Why is Christ's sacrifice needed?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Please do. You're on a roll.

I absolutely adore how you seem to think you can get to me. Too cute, honestly.

Just note for your own purposes that you never refuted my take on the intent of your "Perhaps you can ask Him one day" quip. Perhaps you're actually willing to fess up to the passive-aggressive intent... which would, hands down, be a first for me. It certainly wasn't the "have a nice day" you tried to equate it to, at any rate. Unless that would have been a facetious "have a nice day" - that is, one in which a "nice day" is the last thing you hope the person you were replying to has. If that's what you were going for... then carry on... that's much more like the Christian attitude I am used to seeing, and is in no way contradictory to expectations.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Gods aren't humans (although humans can become Divine). What makes them Gods is their soveignty over various spheres of influence, not that they're effectively immortal.

Its a history thing not a spiritual one. It started with the Greeks. The Romans took a lot of beliefs etc fromthe Greeks once of which is making their gods human like themselves in order to interact with them. Before the Greeks, gods were divine and worshiped. During the Greek and Roman before christianity came in the Byzatine period, more emphasis was put on the gods humanity. The only thing that made them gods was their eternity.

Hence probably why jesus is human and god. Human flaws but eternal nature. Though, christians today dont see flaws in christ. God cant have flaws. Romans didnt think that was a contradiction.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Its a history thing not a spiritual one. It started with the Greeks. The Romans took a lot of beliefs etc fromthe Greeks once of which is making their gods human like themselves in order to interact with them. Before the Greeks, gods were divine and worshiped. During the Greek and Roman before christianity came in the Byzatine period, more emphasis was put on the gods humanity. The only thing that made them gods was their eternity.

Hence probably why jesus is human and god. Human flaws but eternal nature. Though, christians today dont see flaws in christ. God cant have flaws. Romans didnt think that was a contradiction.

"Before the Greeks, gods were divine and worshiped."
What?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I absolutely adore how you seem to think you can get to me. Too cute, honestly.

Just note for your own purposes that you never refuted my take on the intent of your "Perhaps you can ask Him one day" quip. Perhaps you're actually willing to fess up to the passive-aggressive intent... which would, hands down, be a first for me. It certainly wasn't the "have a nice day" you tried to equate it to, at any rate. Unless that would have been a facetious "have a nice day" - that is, one in which a "nice day" is the last thing you hope the person you were replying to has. If that's what you were going for... then carry on... that's much more like the Christian attitude I am used to seeing, and is in no way contradictory to expectations.

You must admit, it is working. You keep responding. Resistance is futile.

I'll throw you a bone for your effort. I agree with you completely. Now what.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You must admit, it is working. You keep responding. Resistance is futile.

I'll throw you a bone for your effort. I agree with you completely. Now what.

Awesome. Thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Before the Greeks, gods were divine and worshiped."
What?

Before the Greeks, the gods were considered divine (spiritual/holy/worthy of worship/higher) and so forth.

When the Romans came into Italy, they borrowed a lot of customs, arts, and beliefs from their neighborin greeks. In Roman view, the gods were not divine ans holy; they were human just like us. They had flaws. They had feelings.

The only thing that makes them gods is that they do not die. It is a very different concept or gods than what we are used to. In many forms of Paganism, even practiced today, the gods arent considered holy in respects to the abrahamic god. There was no monotheism at the time. It changed aroune Constantine but I have to go back to my notes.

Gods were worshiped for X amount of years. When greeks and romans came in, they mirrored humans so that the romans see themselves as gods and in the role of the gods but still being human.

I would not be surprised after the apostles The Church kept with that line of thinking that jesus IS a god given gods are humans to romans. That isnt the case for the jews nor, since jesus was a jew, not for him either.

Interesting when you learn the history about it. Neurotheology is another good topic to look into. Im taking prehistorical art history.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Before the Greeks, the gods were considered divine (spiritual/holy/worthy of worship/higher) and so forth.

When the Romans came into Italy, they borrowed a lot of customs, arts, and beliefs from their neighborin greeks. In Roman view, the gods were not divine ans holy; they were human just like us. They had flaws. They had feelings.

The only thing that makes them gods is that they do not die. It is a very different concept or gods than what we are used to. In many forms of Paganism, even practiced today, the gods arent considered holy in respects to the abrahamic god. There was no monotheism at the time. It changed aroune Constantine but I have to go back to my notes.

Gods were worshiped for X amount of years. When greeks and romans came in, they mirrored humans so that the romans see themselves as gods and in the role of the gods but still being human.

I would not be surprised after the apostles The Church kept with that line of thinking that jesus IS a god given gods are humans to romans. That isnt the case for the jews nor, since jesus was a jew, not for him either.

Interesting when you learn the history about it. Neurotheology is another good topic to look into. Im taking prehistorical art history.

