Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[Nihilist Virus]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

 

[Tree of Life]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

According to the covenant relationship that God has established with mankind, Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for our forgiveness. This is based on the premises you've mentioned but also more:

1. God's relationship with mankind has a representational element. Adam represented all of his posterity, fathers represent their families, kings represent their people, priests represent the people that they serve, and Jesus represents his people to God.
   
   
2. The terms of the covenant are the gift of eternal life upon perfect, perpetual, and personal obedience; conversely, the removal of life (aka death) is merited for those who disobey and violate the terms of the covenant.

Based on these premises Jesus was given to be our priest, representative, and covenant mediator. He satisfied the curse of our covenant violations (death) in our place. He also positively fulfilled the terms of the covenant in our place by his perfect obedience, thus meriting for us eternal life.

Without a robust covenant framework the cross makes little to no sense. Note also that the cross is taken along with the incarnation and the perfect obedience of Christ. Also the resurrection must be taken together with this. These all stand together or not at all.

 

[RC1970]

.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

According to the covenant relationship that God has established with mankind, Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for our forgiveness.

This remains a non sequitur and you are merely re-asserting it.

This is based on the premises you've mentioned but also more:

1. God's relationship with mankind has a representational element. Adam represented all of his posterity, fathers represent their families, kings represent their people, priests represent the people that they serve, and Jesus represents his people to God.
   
   
2. The terms of the covenant are the gift of eternal life upon perfect, perpetual, and personal obedience; conversely, the removal of life (aka death) is merited for those who disobey and violate the terms of the covenant.

Based on these premises Jesus was given to be our priest, representative, and covenant mediator. He satisfied the curse of our covenant violations (death) in our place. He also positively fulfilled the terms of the covenant in our place by his perfect obedience, thus meriting for us eternal life.

Without a robust covenant framework the cross makes little to no sense. Note also that the cross is taken along with the incarnation and the perfect obedience of Christ. Also the resurrection must be taken together with this. These all stand together or not at all.

I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Sin is anything that God considers as disobedience to Him.

Christ's gift of salvation includes not only his voluntary death, but also taking upon Himself of humanity's sin prior to that and resurrection of His physical body from the dead after.

The reason is very simple - God chose this way of salvation. Was it the only way possible, we weren't told. We only know that this was the way God provided. He's the boss.

 

[Lulav]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

NV, instead of posting words that are ready to be refuted, I'd like to ask that you take less than an hour of your time and watch this video. I had a bias when I watched it too but afterwards that changed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sin is anything that God considers as disobedience to Him.

Christ's gift of salvation includes not only his voluntary death, but also taking upon Himself of humanity's sin prior to that and resurrection of His physical body from the dead after.

The reason is very simple - God chose this way of salvation. Was it the only way possible, we weren't told. We only know that this was the way God provided. He's the boss.

Jesus prayed and asked if there was any other way, that God the father would proceed that way. So I think we are certain this was the only way. In any case, I still fail to see the logical connection. Forgiveness and the crucifixion remain logically unconnected.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

NV, instead of posting words that are ready to be refuted, I'd like to ask that you take less than an hour of your time and watch this video. I had a bias when I watched it too but afterwards that changed.

Thanks, I'll be able to watch that tomorrow.

 

[Serving Zion]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Hi there, I do have some useful perspective to contribute but can I just ask you first, what are you wishing to achieve by this thread? I know you have been on this forum for a long time and you have not yet found the missing link that will make Christianity fit with you.. and this topic does have that potential. Are you really looking to find out that Christianity is true so that you can go forward telling everyone else how much of a mess it is and how hard it is to figure out; or, are you just looking to demonstrate that nobody can convince you that it's true? (There couldn't be another motive, really.. could there?).

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Jesus prayed and asked if there was any other way, that God the father would proceed that way. So I think we are certain this was the only way. In any case, I still fail to see the logical connection. Forgiveness and the crucifixion remain logically unconnected.

Well, the fact that the prayer of Jesus wasn't answered, doesn't mean there couldn't be another way. It just shows that God's resolve to do it this way was firm. He knows best, He's God. You can say, it wasn't really a prayer, but a rhetorical question showing, perhaps, the difficulty of this decision.

Our logic was created by God. It's very limited. In case of salvation through Jesus, it wasn't mere forgiveness as saying "I forgive you", or simple decision to forgive. In God's view, it was impossible to do, there was a practical step required, which is called "payment for sin". So, it was "forgiven" not in a human sense, but rather "redeemed", bought by Jesus for a price. Forgiveness = being free of punishment for sin.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Christ's death isn't necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That is, it's not that God needed someone to die in order to forgive sinners; God is fully capable of forgiving sins whenever and however He wants--as we see repeatedly throughout the Old Testament.

