Why Would Yeshua (Jesus) Be Necessary?

[Humanistheart]

Christians contend that Yeshua is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In their dogma, god had to die in an incarnate human form as a sacrifice for sins. A sacrifice to appease sins is a sacrifice for/to god. God sacrifices himself as Yeshua for himself to appease a so called debt owed to himself. It's like saying my friend owed me 5 dollars but couldn't pay and is remorseful of this fact so I payed myself 5 dollars to make it alright with myself. As if that is any different from simply forgiving him and letting the debt drop. While a 5 dollar debt is simplistic compared to the topic of sin, it is an apt comparison showing it's simply unnecessary. If god wanted to forgive sin he could just forgive it, he would not need to go through all these elaberate death based plans.

I've also hear people say jesus died to full fill 'the law', but since god would be the one who had made said law, this does not answer the question, because god simply could have planned better, if he is all-knowing. Why make a law that will require yourself to sacrifice yourself to yourself? And we're back the question above.

Additionally, the idea was that jesus was human, and thus could pay for humanities sins with his death, but was also devine, thus capable of being sinless. But Yahweh makes it clear with abraham that human sacrifice was abhorrent to him. So the idea of Yeshua as a sacrifice would disgust him as well.
Also, Yeshua is said to be the 'sacrificial lamb' for sins. But the sacrificial lamb celebrated at pass-over was never used in relation of sin. If you'll recall the story in exedus the blood of a pure lamb was to be smeared over the doorway, to show which houses contained god's chosen people. The lamb had nothing to do with sin, so why would Yeshua's?

 

[Humanistheart]

Christians contend that Yeshua is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In their dogma, god had to die in an incarnate human form as a sacrifice for sins. A sacrifice to appease sins is a sacrifice for/to god. God sacrifices himself as Yeshua for himself to appease a so called debt owed to himself. It's like saying my friend owed me 5 dollars but couldn't pay and is remorseful of this fact so I payed myself 5 dollars to make it alright with myself. As if that is any different from simply forgiving him and letting the debt drop. While a 5 dollar debt is simplistic compared to the topic of sin, it is an apt comparison showing it's simply unnecessary. If god wanted to forgive sin he could just forgive it, he would not need to go through all these elaberate death based plans.

I've also hear people say jesus died to full fill 'the law', but since god would be the one who had made said law, this does not answer the question, because god simply could have planned better, if he is all-knowing. Why make a law that will require yourself to sacrifice yourself to yourself? And we're back the question above.

Additionally, the idea was that jesus was human, and thus could pay for humanities sins with his death, but was also devine, thus capable of being sinless. But Yahweh makes it clear with abraham that human sacrifice was abhorrent to him. So the idea of Yeshua as a sacrifice would disgust him as well.
Also, Yeshua is said to be the 'sacrificial lamb' for sins. But the sacrificial lamb celebrated at pass-over was never used in relation of sin. If you'll recall the story in exedus the blood of a pure lamb was to be smeared over the doorway, to show which houses contained god's chosen people. The lamb had nothing to do with sin, so why would Yeshua's?

Ah, the first thread I started when I first joined this site. Seems so long ago, even though it really wasn't. It's interesting looking at a person's first thread and comparing it to later ones, you can see how their thought processes and debate style's evolved as they went

But I can't tell if no one responded to this before because it was so poorly written or because the fact is jesus was completly unnesseary. Perhaps a bit of both, lol.

 

[ChristineES]

I like to think of Jesus as a liaison for us. Most of us see God as awesome- and God talking to us would be like one of us trying to communicate with an ant. We'd have to become an ant to be able to talk to it. Before Jesus, God spoke through prophets (and I believe there are still prophets, also). So Jesus, becoming a human, could communicate with us. In that way, we could have a union with God (I am not dismissing other faiths when I say this, as I am not convinced that that is the only way to have a union with God).

