The need for Christ to die makes sense, and it doesn't

[Desert Snake]

The crucifiction of Jesus Christ is a very very very physical act of sacrifice. It has everything to do with the fall and original sin, which you are evading.

Johanan tells you what the sacrifice is

John 10:1-17

Nothing like what you wrote

 

[Desert Snake]

You may have your own personal believs concerning this, but nonetheless . . .

The doctrines and documents of the Roman Church, Protestant churches, Orthodox churches. You are still evading the issue of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' in all this. The Fall and Original Sin plays a pivital role in Christianity, and the question of role of sacrifice in this.

Great, demonstrate that with scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great, demonstrate that with scripture.

I did.

Romans 5

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did.

Romans 5

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ah, where is 'original sin" concept? Eve sinned, and there were consequences, ie 'sin was brought into the world', that says nothing about 'original sin', it just means consequences from Eves sin.

 

[shunyadragon]

Her describes in more detail

From: What is Original Sin? Meaning and Consequences of Ancestral Sin

What is Original Sin? Meaning and Consequences of Ancestral Sin
Original sin, also described as ancestral sin, is a Christian view of the nature of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man. Original sin arose from Adam and Eve's transgression in Eden, the sin of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What is Original Sin? Biblical Meaning and Consequences of Ancestral Sin

Original sin, also described as ancestral sin, is a Christian view of the nature of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man. Original sin arose from Adam and Eve's transgression in Eden, the sin of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Original sin can be explained as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.”

Original Sin in the Bible
Scripture says that we are born sinners and that we are by nature sinners.

Psalm 51:5 says that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Ephesians 2:2 declares that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience.”

Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, stating that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.

There are also verses which state that we are all sinful from the time that we are born.

Proverbs 22:15 says “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.”

Genesis 8:21 declares, “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Jonathan Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: “The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its origin has reference to the birth or beginning of existence... so that the word here translated youth comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy.”

Sinfulness is frequently addressed in Scripture as something pertaining to the human race as a whole. This signifies original sin is a quality of mankind. Thus, it must be inferred that we are all born sinners since we are all human and original sin is considered as a part of humanity.

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." -Ephesians 2:1-3

 

[Desert Snake]

I did.

Romans 5

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

'Even those who did not sin'.

That isn't original sin, at all. It infers consequences from the sin in the Garden. You are really getting abstract to get 'original sin' out of that. It's theoretical, or such, whatever. Some persons speculation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, where is 'original sin" concept? Eve sinned, and there were consequences, ie 'sin was brought into the world', that says nothing about 'original sin', it just means consequences from Eves sin.

That is a description of the 'Original Sin,' and amplified in the citations from the Bible that followed in my previous post.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ephesians 1
Ephesians 2

These would be arguments against any claim that I am a Christian, however, going back to original sin,

A need for delineation of meaning in the verses, needed. Ie context

 

[Desert Snake]

As a side note:
Even though Ephesians 1, & Ephesians 2, seem to contradict my God belief, which has a binitarian nature before "manifestation", verses in the book of Hebrews may infer that these verses in Ephesians, are 'person specific', even though a plurality might be inferred in book of Hebrews.
•
That being said, the context in Ephesians concerning sin needs to be delineated
So, we need to determine that .
/...

 

[shunyadragon]

Ephesians 1
Ephesians 2

These would be arguments against any claim that I am a Christian, however, going back to original sin,

A need for delineation of meaning in the verses, needed. Ie context

I cited specific citations in the Bible. The verses you cite did not directly deal with the 'Fall and /Original Sin,' mine did, which is the reason the doctrines of the churches believe in the 'Fall' and Original Sin.'. Maybe the NT contradicts itself. Does it???

The context of the verses I cited are complete

Again, I believe you are projecting your own personal belief, and not the dominant beliefs in Christianity as a whole. Individuals can believe anything

 

[Desert Snake]

Original sin , to literal sacrifice? Sure doesn't seem like it.
It's completely spiritual.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ephesians 1
Ephesians 1:5
Ephesians 2:3, Romans 4:8
Colossians 1:5-8

•
Original sin , to literal sacrifice? Sure doesn't seem like it.
It's completely spiritual.

Acknowledged the spiritual implications acknowledged in my references, but Biblically based on very real physical events, such as the Fall and Original Sin, which described in my references, and the very real physical event of sacrifice by the crucifiction of Jesus Christ.

