Down the Wormhole as to Why Jesus Freely Died on the Cross

[Clare73]

The bag of flour is not a substitute for the sinner.

Contraire. . .

Grain offerings for sin were burned on top of animal (blood) sacrifices (Leviticus 5:12),
making them a part of blood sacrifices, for
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness/remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22)

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner,

Yes, the offering (animal, etc.) paid the penalty (atoned) for sin, which is death (Romans 6:23),
in the sinner's place, for the sinner; i.e., penal substitutionary atonement.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

 

[Hawkins]

The big picture.

A close analogy is that you built a huge mansion then invite all your friends to live in for free. However you have to set up rules for them to follow such that they won't fight each other, yell at night to disturb others, or even worse teach your kids to be drug dealers and prostitutes. If any tenant violates your rules you will kick him out of your mansion.

Similarly, God is going to build an eternity we call Heaven as part of His Ultimate Plan. He would invite us to live with Him and His angels happily in such a forever realm. However He has to set up Law for both angels and humans to abide by. Cleverly He implement this before we set food in Heaven. He sets up Law and followed by a Judgment (referred to as the the Final Judgment), to determine who shall be able to step in the Heaven to be built.

Now according to the book of Revelation, it is estimated that there will be 2/3 angels passing the judgment of Law to enter Heaven. The other 1/3 will have the same fate as Satan. Humans are more problematic.

Heaven is such a place where the high ability and intelligence angels will be living with the less capable and less intelligent human beings. The more capable angels can impose their influence to the less intelligent humans. In such an establishment and in the presence of the 1/3 bad angels, all humans are expected to be fully kept under the captivity of these bad angels. Under the full effort of these bad angels, none of the humans can thus pass the same judgment of Law to enter Heaven. By the requirement of Law, God may have to destroy humans as a whole (by a flood in Noah's days) as the purpose of humankind (i.e., to enter Heaven) is defeated.

Jesus now decided to make a self-sacrifice. God's self sacrifice can lawfully/legally allow humans not be judged by Law. Instead humans are judged by a series of covenants covering the different scopes of humans (Jews, gentiles and etc.). Covenants are granted more like a pardon as without the coverage of a covenant a human is pretty much dead (unable to survive the Final Judgment).

With Jesus and God's covenants in place, humans are no long under the judgment of Law as for the angels. They are now under the judgment of Jesus instead of judgment of Law. While Law only applies to one's past and one's behavior. Jesus/God can judge not only your behavior but also your heart, not only your past but also your future. Whoever rejected by Jesus will have to go back to the judgment of Law, to have the the same judgment as the angels.

As a result, without Jesus then no humans can enter Heaven (Satan and his angels will ensure the human captivity with their full effort). With Jesus then, humans are subject to Jesus/God's judgment to enter Heaven through the narrow gate!

 

[bling]

Contraire. . .

Grain offerings for sin were burned on top of animal (blood) sacrifices (Leviticus 5:12),
making them a part of blood sacrifices, for
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness/remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22)

The Bible tells us: Lev. 5: 11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering.

Specifically, the flour the sinner brought is: “for a sin offering”, the fact that it goes on top of the “food offering” does not make the sinner’s offering an animal offering.

Animal blood was used to cleanse and make holy the outside of the alter, but the gran offering could be made on those cleansed altars. Jesus blood cleanses our hearts and makes them holy.

Yes, the offering (animal, etc.) paid the penalty (atoned) for sin, which is death (Romans 6:23),
in the sinner's place, for the sinner; i.e., penal substitutionary atonement.

No! the sinners offering was a penalty (punishment/discipline) on the sinner for his sins and would never pay for any offense to God. God will forgive the sinner after the sinner goes through the atonement process for very minor sins.

Again, If the “offering” was to “pay” God off for sinning, then the same payment would have to be for the same sin, since God is no respecter of people (have a higher value for rich people).