 

[Humanistheart]

I like to think of Jesus as a liaison for us. Most of us see God as awesome- and God talking to us would be like one of us trying to communicate with an ant. We'd have to become an ant to be able to talk to it. Before Jesus, God spoke through prophets (and I believe there are still prophets, also). So Jesus, becoming a human, could communicate with us. In that way, we could have a union with God (I am not dismissing other faiths when I say this, as I am not convinced that that is the only way to have a union with God).

God didn't seem to have a problem communicating with people prior to jesus, at least according to the old testament. He did seem to have trouble getting people do do as he wished though. Still, I don't see why this would make jesus or his death necessary.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From which point of view are you asking the question
God's ?
or Man's?

Jesus was born into the Jewish Tradition however his teachings show us a different view of God and how to live our lives.
Perhaps that was necessary.

His life and curious death and resurrection caused his followers to establish a new religion.
perhaps that was necessary.

A small part of the new testament covers his life and work, the major part describes the efforts of the early church in getting established.
Perhaps that was necessary to carry the message forward.

He left very few new direct commandments, perhaps the only ones to be recognized by all Christians were...

To love God and our fellow men
To be Baptized according to custom
To remember him in the sharing of bread and wine.
Perhaps these are still necessary for every Christian.

I have not mentioned Sins or Forgiveness of sins.
These are implicit in his teachings.
But the extent and nature of that forgiveness is not is not universally or Identically believed
by all Christians.
Perhaps the argument and diversity is necessary.

 

[Humanistheart]

From which point of view are you asking the question
God's ?
or Man's?

Jesus was born into the Jewish Tradition however his teachings show us a different view of God and how to live our lives.
Perhaps that was necessary.

His life and curious death and resurrection caused his followers to establish a new religion.
perhaps that was necessary.

A small part of the new testament covers his life and work, the major part describes the efforts of the early church in getting established.
Perhaps that was necessary to carry the message forward.

He left very few new direct commandments, perhaps the only ones to be recognized by all Christians were...

To love God and our fellow men
To be Baptized according to custom
To remember him in the sharing of bread and wine.
Perhaps these are still necessary for every Christian.

I have not mentioned Sins or Forgiveness of sins.
These are implicit in his teachings.
But the extent and nature of that forgiveness is not is not universally or Identically believed
by all Christians.
Perhaps the argument and diversity is necessary.

Why would any of that be necessary? Are you saying prior to jesus god was a failure in that he did not properly reveal himself to his chosen people? And why is a grusome death as a criminal necessary to cultivate faith? Jesus couldn't do a good enough miracle to convince people of his relationship to god prior to death? And this, as you pointed out, doesn't address his sopposed connection to sin.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why would any of that be necessary? Are you saying prior to Jesus god was a failure in that he did not properly reveal himself to his chosen people?

The fault was OURS not God's

I believe God reveals a messenger to us as necessary.
Most Christians believe Jesus was the final messenger.
Muslims believe Mohammad was.

I believe he has sent other messengers and will continue to do so.

However a Christian Knows Jesus was special as he was God's Son.

 

[Humanistheart]

The fault was OURS not God's

I believe God reveals a messenger to us as necessary.
Most Christians believe Jesus was the final messenger.
Muslims believe Mohammad was.

I believe he has sent other messengers and will continue to do so.

However a Christian Knows Jesus was special as he was God's Son.

This god is sopposed to be perfect, as well as all knowing and all powerful. According to you he did not properly reveal himself prior to jesus, in what way does that make it humans fault? And where does the necesity of jesus fit in?

 

[Danizar]

It could be due to circumstances beyond human comprehension...

 

[gzusfrk]

He is the link that relates man to a God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This god is sopposed to be perfect, as well as all knowing and all powerful. According to you he did not properly reveal himself prior to jesus, in what way does that make it humans fault? And where does the necesity of jesus fit in?

I said none of those things, you did.

 

[Humanistheart]

He is the link that relates man to a God.

This rather ignores the questions at hand, and you offfer not explainaton for your claim.

