Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Thief]

interesting notion when you're talking about god



why is absolution validated with a sacrifice, if jesus' death of natural causes would have had the same consequence?

Are you confusing your thread topics?
Or something else?

 

[waitasec]

Are you confusing your thread topics?
Or something else?

the title is; did jesus really have to die for our sins...
for the sake of argument
jesus dying for our sins provided a way for absolution, didn't you know that?

another question that is hard to come to terms with...
your unattractive habit of :ignore: is noted, again

 

[Thief]

the title is; did jesus really have to die for our sins...
for the sake of argument
jesus dying for our sins provided a way for absolution, didn't you know that?

At this point, I know you're being sarcastic.

another question that is hard to come to terms with...
your unattractive habit of :ignore: is noted, again

And your habits are here on display as well.

You couldn't find absolution in the other thread....
getting your hopes up here?

 

[idav]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

The whole crucifixion twas not a good thing to celebrate but it sent a message that didn't stop. The injustice that the story showed obviously got to people. A person could have really done that, similar to Ghandis style, and accomplish a lot. He took everything without a fight and sacrificed his life that proved a real point. His life should be celebrated more than his death.

As far as being the son of man there was no reason for him to die and would have been able to wash our sins without the need to die, that was the same thing Jacob and his descendants would be able to do as being a chosen lineage of God.

 

[waitasec]

And your habits are here on display as well.

You couldn't find absolution in the other thread....
getting your hopes up here?

so ah, no i'm not confusing the topic...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

Good question. Here is the answer in a nut shell. God, according to Christian Theology, is perfect in his ways. He is the ultimate source of goodness, and he is also the ultimate source of judgement and discipline. Now, with that being said, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished, because that would contradict his morally good character. The punishment for sin is death, as Paul indicates in Romans 6:23. After the fall of man, God set up a system to where a person that sins, in order to have atonement for his sin, he would have to slaughter an animal for that atonement. An animal is not a moral agent, so an animal doesn't "sin", therefore, the animal that is slaughtered provides a good atonement for the sin committed. The animal was sacrificed in place of the human. To give an example of this, considered what Job did, Job 1:4-5, "4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.

That is the general idea of how things worked for sin atonement. Now with Jesus, Christians are not under old testaments laws and customs. We are under what is called the "new convenant". Jesus, being morally perfect, is the sacrifice that Christians use for our sins, instead of slaughtering animals. Since we all sin, instead of sacrificing animals, our sins are covered by the precious blood of the "Lamb", which is Jesus (which is why he is called the "Lamb"). And his blood is not only sufficient to cover one person, but being as perfect as he is, his blood is sufficient to cover the whole sins of the whole world. The only thing we need to do is believe that he died on the cross for our sins, and live our lives according to his Word. Another way to look at it is someone loving you so much that they are willing to die for what YOU'VE done wrong. That is what Jesus did. Understand?

And another thing, you asked "why make a man...".....you have to realize that God didn't make Jesus. Jesus is in fact God, as John 1:1 indicates. This only makes sense, because only God can live life on earth being morally perfect and sin free. When i say "Jesus is God", that doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father. The Son and the Father are two different beings, sharing the title of "God", along with the Holy Spirit and all three are what Christians call "The Holy Trinity".

 

[Willamena]

If Jesus were a metaphor, there would have been no apostles, thus no Christianity.

Maybe they are metaphors, too.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe they are metaphors, too.

Maybe, but who would write the Bible or inspire it?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Maybe, but who would write the Bible or inspire it?

The metaphorical scribes of course.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

Asking religion to make sense is like asking a chunk of granite to recite Shakespeare.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Asking religion to make sense is like asking a chunk of granite to recite Shakespeare.

Thinks that offends the granite

 

[idav]

Maybe, but who would write the Bible or inspire it?

I think he should have written something himself and you would have thought one of the authors would have thought to write as if he were jesus. Amateurs!!

 

[jargin]

Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

No. God could have forgiven our sins without having to submit himself to torture and death (for only 3 days) and subsequent resurrection and ascension.

That is, if God exists of course.

Because if God exists, God can do anything, meaning he could have forgiven us without having to sacrifice his "son" who is actually "God himself".

I think when you look at the grand scheme of things, the vastness of the universe, you will be able to quickly see how insignificant a Jewish "blasphemer" who lived during the time of the Roman Empire really is compared with the entire history of the human race, which is merely a part of an insignificant spinning rock mostly covered in water which revolves around a average sized G-2 star in a nondescript part of a barred spiral galaxy aptly named by said species "The Milky Way".

 

[waitasec]

a thought just occurred to me...

for the sake of argument, since god can't go back on his word...meaning that the absolution of sins can only be made by sacrificing innocence, why did jesus negate natural laws with miracles? why alter natural laws at all...?

 

[Koldo]

If Adam remained sinless, he would not have died and nor would his children.

Erm...

Genesis 3:22-23:

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

It was still possible to live forever.
Just saying.

Either way, it is up for debate whether Adam and Eve were going to live forever if they hadn't eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

a thought just occurred to me...

for the sake of argument, since god can't go back on his word...meaning that the absolution of sins can only be made by sacrificing innocence, why did jesus negate natural laws with miracles? why alter natural laws at all...?

You have to give the authors of the bible a little leeway. After all, ancient desert nomads who wrote fiction didn't have the same level of understanding of the mechanics and elements of plot construction and story continuity that we do today. The art of writing fiction has progressed substantially since then. Holding them to fiction writing standards of today is a little unfair. Personally, I'm pretty impressed with the stories they were able to come up with - obviously not because of logically consistent and tightly designed plots and storylines, but at least they managed to come up with some fairly pretty bits of imagery and symbolism.