 

[Clare73]

The Bible tells us: Lev. 5: 11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering.
Specifically, the flour the sinner brought is: “for a sin offering”, the fact that
it goes on top of the “food offering”

There is no "food offering" in Leviticus 5:11-12.
The grain offerings, which also accompanied all burnt and fellowship offerings (Numbers 5:8-10), were put on top of the whole burnt offering--male bull, goat, sheep, dove or pigeon--always accompanied by drink and grain offerings (Numbers 15:5-7), flesh and bread always going together (John 6:51),
and which burnt offering burned continually on the altar every day (Exodus 29:38-43), never to go out because the fire came directly from the LORD (Leviticus 9:24), showing his continual acceptance of the sacrifices.

does not make the sinner’s offering an animal offering.

The grain sin offering was placed on top of the animal offering, thereby making its blood part of the grain offering, because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. (Hebrews 9:22).

Animal blood was used to cleanse and make holy the outside of the alter, but the gran offering could be made on those cleansed altars. Jesus blood cleanses our hearts and makes them holy. No! the sinners offering was a penalty (punishment/discipline) on the sinner for his sins and would never pay for any offense to God.

Correct. . .the sacrifices only covered sin, they did not forgive sin.
They were a foreshadow of Christ's sacrifice which did pay for sin, God thereby forgiving (cancelling the debt of) sin.

God will forgive the sinner after the sinner goes through the atonement process for very minor sins.
Again, If the “offering” was to “pay” God off for sinning, then the same payment would have to be for the same sin, since God is no respecter of people (have a higher value for rich people).

And you have authority to declare what and how much is payment,
as well as what and how much is not payment, from whom?

 

[bling]

There is no "food offering" in Leviticus 5:11-12.
The grain offerings, which also accompanied all burnt and fellowship offerings (Numbers 5:8-10), were put on top of the whole burnt offering--male bull, goat, sheep, dove or pigeon--always accompanied by drink and grain offerings (Numbers 15:5-7), flesh and bread always going together (John 6:51),
and which burnt offering burned continually on the altar every day (Exodus 29:38-43), never to go out because the fire came directly from the LORD (Leviticus 9:24), showing his continual acceptance of the sacrifices.

The grain sin offering was placed on top of the animal offering, thereby making its blood part of the grain offering, because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. (Hebrews 9:22).

Correct. . .the sacrifices only covered sin, they did not forgive sin.
They were a foreshadow of Christ's sacrifice which did pay for sin, God thereby forgiving (cancelling the debt of) sin.

And you have authority to declare what and how much is payment,
as well as what and how much is not payment, from whom?

Your interpretation presents an inconsistency, while my explanation shows no inconsistency and explains why the sacrifice is different for the exact same sin. I and scripture say the sacrifice is a penalty/punishment for the sinner, to somewhat have equal punishment/penalty for the sinner you would have different values for the sacrifice to level out the discipline between the rich and the poor. All you are saying is you see no logical reason.

There is no hint of scripture suggesting my bag of flour is “sharing” in the sacrifices made that day, but it is all very individual, as it is for us today.

The sacrifice in Lev. 5 is not taught as a “cover for sins”, but specifically it is the penalty placed upon the sinner, and yes if this atonement sacrifice for some really minor sins is done correctly God will forgive the sin, nothing more is needed for the sins to be forgiven.

 

[Clare73]

Your interpretation presents an inconsistency, while my explanation shows no inconsistency and explains why the sacrifice is different for the exact same sin.

My explanation is from Scripture. . .your explanation is nowhere found in Scripture.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I saw a video on Youtube a long time ago, called "BluePrint" by Ivor Myers. It seems to answer your question. Let me know what you think of it if you watch it.

I've just started to watch the video "BluePrint". It's going to take me a few days to watch it (1 hr 45 mins long) and digest what I've seen. It looks promising though and I should get a clearer view of the reason why Jesus voluntarily died for sins. Thanks for the heads up on the video.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

If I make cars and every car is defective, then whose fault is it?