 

[Desert Snake]

Acknowledged the spiritual implications acknowledged in my references, but Biblically based on very real physical events, such as the Fall and Original Sin, which described in my references, and the very real physical event of sacrifice by the crucifiction of Jesus Christ.

And you believe that your sins are forgiven, then?
Since neither of us are christian, I'm leaving this argument. Sort of theoretical.

 

[shunyadragon]

And you believe that your sins are forgiven, then?

What I believe is a different issue, but nonetheless, I believe it is absurd that the relationship between humanity, salvation and God, would be defined by any one of the diverse religions of humanity over the millennia. I also believe the concept of sacrifice in human cultures throughout history is the desire from the human perspective to appease God and forgiveness of sins and/or forgive disobedience of God(s)'s will.

Since neither of us are christian, I'm leaving this argument. Sort of theoretical.

I am specifically arguing against the necessity and role of sacrifice in salvation as believed over the millennia, which is by the evidence are Neolithic and Bronze Age beliefs in all cultures,. What you nor I believe is to a certain extent not necessarily relevant.

 

[Milton Platt]

So, the need for God's son to be crucified makes sense to me in the sense that suffering and dying for someone is possibly the best way to show them you love them.

For instance, if somebody gives me butterflies in the stomach and delightful feelings, I could be friends with anybody, and it would be easy to love them. I could incessantly show affection and words of praise towards them and it wouldn't mean anything.

Once I'm willing to suffer for them, then I am proving that I truly love them, because I stop receiving reward.

I'm not going to wear a crown of thorns for someone, be stripped down naked, humiliated, and scourged for someone, then be nailed to a cross for them, unless I really love them more than anyone, and find there to be a cause so beautiful, that it is worth such a sacrifice.

The crucifixion doesn't make sense either though, because God would not need it to forgive. He could simply say, "your debt is forgiven". But the crucifixion is a way to demonstrate true unconditional love, for a person would only want to make such a sacrifice, if the reward for making such a sacrifice was truly beautiful, and the suffering worthwhile.

It is highly immoral for one person to be put to death for the transgressions of someone else. It is highly immoral to hold someone thousands of generations removed for what someone supposedly did 6,000 years ago. No way around it.

 

[sojourner]

What I do not get is that someone innocent and of omnipotence has to suffer and die for wicked sinners to be saved. Thats backwards and contrary.

Save them if you must, but torturing one's self does not make better people of the wicked, nor does it entitle them to be royal followers of the Allmighty.

I remember seeing the crucifix for the first time as a youth, and someone explained the story to me. The first reaction i had is , how cruel a world do we live in, that someone has to torture the innocent for the sake of the guilty.

That's arguing from a perspective of Substitutionary Atonement. that's not the only theology of the cross, nor is it, IMO, the best.

 

[sojourner]

It satisifies both the vengeance and love of God. On one hand God demands retribution for sins but on the other hand He loves people to much not to forgive them if He can. So, dying in their place was the only way to satisfy both. This way everyone knows how seriously God takes sin and yet forgiveness is still available to them.

Not buying it. Vengeance and love don't mix.

 

[sojourner]

This is an ancient barbaric view from the Neolithic and Bronze Age, of the necessity of sacrifice found in most cultures to appease a primitive view of God(s), For the most part abandoned in the iron Ige, civilization and after, except for most of Christianity clinging to an ancient paradigm.

Except it's not. It's a later imperial imposition on Xy.

 

[sojourner]

You are creating an unnecessary high fog index for a fundamental concept interpreted from Genesis, and the concept of sacrifice, which is reinforced in the NT as linked to the purpose of Jesus Christ.

Again, an interpretation imposed by the Empire. Original Sin has done -- and is doing -- more damage to people than any other doctrine, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

False, Biblically the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has the same purpose, and replaces priestly sacrific of Judaism.

Not necessarily. It plays the theme only. It's essence is more a priori. Jesus' self-sacrifice points us to the cost of love.

The 'sacrifice' is spiritual, only for believers, and isn't physical at all.

No. It's physical, because it involves the whole human being.

The Fall and Original Sin plays a pivital role in Christianity, and the question of role of sacrifice in this.

And it plays a very nefarious role, IMO.