 

[Humanistheart]

I said none of those things, you did.

I see, so you're saying this god is not perfect?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I see, so you're saying this god is not perfect?

Not at all ... It is man that is not perfect.
we are willful, sinful, disobedient and forgetful.
Sometime God needs to pull us back into line.

I do not believe God Predetermines our actions.
so Gods perfection is not in question.

 

[Muffled]

Christians contend that Yeshua is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In their dogma, god had to die in an incarnate human form as a sacrifice for sins. A sacrifice to appease sins is a sacrifice for/to god. God sacrifices himself as Yeshua for himself to appease a so called debt owed to himself. It's like saying my friend owed me 5 dollars but couldn't pay and is remorseful of this fact so I payed myself 5 dollars to make it alright with myself. As if that is any different from simply forgiving him and letting the debt drop. While a 5 dollar debt is simplistic compared to the topic of sin, it is an apt comparison showing it's simply unnecessary. If god wanted to forgive sin he could just forgive it, he would not need to go through all these elaberate death based plans.

I've also hear people say jesus died to full fill 'the law', but since god would be the one who had made said law, this does not answer the question, because god simply could have planned better, if he is all-knowing. Why make a law that will require yourself to sacrifice yourself to yourself? And we're back the question above.

Additionally, the idea was that jesus was human, and thus could pay for humanities sins with his death, but was also devine, thus capable of being sinless. But Yahweh makes it clear with abraham that human sacrifice was abhorrent to him. So the idea of Yeshua as a sacrifice would disgust him as well.
Also, Yeshua is said to be the 'sacrificial lamb' for sins. But the sacrificial lamb celebrated at pass-over was never used in relation of sin. If you'll recall the story in exedus the blood of a pure lamb was to be smeared over the doorway, to show which houses contained god's chosen people. The lamb had nothing to do with sin, so why would Yeshua's?

I disagree because I believe in dispensationalism in this case ie that sin was covered by animal sacrifice under the old covenant but a person who is living currently must be covered under the blood of Jesus in the New Covenant. The people who believe that the old covenant is not efficatious are only partially right because for some people animal sacrifice would not convince them that their sins were forgiven. Jesus had to come to assure people with weak faith that their sin was forgiven and if He were not God in the flesh that assurance would be incomplete.

Appeasement is something that is necessary with human gods who have sinful ways. Appeasement is not what a person is seeking in seeking forgiveness although some people who fear God's judgement might be doing that. (I've had this argument before) The Christian who receives forgiveness of sin is seeking a clear conscience and God is in agreement with that. He is not interested in people holding on to their guilt. The sacrifice for sin is not for God alone. Some debts are owed to God but the majority are more likely owed to men. I never read anywhere that Jesus is forgiving debts carte blanche. He forgives debts as we forgive our debtors. I believe that Paul had to pay for the murder of Christians with his own life. Although Paul was aware that he needed to forgive others, he still had a legacy of finding fault with others that he still had to overcome.

I don't agree with that. Jesus fulfills the law but the law did not require human sacrifice so his death does not do that. I suppose some would argue that a blood sacrifice is necessary to fulfill the law, so on a generic basis the law is fulfilled but I see it as a new law that is written on the hearts of men but also allowed to continue as ritual in the Communion because people need a physical reminder of spiritual things.

There is always some idiot who thinks he could do better than God as in the movie "Bruce Almighty." I have found God's judgement to be vastly superior to my own or anyone else's.

Exactly. It was your sin and everone else's that put Him there. And you are still crucifying Him with your sin.

This is most likely a double fulfillment. A lamb sacrifice for sin is present in the law and a lamb sacrifice as a scapegoat (An Exodus type sacrifice) is also present in the law where one life is sacrificed so that other lives will be saved.

 

[Humanistheart]

I disagree because I believe in dispensationalism in this case ie that sin was covered by animal sacrifice under the old covenant but a person who is living currently must be covered under the blood of Jesus in the New Covenant. .