 

[waitasec]

You have to give the authors of the bible a little leeway. After all, ancient desert nomads who wrote fiction didn't have the same level of understanding of the mechanics and elements of plot construction and story continuity that we do today. The art of writing fiction has progressed substantially since then. Holding them to fiction writing standards of today is a little unfair. Personally, I'm pretty impressed with the stories they were able to come up with - obviously not because of logically consistent and tightly designed plots and storylines, but at least they managed to come up with some fairly pretty bits of imagery and symbolism.

that attract children's imagination when being lied to as it is conveyed to be non fiction...which perpetuate the notion, 'some things are not to be questioned'.
why? because somethings are not to be questioned...

 

[Pegg]

Erm...

Genesis 3:22-23:

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

It was still possible to live forever.
Just saying.

Either way, it is up for debate whether Adam and Eve were going to live forever if they hadn't eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

does not the tree of 'life' signify that everlasting life was a possibility. The scripture you just put up implies that the tree of life could have enabled the man to live forever.

So everlasting life was possible, but God did not allow the man to live forever due to his sin.... it stands to reason that if the man had not sinned, he would have been permitted to live forever.

 

[waitasec]

does not the tree of 'life' signify that everlasting life was a possibility.

no.

The scripture you just put up implies that the tree of life could have enabled the man to live forever.

they could have lived as long as they were eating from the tree...
remember the tree of life was not forbidden..until they unknowingly sinned.

So everlasting life was possible, but God did not allow the man to live forever due to his sin.... it stands to reason that if the man had not sinned, he would have been permitted to live forever.

if man continued being innocent of their actions, they could have continued living forever...hate, jealousy, coveting, lying and killing... all those things would have been dealt with innocently...just because their eyes were not opened to good and evil doesn't mean those feelings are not to be dealt with.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Good question. Here is the answer in a nut shell.

This is an answer, I don't know about "the" answer.

God, according to Christian Theology, is perfect in his ways.

What does that mean? What is it to be perfect? How does one know if they are or are not perfect or even what the standard for perfect is?

He is the ultimate source of goodness, and he is also the ultimate source of judgement and discipline.

Only under his own definition of "goodness" and "justice".

Now, with that being said, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished, because that would contradict his morally good character.

Apparently he can do anything and everything, so I think that puts this comment a bit off.

The punishment for sin is death, as Paul indicates in Romans 6:23. After the fall of man, God set up a system to where a person that sins, in order to have atonement for his sin, he would have to slaughter an animal for that atonement.

Yes, it seems even as the Jewish tradition evolved into monotheism, they didn't quite kick all of their Pagan culture or religious ideals.

An animal is not a moral agent, so an animal doesn't "sin", therefore, the animal that is slaughtered provides a good atonement for the sin committed.

What? How did you reach this conclusion? Why does an animal not being a moral agent (something which is probably false in itself) mean it is a good atonement for a sin committed?

The animal was sacrificed in place of the human.

Why?

To give an example of this, considered what Job did, Job 1:4-5, "4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.

I know the Bible is into ritualistic sacrifice, I never understood why though? Vicarious redemption is a ridiculous notion and one nobody to this day takes seriously outside of religious tradition. If I kill your daughter or steal your property and then Go ahead and sacrifice your dog to God on your front lawn, does that mean I am forgiven for all transgressions? Even if I did this over 2,000 years ago, it still wouldn't be acceptable. This is not the way society or morality works.

That is the general idea of how things worked for sin atonement.

According to ancient Jews and some Christians at least.

Now with Jesus, Christians are not under old testaments laws and customs. We are under what is called the "new convenant".

According to some.

Jesus, being morally perfect, is the sacrifice that Christians use for our sins, instead of slaughtering animals.

Something I have never understood. Why the hell was slaughtering animals good in the first place? How is upping that to human sacrifice better?

Since we all sin, instead of sacrificing animals, our sins are covered by the precious blood of the "Lamb", which is Jesus (which is why he is called the "Lamb").

Are they? How does that work?

And his blood is not only sufficient to cover one person, but being as perfect as he is, his blood is sufficient to cover the whole sins of the whole world.

You sure about that? Does this make logical sense? I vote no, it is absolutely ridiculous and it is an old pagan tradition that should have kicked the bucket thousands of years ago.

The only thing we need to do is believe that he died on the cross for our sins, and live our lives according to his Word. Another way to look at it is someone loving you so much that they are willing to die for what YOU'VE done wrong. That is what Jesus did. Understand?

I understand what you're saying, I don't understand the moral justification for it. If someone died or even just took the blame for something I've done wrong, I am still the one responsible, it was still me that committed the crime, it's just that some poor guy has to suffer for it instead of me. if anyone knew the truth, the blame would fall back to me, my friend would be released or (if he was killed) publicly exonerated, and I would cop the punishment instead. Jesus can die for our sins all he wants, it doesn't mean he's done anything meaningful, he just took someone else's blame in the public eye and suffered the consequences that this(these) other person(people) are responsible for.

And another thing, you asked "why make a man...".....you have to realize that God didn't make Jesus. Jesus is in fact God, as John 1:1 indicates. This only makes sense, because only God can live life on earth being morally perfect and sin free. When i say "Jesus is God", that doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father. The Son and the Father are two different beings, sharing the title of "God", along with the Holy Spirit and all three are what Christians call "The Holy Trinity".

This now becomes even more ridiculous, God the Father required a perfect human sacrifice so he sacrificed God the Son to himself. What? This is not making any sense, he sacrificed himself to himself, to appease a debt that was owed to himself. I don't understand how anyone could believe this doctrine. There are positive merits in religion, even in the Christian religion, but anyone who ascribes to this nonsense is not heading in a good direction and I hope that they do not take the notion of sacrifices and vicarious redemption seriously.