. after that original sin. It was the origination of sin that we all know of and peoples disobedience continued to cause us death. That is why Jesus was sent correct? If Jesus didn't come to save us from the Sin that causes death then what sin did he come to save us from? Apparently the sin that causes nothing.... Which we "really" didn't need saving from.

From what I've heard described (and again, these are only interpretations), the sins we're absolved of are those committed throughout our own lilves if we are willing to accept Jesus as the savior, etc.

I realize your looking at the other side of the coin so I am going to address this belief.

I have heard of this and I am still wondering. What sin is this that is seperate from the original sin? Where in the Bible does it speak of a sin that is "definitively" different from Adams? How is disobedience to God now different from Adams disobedience then(apart from Adam seeing and knowing God)? Also why would God send his son to die for "part" of sin. If he didn't die for original sin at all then his death was for an invisible sin that has no consequences on Earth. This makes his Earthly death pointless from my perspective.

I mean wouldn't people dying and then suddenly living forever after Jesus change the world for the better? Is that not something worth dying for? If hungry people never went hungry. Why is God going through major hoops to keep us from believing he is real? Instead he dies for a sin that is unmeasurable and unknowable? What good is that?

 

[PolyHedral]

Didn't it? :areyoucra

It caused both of them to die, physically and spiritually.

If I understand the arguments correctly, eating the fruit did not harm Adam and Even; Disobeying God harmed them. There is no reason why those had to be one and the same.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If I understand the arguments correctly, eating the fruit did not harm Adam and Even; Disobeying God harmed them. There is no reason why those had to be one and the same.

Eating the fruit was the same as disobeying God. Disobeying God was the same as eating the fruit. Have you read the Bible or is this just your own idea?

 

[McBell]

It caused both of them to die, physically and spiritually.

One wonders why god was worried about them eating from the tree of everlasting life if the apple caused them to die physically.

Of course it was not the apple but the fact that they disobeyed god that they were punished.

 

[McBell]

Eating the fruit was the same as disobeying God. Disobeying God was the same as eating the fruit. Have you read the Bible or is this just your own idea?

 

[Midnight Pete]

One wonders why god was worried about them eating from the tree of everlasting life if the apple caused them to die physically.

They didn't eat from the Tree of Life. Adam & Eve ate from Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil (the one God forbade then to touch).

Of course it was not the apple but the fact that they disobeyed god that they were punished.

The eating of the forbidden fruit constituted their disobedience. Had they not eaten of it they would not have disobeyed. Had the Serpent been less persuasive in his argument, they would not have sinned. But maybe it was destiny. Maybe the Serpent's presence in the Garden of Eden was permitted by God so that the man and the woman's interaction with it might provide a test of their obedience. Why else would Satan have access to the Garden and its two human occupants?

 

[PolyHedral]

Eating the fruit was the same as disobeying God. Disobeying God was the same as eating the fruit. Have you read the Bible or is this just your own idea?

They are only the same because God told them not to eat the fruit. Why did He do that? The fruit itself is not described or implied as being dangerous.

Had the Serpent been less persuasive in his argument, they would not have sinned. But maybe it was destiny. Maybe the Serpent's presence in the Garden of Eden was permitted by God so that the man and the woman's interaction with it might provide a test of their obedience. Why else would Satan have access to the Garden and its two human occupants?

Assuming that the Serpent had knowledge of a similar scale to God's, the argument will be infinitely persuasive. If you assume that God can see the future, a test is nonsensical. Are either of these assumptions incorrect?

 

[waitasec]

They didn't eat from the Tree of Life. Adam & Eve ate from Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil (the one God forbade then to touch).

doesn't this say;
god doesn't want you to know anything just do what he says without questioning gods authority.

 

[Midnight Pete]

They are only the same because God told them not to eat the fruit. Why did He do that? The fruit itself is not described as being dangerous.

It was described as being delicious. :drool:

Assuming that the Serpent had knowledge of a similar scale to God's,

The Serpent who was Satan formerly Lucifer, God's former right hand. So I think the Serpent had knowledge of a similar scale to God's knowledge (omniscience).

If you assume that God can see the future, a test is nonsensical.

Why?

 

[PolyHedral]

The Serpent who was Satan formerly Lucifer, God's former right hand. So I think the Serpent had knowledge of a similar scale to God's knowledge (omniscience).

In that case, he will certainly convince Eve to eat the fruit, no matter what.

Why?

Because God can see the results of the test without having to perform it. Thus, actually performing the test is redundant.