Isn't it the fault of the maker?

Don't all the cars need to be recalled and destroyed?

Shouldn't I just start over?

What if I can prove that the cars aren't defective?

That is a extremely interesting reply but do you think it's theologically correct? Who is the carmaker trying to prove that the car isn't defective. I guess that's what I like to know the back story to. Thanks for a great answer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

We talk about Christ paying God for our sins 100%, yet that means God had nothing left to forgive and if God forgave our sins 100% them Christ had nothing left to pay God, so which is it, since it cannot be both?

All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding.


Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

Think about this

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a church, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Is Jesus Christ and Him crucified is the huge ransom payment?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

One can ransom someone who is held under obligation; ransom is not necessarily a reference to a kidnapping. Granted it IS usually meant in a physical situation such as being a prisoner of war or such, but with God as the one holding the sinner under obligation, Christ CAN pay the ransom without God being a kidnapper. As we see in other doctrines, the obligation is truly physical (not just spiritual).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, If the “offering” was to “pay” God off for sinning, then the same payment would have to be for the same sin, since God is no respecter of people (have a higher value for rich people).

Does God not judge according to the specific situation? He looks upon the heart to judge the deed.

 

[YahuahSaves]

God became man so that mankind can become god

So mankind can dwell with God in his presence you mean.. Christ indwelling in us does not mean we become God, we're made in Gods image, Jesus came to show us what that meant.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?

I have had lots of questions about this topic. 1 being why was evil created in the first place for sin to even be an option? If God is good and he created everything, how could evil and the potential to sin even exist? Seems pretty unfair that generations of people suffer the consequences of the first 2 humans mistake.

A pastor I watched not long ago said something quite unique on this subject. That if evil and the temptation to sin weren't created, we would be like robots. So essentially God wanted to give us choice, to freely love him in return.

that being said, you see his story unfold in the bible. He freely died for our sin because real love is sacrificing one's own wants and needs for another's. He sacrificed for the Father's will above his own and he sacrificed for us to be reconciled to a loving relationship with God.

Like the scripture says:
John 15:13
There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

 

[Soyeong]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

It could be the case that in any world that God could have created beings with free will that they would have freely chosen to do their will instead of God’s will. The point of giving us free will is so we would learn to overcome it/the yetzer hara by submitting our will to God’s will.

If someone owed a debt that they couldn’t pay, then they only way for you to cancel their debt would be to pay it for them in their place. This would still be true even if you were the person that they owed that debt to because wiping the books clean would still giving up the money that you originally lent them in order to cancel their debt in their place. The wages of sin are death, so the only way for God to cancel our debt would to pay it in our place, which is why it was necessary for Jesus to die for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So mankind can dwell with God in his presence you mean.. Christ indwelling in us does not mean we become God, we're made in Gods image, Jesus came to show us what that meant.

Hi,
Give thought to this passage, please.

Simon Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have been allotted an equal faith with us in the justice of our God and in our Savior Jesus Christ. Grace to you. And may peace be fulfilled according to the plan of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord, in the same manner that all things which are for life and piety have been given to us by his Divine virtue, through the plan of him who has called us to our own glory and virtue. Through Christ, he has given us the greatest and most precious promises, so that by these things you may become sharers in the Divine Nature, fleeing from the corruption of that desire which is in the world.​

2 Peter 1:1-4

 

[bling]

One can ransom someone who is held under obligation; ransom is not necessarily a reference to a kidnapping. Granted it IS usually meant in a physical situation such as being a prisoner of war or such, but with God as the one holding the sinner under obligation, Christ CAN pay the ransom without God being a kidnapper. As we see in other doctrines, the obligation is truly physical (not just spiritual).

