Crucifixion and Atonement - I Don't Understand

[Dubio]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

 

[rusra02]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

By sinning, Adam passed on to his offspring both sin and it's outcome, death. (Romans 5:12) God, in his perfect justice, could not overlook or forgive sin without a legal basis to do so. As Romans 3:23-26 explains: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to exhibit his own righteousness,...so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he [God] might be righteous even when declaring righeous the man that has faith in Jesus."
The ransom sacrifice is beautiful in it's simplicity and perfect in justice. A perfect man sacrificed his life as an equivalent to the first man, who forfeited life through his sin. Thus, God can now legally forgive sins on the basis of that perfect sacrifice without violating his own law. It is also, in my opinion, the greatest expression of love ever shown. As Romans 5:8,9 says: God recormmends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righeous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath."

​

​

 

[nazz]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

As a Protestant I went through the same perplexity and eventual rejected the whole Satisfaction doctrine (btw, invented by a Catholic monk 1000 years after Christ and later universally accepted by Protestants in modified form).

So to answer your question--yes!

 

[oldbadger]

By sinning, Adam passed on to his offspring both sin and it's outcome, death. (Romans 5:12) God, in his perfect justice, could not overlook or forgive sin without a legal basis to do so. As Romans 3:23-26 explains: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to exhibit his own righteousness,...so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he [God] might be righteous even when declaring righeous the man that has faith in Jesus."
The ransom sacrifice is beautiful in it's simplicity and perfect in justice. A perfect man sacrificed his life as an equivalent to the first man, who forfeited life through his sin. Thus, God can now legally forgive sins on the basis of that perfect sacrifice without violating his own law. It is also, in my opinion, the greatest expression of love ever shown. As Romans 5:8,9 says: God recormmends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righeous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath."

Hi..... I am curious....... did anybody else write about this apart from Paul in his letters to the Romans? For instance, was this mentioned in the four Gospels?

 

[nazz]

Hi..... I am curious....... did anybody else write about this apart from Paul in his letters to the Romans? For instance, was this mentioned in the four Gospels?

Not in unambiguous terms. Jesus did say he was giving his life as a ransom but did not explain what he meant. Then there are some conflicting references to the new testament in his blood.

If Jesus' sole purpose in coming to earth was to die for everyone's sins one would expect he would have talked about that in clear ways.

 

[Dubio]

By sinning, Adam passed on to his offspring both sin and it's outcome, death. (Romans 5:12) God, in his perfect justice, could not overlook or forgive sin without a legal basis to do so. As Romans 3:23-26 explains: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to exhibit his own righteousness,...so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he [God] might be righteous even when declaring righeous the man that has faith in Jesus."
The ransom sacrifice is beautiful in it's simplicity and perfect in justice. A perfect man sacrificed his life as an equivalent to the first man, who forfeited life through his sin. Thus, God can now legally forgive sins on the basis of that perfect sacrifice without violating his own law. It is also, in my opinion, the greatest expression of love ever shown. As Romans 5:8,9 says: God recormmends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righeous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath."

I cannot see how sin and death being passed onto Adam & Eve's offspring is perfect justice. Why punish the billions of people born since Adam? I would wish for God to put me in paradise and give me the chance to tell the snake to take a hike.

If I recall the story correctly, God spent time talking to Adam & Eve. They must have loved God as much or more than many of the posters here today. God told them not to eat of the fruit or they would surely die. Could you honestly say that every human would have disobeyed God in that situation? Yes, we are prideful creatures and we love being the boss but would we all put our love of God and our desire to please Him aside and disobey him?

 

[Drolefille]

Could you honestly say that every human would have disobeyed God in that situation? Yes, we are prideful creatures and we love being the boss but would we all put our love of God and our desire to please Him aside and disobey him?

Honestly? Yes. And God would have known it too. He put the tree there and then made a point of saying don't touch it - per the story of course, I always learned it as an allegory, but anyway. Pretty much every child will touch that tree, I'd expect the same out of adults who don't know the difference between good and evil. (This part of Genesis reads like a Fable - Anansi or Loki wouldn't be out of place here, unlike in the more "day in the life of desert people" sections.)