Of course the Gods were considered holy and worthy of worship. They weren't viewed as just flawed humans. They were viewed as being of great power and sacred. You're not making much sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course the Gods were considered holy and worthy of worship. They weren't viewed as just flawed humans. They were viewed as being of great power and sacred. You're not making much sense.

Like I said, it history. Before that, gods were nature: sun is a big one. When a higher up passed away, to make him a god, they put him in a tomb of his own and adorn hin as a deity.

Another part of history is when a higher up dies, they used to take out his heart ans weigh it. If it was lighter than a feather, the deceased had less adorned tomb. If it was light he became a deity.

Other deities were humans such as Nefertari and her husband, if I can think of hand. (Attached) The sun god blessed them. There are many arts we are going through since its art history.

We are on the byzatine era were christianity was at its height.

I would not be surprised if this was the same as now. In the Jesus christ pictures, the artist put something like a halo, starts with an N, got to get it, to express his divinity. Similar to the Nifiti attachment below.

Anyway, not making it up... dont know if you'll fine good sources online since theyre all over the place.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

@Hockeycowboy there's only one view of atonement Christology I'm favorable toward- and that because it's not nearly as morbid: Christos Vector.

Christos Vector is positive and affirming about the event and doesn't really emphasize the sacrificial aspect. From this view, Christ destroyed death and the grave with the crucifixion act. It's one of the five historical atonement positions accepted as orthodox by mainline Christians.

For record, here are the positions.

https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

I will mark in Bible red the ones I think are valid, and blue the ones that are horsecrap. Black are ones that I was neutral about.

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement

Modern theories

• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

 

[james bond]

For record, here are the positions.

https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

I will mark in Bible red the ones I think are valid, and blue the ones that are horsecrap. Black are ones that I was neutral about.

It's interesting that the early church fathers thought the ransom in the ransom theory was paid to Satan. It was paid to God by Jesus by shedding of his blood and consequent death for our sins. The reason it had to be Jesus was because he was the only one who is holy. God demands holiness and one cannot be holy with sins upon their soul.

"but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16

"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23

"28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:28

"45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and vto give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

 

[blü 2]

The Genesis account doesn't tell us who was behind the serpent, either. It's not until we read John 8:44 and Revelation 12:9, that we find out with any surety.

Rather, when we get to the NT we find a new, Greek-influenced religion trying to retranslate the Tanakh to suit itself. It remains the case that the Garden story says nothing about sin or death or fall or redeemer. The NT work on the story is an attempt at a retrofit,

In exactly the same way,there's not one single prophecy of Jesus in the Tanakh. All the claimed examples are imaginative retrofits too. The purported identification of Isaiah's 'suffering servant', which stands for the nation of Israel, with Jesus, is a nonsense ─ the text of Isaiah says nothing of the kind. And to rub it in, Jesus was called Jesus, not Immanuel.

Ezekiel 18 lets us know that accountability is everyone's responsibility, you can't blame your actions on anyone else.

And that goes double when it comes to being blamed for what one of your ancestors might or might not have done.

We need to use the whole Bible, all 66 books, in order to understand and explain it, even small things sometimes.

No, we need to realize that the bible is a collection of books written at various times in various places for various purposes, each by a human author, sometimes with other bits added by others, sometimes reedited, and that what the bible can tell us is in the accumulation of those details.

There is NO license to wish some grand unifying plot on the stories. That will be a dishonest fudge instead of facing up to the contradictions within the bible itself.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The blame is on god. Whe a child hits other children because they see their parents fight at home, yes, the child has consequences but its not isolated from the parents who influenced those consequrences. Blame the parents if the child is not beeing raised well not the child.

God, the father, told eve not to eat the fruit. He did Not, however, explain what life and death mean. They were children. They did not know.

The snake tempted them and because they are child minded, they disobeyed out of ignorance.

If the father taught his children life and death, THEN if they disobeyed, its their fault. Since he did not-he wanted to keep it secret/know good and evil like us-the ignorance was of eve but the actual blame falls on the parent.

Thats like accusing the employee for messing up putting in his hours when the company is supposed to teach how to use the new program first before he starts putting in his ours. Its the company's negligence. We all have consequences for our actions but...

in life biblical and not the blame would go to the parent not to the child. If god had a lawyer, he'd have to prove god hsd a reason not to tell his children life ans death and even more so find why the children would be at fault given their innocent crime and their parents negligence to keep them from commiting one.

How many parents tell their children not to do something, but they do it anyway.

Therefore God for warned Adam, but Adam did it anyway.

So the fault is on Adam for listing to Eve and not God.

You sound like a person that will do things and then want to blame someone else for your faults.
Instead of taking responsibility for your own faults.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How many parents tell their children not to do something, but they do it anyway.

Therefore God for warned Adam, but Adam did it anyway.

