dogsgod
Well-Known Member
And it worked.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did Jesus need to die?
- Thread starter Klaufi_Wodensson
- Start date
ninerbuff
godless wonder
Yeah, if you watch E.T. enough times, the next time an alien lands in your back yard, you'll want to give it a hug.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I watched it once, wouldn't stomach it another.
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
Actually, that we understand sacrifice is precisely we we do not consider the Jesus story a sacrifice, let alone a logically necessary one. How is a few hours of torturous pain for the messiah a big deal next to the eternity of torture that awaits all those who don't believe in him, let alone the much worse and longer torture that many people experience in this life? And why is it even necessary? (see my post above).
If a king decided to kill his son, and then base all of his citizens' sentencing on what they believe about his son's sacrifice, we wouldn't call him just or sane, we'd demand his head on a plate. And you would be the person to equate this king with love?
And for some of us, love is anything but a sacrifice, but rather the meaning and goal of our life. What makes sacrifice a necessary, let alone defining, characteristic of love?
Last edited:
By instigating this situation in the first place, Satan challenged Gods authority. If God just forgave the transgression, the issue raised would go unchallenged. The way things are; Satan is being dealt with, and mankind has the opportunity of redemption.
If you read the accounts relating to the Jewish people at the time of Moses, you will see that there is a strictness to Gods justice; an eye for an eye and the like. It was an exacting law without compromise. Likewise, the only sacrifice acceptable for the redemption of sin would need to by another perfect man (the last Adam 1 Cor. 45). As such, Jesus was the only one able to provide this; a corresponding ransom.
McBell
Unbound
How did the satan "instigate" this situation?
God was the one that set up the transgression in the first place.
The satan had nothing to do with it.
Yes, GOD sent HIMSELF to earth as his son in order to pay the price HE set up.
The satan is not a factor in this situation at all.
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
But why is that how things are being dealt with? If god can do anything, why doesn't he jus destroy Satan? Or judge people based on their deeds instead of arbitrary and blind belief about what they can not know?
James Humphreys
Member
I don't think Jesus' death would have been necessary if people had believed in him. Their belief would have become the sacrifice. I don't think the crucifixion was inevitable or even desirable. But that is not a standard Christian view.
NeoSeeker
Searching Low & High
According to the story, in Earthy terms there was sacrifice. In divine terms I don't see it.
Ok, I'll play.
There's a sweet old couple who have been married for 52 years. They've had their ups and downs but in the end, they love each other dearly. The husband has never had the need to give his life for his wife, and the wife has likewise never had the need to give up her life for her husband (e.g. no one had to dramatically throw themselves in front of bus so that the other could live.)
Because there was no sacrifice, would you claim that this couple did not truly understand or experience love? Do you claim that without sacrifice, their love will always be less than complete?
Ah. You say. There must have been sacrifice at some point: She put up with his snoring in bed, and he would eat her tuna casserole even though he hated tuna casserole. She gave up a promising career to raise his babies; he worked two jobs to pay the bills when she got cancer.
So, in other words, a sacrifice doesn't need to be a literal, bloody giving/taking of a life?
In other words, Jesus did not have to die, but God could have sacrificed something else, such as his unbending condemnation of every imperfect human?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Even in Earthy terms, thousands of Jews were hung by the Romans, many were trouble makers like this supposed Jesus, so what makes his death special?
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
I find it strange that these threads always focus on Western Christian interpretations and beliefs on soteriology.
Everyone should at least be vaguely familiar with Eastern Christianity's soteriological views.
Everyone should at least be vaguely familiar with Eastern Christianity's soteriological views.
Last edited:
Feel free to enlighten us. Nobody's holding you back.
If we debate the Western form, it's because it's the one that we are most often confronted with.
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
See previous edit with accompanying link.
Zadok
Zadok
Very few people understand the doctrine of a mediator (Messiah, Christ, Redeemer). Note that the concept of Messiah, Christ and Redeemer are related to the concept of atoning for other’s sins.
The laws of justice require that for each act a reward or punishment is given. However, mankind, according to doctrine; became a fallen creature through the fall of Adam. The result of this fallen state is eventual death. Because man is a fallen creature they cannot atone or pay for their own sins because they already are subject to death and must die. If it was possible that man could pay for their sins then there would be no purpose or justice in death.
There is an additional condition to man’s fallen state – that is a condition of limited knowledge. Man is blinded from the eventual outcome of their choices and therefore their choices are made in ignorance but faith (meaning no proof of G-d or the outcome for repentance or not repenting). Because man is in a state of “darkness” not knowing the full consequences of their choices it would not be just not to provide a way to overcome such ignorance – therefore, should an individual begin to realize that their choices were flawed they can justly petition a Messiah, Christ or Redeemer to suffer for their former acts of ignorance. This atoning for others is known as the act of mercy or specifically the mercy of G-d.
In order for G-d to offer mercy without upsetting justice – that G-d must atone for the transgressions and sins of those to be forgiven – else there is no justice. The price or payment is to suffer death. And that is the reason it was required that Jesus die that our sins can be redeemed.
Zadok
Last edited:
[FONT="]Satans time is limited, Rom 16:20, Ps 37:10, which is what I was referring to, but to have destroyed him straight out would have left the issue that he raised unresolved. [/FONT]
From the Wiki article:
It's basically very similar: Jesus is the bridge between man and God. God could have created any bridge he wanted. He chose Jesus.
It also goes on to state that through his sacrifice, Jesus reversed the effects of sin (ie, whipping boy), and put the ability to be "like God" back in man's reach. So, we again have the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed in order to bring man back to a condition acceptable to God. Once again, God could have chosen any mechanism he wanted: he chose to sacrifice his innocent son.
That first part seemed promising: It makes so much more sense to judge someone on how he has treated his fellow living beings, than simply on whether he believed a story-- however true-- or not. It means that an atheist, who is kind and loving, will be allowed to enter heaven, while a mean-spirited Christian would be denied.
But then we have this:
Which only reinforces the idea that Jesus had to die to save us, and to be saved we must believe that Jesus died to save us.
As outlined at Gen 3. 1-15
You are entitled to that opinion, but I don't share it.
I don't believe Jesus to be God but the son of God, his ceation.