The significance of Christ's death isn't that it was necessary in order for God to pardon our sins; it's that God, in Jesus, assumes the sum total of what it means to be human and unites to Himself all of what that entails--which ultimately means death. Our deliverance from sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus is that, in dying and overcoming death He has triumphed over every power that breeches our communion with God: sin, death, hell, and the devil. In this yes, we are forgiven of all our sins by Christ's death and resurrection, not because God needs a dead body to forgive, but rather that God offers Himself in Jesus to a sinful world which has Him crucified and He, freely, embraces that world in love by enduring shame, humiliation, and death on the cross. God, in Jesus, becomes another victim of man's inhumanity toward man; taking our sin He brings it--and all of us in our sin--with Him into death, and rising has delivered humanity in Himself to new life.

"[The Word] was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering ... when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam— namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God— that we might recover in Christ Jesus." - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.18.1

"He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head," - ibid. Book V.21.1

All broken in Adam is made whole in Jesus.

"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." - St. Gregory Nazianzus, Letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius

As for what sin is: All that which is contrary to the righteousness of God revealed to us in His Law (namely and chiefly, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."); whereby we act unjustly, either through action or inaction, whether in thought, word, or deed. To fail to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength; to fail to love our neighbor as our self. All which fails to be truly good and right is sin. Being derived from our inward malformation by which we are curved and bent inward toward ourselves away from and against God, our fellow man, and all God's creatures. By which we act with cruelty, selfishness, apathy, indifference, pride, avarice, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Chriliman]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

The crucifixion is Christ willingly laying his mortal life down(similar to how he layed his divine glory down to become a man) and letting sinners do their worst to him, rather than retaliating or cowardly running away. The reason this leads to forgiveness is because Christ took the worst sins that anyone will ever commit upon himself, he became the victim of the worst injustice and cruelty possible, yet still forgave them, even while they were killing him in the most humiliating and torturous way imaginable.

To know this level of forgiveness is to know God, but it's another thing to actually put it into practice in your own life, even if it's not to the extreme that Jesus did. It's about forgiving people. Sacrificing your desire to hold them in contempt or accuse them of their wrong doings, even when they don't ask to be forgiven.

If you need a definition of sin then here you go: Doing something in action or thought that you either know is wrong(this can include not doing something that you know is right) or come to realize is wrong. There are objective wrongs(torturing the innocent) and subjective wrongs(matters of personal conscience).

I'd be glad to answer any honest questions you may have.

 

[Tree of Life]

This remains a non sequitur and you are merely re-asserting it.

The keyword is covenant. Only within a covenant framework is there a logical necessity for the cross. Without a covenant framework then it would be very difficult to demonstrate a necessity.

I fail to see the relevance.

Ok!

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

• Sin is lawlessness, the transgression of the laws which God has set forth.
  
• God is righteous and does not let sin go unpunished. The wages of sin is death.
• There is no one who has never sinned, which means all must die for their own sins.
• But God is love and He loves the sinners even though He hates sins.
  
• So God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to take on the sins of the mankind and to die for us.
• Thus, both the righteousness and the love of God are fulfilled.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi there, I do have some useful perspective to contribute but can I just ask you first, what are you wishing to achieve by this thread?

In my experience, Christians ask this question when they're cornered.

I know you have been on this forum for a long time and you have not yet found the missing link that will make Christianity fit with you.. and this topic does have that potential.

No, this topic does not have that potential. For me to accept Christianity, it is necessary - but not sufficient - that this question is answered. Simply expressing your core beliefs in a coherent, self-consistent manner is the bare basic of what is required, but fantastical and absurd ideas that are self-consistent are still not worthy of belief until they are corroborated by physical evidence.

Are you really looking to find out that Christianity is true so that you can go forward telling everyone else how much of a mess it is and how hard it is to figure out; or, are you just looking to demonstrate that nobody can convince you that it's true? (There couldn't be another motive, really.. could there?).

This is the apologetics forum, where nonbelievers are encouraged to ask questions about Christian theology. Questioning the motive of nonbelievers who accept this invitation is, as I said, the tell-tale indication that you're cornered.

You said you can contribute, so if that's true and if you're not cornered, then let's hear it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, the fact that the prayer of Jesus wasn't answered, doesn't mean there couldn't be another way. It just shows that God's resolve to do it this way was firm. He knows best, He's God. You can say, it wasn't really a prayer, but a rhetorical question showing, perhaps, the difficulty of this decision.

I don't care how many ways there were, really. I just want to see the logical steps.

Our logic was created by God. It's very limited.

What a bizarre thing to say. What a bizarre pairing of sentences.

But no, we created logic.

In case of salvation through Jesus, it wasn't mere forgiveness as saying "I forgive you", or simple decision to forgive. In God's view, it was impossible to do, there was a practical step required, which is called "payment for sin". So, it was "forgiven" not in a human sense, but rather "redeemed", bought by Jesus for a price. Forgiveness = being free of punishment for sin.