I firmly agree with Sir Terry Pratchett:
“Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”

 

[loverOfTruth]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

I believe you don't understand because it makes no sense and it makes no sense because it is man made. Why do I say that ? Here's a comparative narrative between the Bible and the Qur'an :

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : [youtube]2m4KW-dysKk[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

Now what the Qur'an says about that :
"And because of their saying, `We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary,
the Messenger of God'- but they killed him not, nor crucified him,but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not (Jesus, son of Mary). But God raised him (Jesus) up unto Himself. And God is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise"
(Al Quran 4:157-158).

Why does the Qur'an say that :
"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." (Al Qur'an 2:79)

Not too different from what the Bible says : “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jeremiah 8:8)
Jeremiah 8 NIV -

Also, view the same video linked above to see how early Christianity was more in line without the confusing stuff of trinity, atonement etc.

In addition to God changing His mind according to what you have stated in the OP, here's another reason why it doesn't make any sense :

Concept of atonement gives free pass to all the sinners. It is like saying when person X murders person Y and family of Y seeks Justice - Judge says ok, I'll give death sentence to my Son and let person X go free (so he can commit more murders freely).

Better yet, the Judge says X will be roaming the same heaven freely with Y without suffering any other consequences while the poor Son of the Judge had to go through the 'sin compensating death'. Would that be considered Justice to any sane person under any circumstance ?

Peace.

 

[nazz]

I'm sorry but there is simply no way you can argue from the Bible that Jesus, son of Mary, was not crucified. And as for the Qur'an it is not clear what it is really saying and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I'm sorry but there is simply no way you can argue from the Bible that Jesus, son of Mary, was not crucified. And as for the Qur'an it is not clear what it is really saying and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I certainly did not come up with that. I gave referrences from someone with Masters in Divinity degree from Harvard who argues that even early christians didnt think alike in this matter. Please watch the entire video.

 

[nazz]

I certainly did not come up with that. I gave referrences from someone with Masters in Divinity degree from Harvard who argues that even early christians didnt think alike in this matter. Please watch the entire video.

I'm sorry but anyone who has seriously studied the New Testament would find the idea that Jesus had a substitute stand-in for the crucifixion preposterous. The idea is so ludicrous (and frankly insulting to the character of Jesus) as to not even merit any serious attention.

 

[javajo]

Hi..... I am curious....... did anybody else write about this apart from Paul in his letters to the Romans? For instance, was this mentioned in the four Gospels?

Christ said over and over that he must die to fulfill scripture and that is why he came and that his death was for remission of sins.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mathew 26:28

 

[Drolefille]

I'm sorry but anyone who has seriously studied the New Testament would find the idea that Jesus had a substitute stand-in for the crucifixion preposterous. The idea is so ludicrous (and frankly insulting to the character of Jesus) as to not even merit any serious attention.

That is incredibly dismissive.

 

[nazz]

That is incredibly dismissive.

Yeah, I know. But I can't justify toning it down. The Bible is emphatic about Jesus' death on the cross. And not even secular scholars doubt this. There is not the remotest suggestion in the Bible that someone else died in Jesus' place.

 

[Drolefille]

Yeah, I know. But I can't justify toning it down. The Bible is emphatic about Jesus' death on the cross. And not even secular scholars doubt this. There is not the remotest suggestion in the Bible that someone else died in Jesus' place.

All of Islam believes differently (AFAIK) that's a large population who believe the new testament is corrupted. What about omitted gospels, do they tell a different tale?

Secular scholars doubt quite a few things - Jesus' death is absolutely one of them - but you're not likely to find evidence in a standard English bible anyway. Did you actually view the video provided? It seems that people can disagree on it, even if you don't.

 

[nazz]

All of Islam believes differently (AFAIK) that's a large population who believe the new testament is corrupted. What about omitted gospels, do they tell a different tale?