The kidnap scenario being described with an unbelievable huge ransom, the parent making a huge sacrifice to pay the ransom, the child being set free to go to his/her Father, and the child being strongly held back unable to be set free without the ransom being paid, is very much like a kidnap scenario and not a ransom "tax payment" or even a slave purchase that could be made by the person themselves. The huge payment in my scenario goes to a totally undeserving criminal kidnapper (the sinner himself).

 

[bling]

Does God not judge according to the specific situation? He looks upon the heart to judge the deed.

How does having money or not having money change the same sin by the rich or poor person?

 

[Clare73]

I have had lots of questions about this topic. 1 being why was evil created in the first place for sin to even be an option? If God is good and he created everything, how could evil and the potential to sin even exist?

God did not create evil. He created human beings and angels with the ability to choose obedience or disobedience, each choice carrying its own consequences.
Both angels and humans, when they were tried, chose disobedience.
And that is where evil comes from--the creature, not the Creator.

Seems pretty unfair that generations of people suffer the consequences of the first 2 humans mistake.

No more unfair than a skunk or rattlesnake suffering the consequences of being born of a skunk or rattelsnake.

A pastor I watched not long ago said something quite unique on this subject. That if evil and the temptation to sin weren't created, we would be like robots. So essentially God wanted to give us choice, to freely love him in return.

That reasoning has no Biblical basis.
It's not about choice, it's about regeneration--being born again, or not.

that being said, you see his story unfold in the bible. He freely died for our sin because real love is sacrificing one's own wants and needs for another's. He sacrificed for the Father's will above his own and he sacrificed for us to be reconciled to a loving relationship with God.

Like the scripture says:
John 15:13
There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

He died as a matter of justice according to the Divine Court.
Just as in our legal system, we have penalties for law-breaking, including the death penalty,
so in God's system of justice, sin carries a spiritual death penalty (eternal damnation).
Jesus suffered our death penalty for us, buying (ransoming) us back
--redeeming those who believe in and trust on his death for the remission of their sin--
from eternal death (eternal damnation).

God himself provided the sacrifice (his only Son) to satisfy his own justice (Ro 3:25).
And the Son willingly did the will of the Father.

 

[Lost Witness]

It's not about choice, it's about regeneration--being born again

It both being born again and choice or you wouldn't be warned to obey his voice on the day you hear it.
while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” Hebrews 3:15

 

[timothyu]

That reasoning has no Biblical basis.
It's not about choice, it's about regeneration--being born again, or not.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The kidnap scenario being described with an unbelievable huge ransom, the parent making a huge sacrifice to pay the ransom, the child being set free to go to his/her Father, and the child being strongly held back unable to be set free without the ransom being paid, is very much like a kidnap scenario and not a ransom "tax payment" or even a slave purchase that could be made by the person themselves. The huge payment in my scenario goes to a totally undeserving criminal kidnapper (the sinner himself).

Have it your way. I don't personally subscribe to the Ransom Theory as explicative of Salvation —even if the supposed payee is God— but it seems rather obviously true that there was a ransom paid for the release of many and therefore a payee, in the simple meaning of "...give his life as a [ransom] for many". The size of the offense and the payment, and the total inability of the offender to free himself are obvious (and very important) in Scripture, but they are irrelevant as to the meaning of the verse.

To me, the verse is just another part of the overwhelming witness of scripture in showing what has been termed, Substitutionary Atonement, if it helps to understand where I am coming from with this. I have yet to hear an adequate description of the size of the facts in what God has done for us —the horror of sin, and the infinite mercy of God— in any structure that has been given a name. I think the task is impossible in this temporal realm, and, curiously, it seems to me that God does not hold us responsible to have a full understanding of it during this life, since he knows we are but dust.

What I think he does hold us responsible for is the notion that we "have it down", in any of these things. Phrases like, "That's what it's all about", and "That was when I understood what it really means" I have to say are pretty presumptuous, as is the notion that I can do anything spiritually valid apart from him.