So the fault is on Adam for listing to Eve and not God.

You sound like a person that will do things and then want to blame someone else for your faults.
Instead of taking responsibility for your own faults.

Reread the post. You overlooked or didnt read my point.

1. God created adam and eve

2. God did not tell adam nor eve what life and death meant. He said if they knew like he does they would die

3. Adam and eve were innocent (like a person with mental health is not sentence to death for killing just consequenced for the action itself)

4. (In gods case) the sin could have been prevented if:

A. He told them what death and life was (they would understand the consequence of their actions as to not repeat it)

B. Never let the snake in the garden in the first place

If child protective services (govenment protects kids from abusive homes etc) found out the child was in a wrong household because there was dangerous objects around, who are they going to blame: the parent or the child?

Converse. You dont need to be defensive. Just reread the post, answer my questions so you get my point and explain how you see otherwise.

Edit

 

[Faithofchristian]

Reread the post. You overlooked or didnt read my point.

1. God created adam and eve

2. God did not tell adam nor eve what life and death meant. He said if they knew like he does they would die

3. Adam and eve were innocent (like a person with mental health is not sentence to death for killing just consequenced for the action itself)

4. (In gods case) the sin could have been prevented if:

A. He told them what death and life was (they would understand the consequence of their actions as to not repeat it)

B. Never let the snake in the garden in the first place

If child protective services (govenment protects kids from abusive homes etc) found out the child was in a wrong household because there was dangerous objects around, who are they going to blame: the parent or the child?

Converse. You dont need to be defensive. Just reread the post, answer my questions so you get my point and explain how you see otherwise.

Edit

Oh now I see what your saying, That God never told Adam what life and death is.

So suppose you were there to know whether God told Adam and Eve about life and death.
exactly how do you know that God never told them.

How many times do you suppose Adam walk pass the tree and being tempted by the serpent, before Eve came.

Adam was already in the garden of Eden with the tree and the serpent, way before Eve came.
So how many times do you suppose Adam walk by the tree and the serpent being tempted before Eve came.

It wasn't until Eve came that lead to Adams down fall, so it was Adams fault for listening to the woman.
As it was, Eve put the blame on the serpent for deceiving her and not blamed God.

But yet you blame God and Eve blamed the serpent.

It seems maybe you should talk to Eve, seeing you know more than Eve did and yet Eve was there and you were not there.
What's up with all that.Go figure

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh now I see what your saying, That God never told Adam what life and death is.

Yep. Crucial point.

So suppose you were there to know whether God told Adam and Eve about life and death. exactly how do you know that God never told them.

God says: we should not tell them good and evil becauase they woule know what we know Genesis 3:22 (I guess that assumes it would make them god)

Adam and eve where ignorant of those two words

How many times do you suppose Adam walk pass the tree and being tempted by the serpent, before Eve came.

We are going by the same bible. There are no hypothetical unless youte making a point? Be direct.

It wasn't until Eve came that lead to Adams down fall, so it was Adams fault for listening to the woman.
As it was, Eve put the blame on the serpent for deceiving her and not blamed God.

Blaming the serpent is like saying, "no. Dad. I didnt do it. 'He' made me do it" type of thing. The parents are responsible for their childrens actions. The serpant should have not been in the garden to begin with.

But yet you blame God and Eve blamed the serpen

Yes. Parents are responsible for their children. For example, if a child was not taught to not get into a strangers car, and he did and was raped, who would you blame?

1. The ignorant child
2. The driver
3. The parent

The driver is just an outside party. If the parent told the child why not to ride with strangers and what it means to be hurt and kidnapped, the child can make a more intellegent decision whether or not to take the ride.

Adam and eve did not have that advantage of foreknowledge before they took the fruit.

That is a problem. The serpant didnt raise the child. God did.

All blessings and curses come from one source. Everyone else are just characters in a movie: satan included.

It seems maybe you should talk to Eve, seeing you know more than Eve and yet Eve was there and you were not there.
Go Figur

Redirection and defensiveness??

Just saying

1. Parent takes care or child
2. Child does wrong, the responsibility and blame is on the caretaker

It would be benefitial for the caretaker to educate her children.

If you have children do you let them touch the stove, kick them out the house when they touch it, then years later teach them not to touch the stove when the error could have been prevented with just a little education?

That...

And if your child was depressed etc because he is in an abusive home, should child services blame the child or you the parent?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Genesis account doesn't tell us who was behind the serpent, either. It's not until we read John 8:44 and Revelation 12:9, that we find out with any surety.

Because as we all know, John was a time traveler and found himself bumming around Eden buck nekkid for "research".

We need to use the whole Bible, all 66 books, in order to understand and explain it, even small things sometimes.

It's an amusing outlook when quotes are brought up that flatly deny or at least criticize the other quotes.