Secular scholars doubt quite a few things - Jesus' death is absolutely one of them - but you're not likely to find evidence in a standard English bible anyway. Did you actually view the video provided? It seems that people can disagree on it, even if you don't.

I don't know of any scripture--canonical or not--which denies the crucifixion of Christ.

I'm also not aware of any secular bible scholars who think Jesus was not crucified unless they are of the opinion Jesus never even existed.

I only watched a few minutes of that video and it appeared to have been the presentation of ex-Christian converted to Islam. So of course they are going to support the Islamic view.

 

[nazz]

I don't know of any scripture--canonical or not--which denies the crucifixion of Christ.

I'm also not aware of any secular bible scholars who think Jesus was not crucified unless they are of the opinion Jesus never even existed.

I only watched a few minutes of that video and it appeared to have been the presentation of ex-Christian converted to Islam. So of course they are going to support the Islamic view.

And btw, before you judge me too harshly I have no problem with people questioning Christian dogma. I myself do the same and have rejected much of it. But you can't just go lifting passages out of context and present an interpretation that flies in the face of the entire rest of a Scripture. I have the same strong reaction when Christians do that with the Qur'an.

 

[Super Universe]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

Jesus did not die to forgive your sins, your sins have always been forgiven by God.

Jesus had to die to be released so that He could then "sit on the throne" over this area of the universe. The gateway to heaven was closed, only after Jesus finished His earthly bestowal could He take His place and open the gateway.

The Old Testament is primitive man's attempt to understand the most complex thing in existence, God. See the books of the bible, and other religious books as well, not as absolute truth but as an evolving idea of God. And we still have a long ways to go.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I don't know of any scripture--canonical or not--which denies the crucifixion of Christ.

I'm also not aware of any secular bible scholars who think Jesus was not crucified unless they are of the opinion Jesus never even existed.

I only watched a few minutes of that video and it appeared to have been the presentation of ex-Christian converted to Islam. So of course they are going to support the Islamic view.

Trust me when I say I didn't make these things up.

Please read the Apocalypse of Peter which was directly written and spoken by Peter himself :
"For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst."
...
And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

The Wesley Center Online: The Apocalypse Of Peter

Now even in NT there are contradictions as to how He was Crucified - so how can you be sure that He was really crucified ? For example ...

Peter's account: Jesus was crucified on a tree according to the books of "Acts".
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Others' accounts: Jesus was crucified on the cross.
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

So which one is it ?

It is easy to brush away someone as ex-Christian convert but the Truth is He used to be a Christian Pastor and went to Harvard Divinity school while a Christian. Then as the real knowledge of manuscripts was exposed to him and the discrepancies there in, he realized the Truth and then later through his search for Truth accepted Islam. So just because he is a Muslim now, does not take away the fact that he learned more about the scripture which led him to leave Christianity. Plus, no one who truly sees what went on with the Crucifixion will remain Christian thereafter because Christianity depends on this - so no, you will not find Christians questioning Crucifixion.

Peace.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't know of any scripture--canonical or not--which denies the crucifixion of Christ.

I'm also not aware of any secular bible scholars who think Jesus was not crucified unless they are of the opinion Jesus never even existed.

I only watched a few minutes of that video and it appeared to have been the presentation of ex-Christian converted to Islam. So of course they are going to support the Islamic view.

Which means you didn't view the evidence to decide for yourself?

I mean, isn't that like dismissing anything you say because "You're a Christian so of course you'll support the Christian view?" Why even have a discussion then if evidence is going to be ignored.

My guess is that you could find secular scholars who disagree with you, because they don't only use Scripture as evidence.

I'm not actually taking sides here so much as making the point that a discussion is impossible if all you're going to do is dismiss any disagreeing view as incorrect.

Let's say that the NT is 100% in support of your view, and it may be, that doesn't mean it's the only source of evidence or inherently accurate. By faith it is accurate, by historical research it is not.