Right, I get that's the basic notion of Christianity. I'm asking you to prove, through a logical syllogism, the physical or logical necessity of the crucifixion. Thus far, neither you nor anyone responding has even tried.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The crucifixion is Christ willingly laying his mortal life down(similar to how he layed his divine glory down to become a man) and letting sinners do their worst to him, rather than retaliating or cowardly running away.

Right. Another way of putting it is Super Man allowing himself to be bound by cobwebs.

The reason this leads to forgiveness is because Christ took the worst sins that anyone will ever commit upon himself, he became the victim of the worst injustice and cruelty possible, yet still forgave them, even while they were killing him in the most humiliating and torturous way imaginable.

Non sequitur.

To know this level of forgiveness is to know God, but it's another thing to actually put it into practice in your own life, even if it's not to the extreme that Jesus did. It's about forgiving people. Sacrificing your desire to hold them in contempt or accuse them of their wrong doings, even when they don't ask to be forgiven.

Irrelevant.

If you need a definition of sin then here you go: Doing something in action or thought that you either know is wrong(this can include not doing something that you know is right) or come to realize is wrong.

Have you read the book of Judges? The author went to great lengths to belabor the idea that "everyone did what was right in their own eyes because there was no king." The point was that you cannot just do what you think is right, but that what is right must be declared by some authority.

There are objective wrongs(torturing the innocent) and subjective wrongs(matters of personal conscience).

An objective wrong does not exist, but let's suppose it does. By definition, an objective wrong is an action that is wrong no matter who performs it.

Now, your example of an objective wrong is torturing the innocent. God, then, has committed an objective wrong.

When David sinned, God intended to punish him by executing his infant son (which, incidentally, violates Deuteronomy 24:16). God, however, did not instantly kill the infant but rather tortured David's infant son by inflicting him with a week-long illness which finally culminated in death.

So I think your definition of sin needs reworking.

I'd be glad to answer any honest questions you may have.

Let's start with the OP, please.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

I don't care how many ways there were, really. I just want to see the logical steps.



What a bizarre thing to say. What a bizarre pairing of sentences.

But no, we created logic.



Right, I get that's the basic notion of Christianity. I'm asking you to prove, through a logical syllogism, the physical or logical necessity of the crucifixion. Thus far, neither you nor anyone responding has even tried.

God is so much bigger and higher than us. We are little ants on a small speck of dust in the vast Universe that belongs and is sustained ny Him.

The only logic there is and ever will be is, He decided so. That's enough of substantiation. That's the way it had to be according to God. That's why we call it faith. If we ever could derive to the necessity of any of God's actions through our human logic would mean we are equal to God. Which we are not.

Let's try and understand by applying our logic, why the world around us the way it is. Why we find ourselves in the 3-dimensional space and time continum. Why there's forces of gravity and intraatomic attraction. Why time moves only in one direction. Etc.

God is the ultimate answer to all questions.

 

[Chriliman]

.



Have you read the book of Judges? The author went to great lengths to belabor the idea that "everyone did what was right in their own eyes because there was no king." The point was that you cannot just do what you think is right, but that what is right must be declared by some authority.

You can certainly do what you think is right, it's just that it may or may not line up with what's actually right. God teaches that our good actions will cause us to thrive and our bad actions will cause the opposite.

An objective wrong does not exist, but let's suppose it does. By definition, an objective wrong is an action that is wrong no matter who performs it.

As long as two or more moral beings exist then objective wrongs exist. It's always bad to harm others for no good reason. If there are no moral beings, then there can be no objective wrongs, but that clearly isn't the case.

Now, your example of an objective wrong is torturing the innocent. God, then, has committed an objective wrong.

When David sinned, God intended to punish him by executing his infant son (which, incidentally, violates Deuteronomy 24:16). God, however, did not instantly kill the infant but rather tortured David's infant son by inflicting him with a week-long illness which finally culminated in death.

So I think your definition of sin needs reworking.

I don't pretend to fully understand the sufferings God endures in order to bring about the best outcome possible for all those he loves.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christ's death isn't necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That is, it's not that God needed someone to die in order to forgive sinners; God is fully capable of forgiving sins whenever and however He wants--as we see repeatedly throughout the Old Testament.

Yes, you've given me this line before. And I've heard it from no one else but you. But it is also true that you're easily the smartest and most honest apologist I've ever spoken with, so you can imagine how tragic it is that you have a propensity to whimsically abandon conversations and selectively address points. So for now I'll ask you just one question, and I hope you remain to answer.

Most American Christians not only believe that Jesus died for their sins, but in fact they are completely oblivious to your alternative explanation of what exactly Christ accomplished. Is their understanding of theology in any way reasonable, or are atheists - who are only aware of the mainstream theology - reasonable in rejecting the theology?