Unnecessary. God has to die in human form for him to be capable of forgiveness. That does't suggest a mentally stable being.

The people who believe that the old covenant is not efficatious are only partially right because for some people animal sacrifice would not convince them that their sins were forgiven. Jesus had to come to assure people with weak faith that their sin was forgiven and if He were not God in the flesh that assurance would be incomplete..

So people do things that god doesn't like, because of the attributes that this sopposed god gave us, an animal had to suffer. Unethical.

And, as opposed to god assuring people that they're forgiven, period, he feels the need to come down to earth and get himself killed. Unnecessary.

Appeasement is something that is necessary with human gods who have sinful ways..

So you admit this god is sinful. Who then is he to judge or forgive others 'sin's?

Some debts are owed to God.

Says who? And by what right?

don't agree with that. Jesus fulfills the law but the law did not require human sacrifice so his death does not do that. .

What law would that be? And you contradict yourself, jesus fullfills the law but he doesn't?

I see it as a new law that is written on the hearts of men but also allowed to continue as ritual in the Communion because people need a physical reminder of spiritual things..

That's like adding a new rule in the middle of a game to suite your own needs. It's something immature children do.

There is always some idiot who thinks he could do better than God as in the movie "Bruce Almighty." I have found God's judgement to be vastly superior to my own or anyone else's..

Yes, I'm sure all that bloodshed and suffering and genocide really qualifies this character as 'superior'.

Exactly. It was your sin and everone else's that put Him there. And you are still crucifying Him with your sin..

Sin is merely something god doesn't like, and it's not consistant. If I kill someone it's a sin but if I say god told me to kill them it's a sin not to (for example when the isrealites did not complete the genocide ordered of them god became angry). If god was a better a better more ethical being there'd be much less 'sin'. Sin is not an ethical concept at all. Your suggesting that because god doesn't like things we do he felt the need to kill himself in human form. You're describing a massachist, or at least a mentally unbalanced being.

This is most likely a double fulfillment. A lamb sacrifice for sin is present in the law and a lamb sacrifice as a scapegoat (An Exodus type sacrifice) is also present in the law where one life is sacrificed so that other lives will be saved.

But humans sacrifice is detestable to this god (one of his only pluses). Your suggesting that it's okay to break one law to fullfill another.

The fact remains, jesus was unnecesarry. He did not fullfill the messianic prophicies and if god wanted to forgive sin he didn't need to take human form and kill his shell to do so, he could just say, I know what's in your heart, you're forgiven. Jesus was unnecessary.

 

[Humanistheart]

Not at all ... It is man that is not perfect.
we are willful, sinful, disobedient and forgetful.
Sometime God needs to pull us back into line.

I do not believe God Predetermines our actions.
so Gods perfection is not in question.

God calls for mass genocide, kills innocent children and mentally handicapped individuals, sets up a system to barter slaves and women, and you think he's perfect. Okay....

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what kind of being thinks killing something is a proper tribute to make up for things this being doesn't like? The key to the gates of heaven is death, what does that say about this god?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

God calls for mass genocide, kills innocent children and mentally handicapped individuals, sets up a system to barter slaves and women, and you think he's perfect. Okay....

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what kind of being thinks killing something is a proper tribute to make up for things this being doesn't like? The key to the gates of heaven is death, what does that say about this god?

I do not confuse The "Jewish" Old testament view of God. with the God taught to us by Jesus.

Of course, all those things you listed are done by Man today.

 

[cardero]

He is the link that relates man to a God.

GOD never required a secretary.

 

[Humanistheart]

I do not confuse The "Jewish" Old testament view of God. with the God taught to us by Jesus..

Ah, so you're saying the god of the OT and the god of the NT are in fact different beings.

Of course, all those things you listed are done by Man today.

Yes, and they usually have the abrahamic god in mind when doing them. What's your point? Man commites genocide so it was okay that god did?