Paul: Gays are sick! Women too!
Christians: Yay!
Jesus: Some people are born or made different than you. Accept it.
Christians: *ugh* Jesus, you just have to listen to the WHOLE story ...

That was why the Israelites had all those sacrifices, leading up to the annual Day of Atonement.

And it's never about filling the pantries of the priests, is it?

Rituals were made for man (especially certain men, like the ones telling the general public God said to do certain rituals), not man for ritual.

Scientists have noted that our telomeres, on our chromosomes, get shorter and shorter, as we age. What if perfect DNA results in our telomeres never getting shorter? I don't know.

We call immortal cells "cancer". I was under the impression it was bad.

All of our sin, being inherited, came from "one man" (Romans 5:12), so what was needed was only 'one man's' sacrifice.

Whew! I'm so glad no one else has to pick up any responsibility for their actions! Jesus must be road paste what with how many people are happy to throw him under the bus.

Over 6,000 years later, and all forms of human government being tried, the issue is just about settled: humans are becoming more and more selfish, destroying society and harming themselves! There's more divisiveness between people than ever before.

Quote the stats.

Great technological strides have been made, but really, what good is it if we can send men 240,000 miles to the moon, but so many can't even walk 1/2 mile down their neighborhood road without getting mugged?

Israel and Judah were theocracies, led by Yahweh. Crime still happened and in fact, Israel lasted about 5 minutes before a civil war destroyed it for centuries. Not seeing how listing God as the President helps anything.

People's attitudes are worse than ever before.

I agree. We know now that murder and rape and genocide are grave sins, but there are those even today threatening to kill school children for protesting the fact people are trying to kill them. Killing "disobedient" children is BIBLICAL, I remind you.

The first sin was murder.

And that's arguable because murder as a sin hadn't been established yet. Cain is getting busted after the fact.

Also, what we learn is that righteousness is rewarded by God with murder, while the perp gets off scot free and can go become founder of civilization.

They believes the gods were human (athena etc) so they have flaws etc but what makes them deified isnt their character but that they live forever.

And even then, they required magic immortality fruit (sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?). If they decided to go on a diet, they'd die.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Like I said, it history. Before that, gods were nature: sun is a big one. When a higher up passed away, to make him a god, they put him in a tomb of his own and adorn hin as a deity.

Another part of history is when a higher up dies, they used to take out his heart ans weigh it. If it was lighter than a feather, the deceased had less adorned tomb. If it was light he became a deity.

Other deities were humans such as Nefertari and her husband, if I can think of hand. (Attached) The sun god blessed them. There are many arts we are going through since its art history.

We are on the byzatine era were christianity was at its height.

I would not be surprised if this was the same as now. In the Jesus christ pictures, the artist put something like a halo, starts with an N, got to get it, to express his divinity. Similar to the Nifiti attachment below.

Anyway, not making it up... dont know if you'll fine good sources online since theyre all over the place.

Um, okay...I'll just let this go...It's off topic, anyway.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because as we all know, John was a time traveler and found himself bumming around Eden buck nekkid for "research".


It's an amusing outlook when quotes are brought up that flatly deny or at least criticize the other quotes.

Paul: Gays are sick! Women too!
Christians: Yay!
Jesus: Some people are born or made different than you. Accept it.
Christians: *ugh* Jesus, you just have to listen to the WHOLE story ...


And it's never about filling the pantries of the priests, is it?

Rituals were made for man (especially certain men, like the ones telling the general public God said to do certain rituals), not man for ritual.


We call immortal cells "cancer". I was under the impression it was bad.


Whew! I'm so glad no one else has to pick up any responsibility for their actions! Jesus must be road paste what with how many people are happy to throw him under the bus.


Quote the stats.


Israel and Judah were theocracies, led by Yahweh. Crime still happened and in fact, Israel lasted about 5 minutes before a civil war destroyed it for centuries. Not seeing how listing God as the President helps anything.


I agree. We know now that murder and rape and genocide are grave sins, but there are those even today threatening to kill school children for protesting the fact people are trying to kill them. Killing "disobedient" children is BIBLICAL, I remind you.


And that's arguable because murder as a sin hadn't been established yet. Cain is getting busted after the fact.

Also, what we learn is that righteousness is rewarded by God with murder, while the perp gets off scot free and can go become founder of civilization.


And even then, they required magic immortality fruit (sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?). If they decided to go on a diet, they'd die.

Hey. I didnt make up history. Im just surprised people think like that today

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Um, okay...I'll just let this go...

Haha. Unless you have new and intellegent info to talk about history. I love history. I was a little hesitant to type that post given dont think youre interested in the content more just thinking youre right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Haha. Unless you have new and intellegent info to talk about history. I love history. I was a little hesitant to type that post given dont think youre interested in the content more just thinking youre right.

Whatever. Think what you want. I mostly ignore you, anyway.