• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why did Jesus need to die?

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I have written a parable to help explain:



There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.

And the human judge in your story accepts that as justice? What judge would accept an innocent man submitting himself to torture as a valid reason to free a guilty man?

If a mother offers to die so her murdering son can go free, would that be acceptable? I cannot understand how that would be justice.

Why not write the law so that the judge can show mercy? If 40 stripes is too much in one instance, then why not 2 stripes, or 2 months in prison, or 200 hours of community service?

Those benefits include: not wanting to sin again, knowing how bad sin really is, feeling I have been punished and nothing else awaits me, knowing that I am a child (parents see to the discipline of their children), knowing the pain I will go through does not compare to his, and really feeling Loved.

If a man commits a crime, and the wrong man is arrested and put in jail, does the criminal then feel that he has been punished? I would think the opposite would happen, that the criminal would think he got away with a crime, and would think that his crime pays.
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟27,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh, good. Because I was having a hard time understanding the claim that it does not matter if the guilty party or an innocent party is punished, just so long as somebody is punished.


Thanks, but this doesn't seem to resolve it. It is merely a statement that Christ had to come to provide reconciliation. Couldn't God have done it another way?

But even if we decide that Christ had to come, as you write, does that prove he had to die? Why couldn't he just come, have a nice visit, and then go home? Would that have been sufficient?

Recapitulation. Christ as the "second Adam" came to undo what Adam did. Christ does this by recapitulating human life, thus Jesus is born, He grows and matures and is fully participant in the entire human experience, including death. By partaking fully in human nature and then raising it up from the dead in His resurrection, He overcomes the powers of death and sin which hold humanity captive.

Christ died in order to be raised up, and in His dying and rising we, by our union with Him, share in the same hope of being raised up, sharing in Christ's victory over death, and being partakers in Christ's restored, reconciled and redeemed human nature--to be human like Him.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,046
4,454
✟208,752.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, but this doesn't seem to resolve it. It is merely a statement that Christ had to come to provide reconciliation. Couldn't God have done it another way?

But even if we decide that Christ had to come, as you write, does that prove he had to die? Why couldn't he just come, have a nice visit, and then go home? Would that have been sufficient?

Humanity was sick. Death was in the world. God loves His creation to whom He gave free will- and gave us a way to salvation- which is as freely chosen as when humanity chose to sin.

However- St. John Chrysostom expressed it best in his Paschal Homily.

If any man be devout and loveth God,
Let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast!
If any man be a wise servant,
Let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord.

If any have laboured long in fasting,
Let him how receive his recompense.
If any have wrought from the first hour,
Let him today receive his just reward.
If any have come at the third hour,
Let him with thankfulness keep the feast.
If any have arrived at the sixth hour,
Let him have no misgivings;
Because he shall in nowise be deprived therefore.
If any have delayed until the ninth hour,
Let him draw near, fearing nothing.
And if any have tarried even until the eleventh hour,
Let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness.

For the Lord, who is jealous of his honour,
Will accept the last even as the first.
He giveth rest unto him who cometh at the eleventh hour,
Even as unto him who hath wrought from the first hour.
And He showeth mercy upon the last,
And careth for the first;
And to the one He giveth,
And upon the other He bestoweth gifts.
And He both accepteth the deeds,
And welcometh the intention,
And honoureth the acts and praises the offering.

Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord;
Receive your reward,
Both the first, and likewise the second.
You rich and poor together, hold high festival!
You sober and you heedless, honour the day!
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted
And you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously.
The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:
Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.

Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead,
Is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be glory and dominion
Unto ages of ages.

Amen.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,829
1,928
✟1,000,546.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And the human judge in your story accepts that as justice? What judge would accept an innocent man submitting himself to torture as a valid reason to free a guilty man?

You are missing what happened? The Judge (God in our case) has to see to or allow the guilty to be punished for their transgressions in an equivalent manner to the punishment of others for similar offences. In my parable the judge does not allow the young son to be punished (yes, a big difference from God), but did not and could not stop him, while in the case with God and Christ, God or Christ could have stopped the unjust torture and murder of Christ, but allowed it for our sake.

What I was trying to show in the parable is how the Old man could receive an equivalent punishment, without being tortured to an actual physical death. The Old man was emotionally cut to the bone by what happened to his young son, and it was the old man’s fault the son did it. The old man would have preferred to take the full punishment and death on himself instead of having the son tortured and imprisoned. The Judge could see the Old man suffered for his crime, as much as being beaten and that is the responsibility of the judge/General. The Judge does not care about what the son did (unlike God with Jesus), just that the Old man is punished for his crime.

God for all the good reasons to discipline (punishment) and for God to remain just (treating everyone equally) God has to make sure even the saved are punished for their transgressions, but therein lies a huge problem, sin has to create a huge debt (for the sake of the willing) that will destroy the saved if they physically have to pay the debt. Those that understand what Christ did and realize it was done because of their transgression, will feel the pain (like the old man in my parable), because Jesus is their older innocent Brother that they Love more than their own life. The “saved” look back on the cross with mixed emotions of Great horror pain remorse and yet with great love because of the Love being shown by God and Christ.


If a mother offers to die so her murdering son can go free, would that be acceptable? I cannot understand how that would be justice.

No! that is totally not just!


Why not write the law so that the judge can show mercy? If 40 stripes is too much in one instance, then why not 2 stripes, or 2 months in prison, or 200 hours of community service?
If those are all equivalent punishments then they could be used. The problem with God is the debt created by sin is huge and has to remain huge because the benefit of the huge debt is in the forgiveness “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so by humbly accepting being forgiven of much the person will automatically Love much and the Love is the objective.
The punishment the saved individuals receive through being responsible for their older innocent Brother’s torture and murder does not lessen the value of the debt.


If a man commits a crime, and the wrong man is arrested and put in jail, does the criminal then feel that he has been punished? I would think the opposite would happen, that the criminal would think he got away with a crime, and would think that his crime pays.
Right! But that is totally not what happened. Jesus is not being “punished” instead of us and is not being “punished” at all. Jesus is allowing himself to be unjustly tortured, humiliated, bare our sins and murdered, so we can have a way to be punished equivalently and still live, without being destroyed.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why did Jesus need to die?
The Bible says:

Hebrews 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


Hebrews 9:28
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many...

Hebrews 10:12-14
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


2 Corinthians 5:21
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


Colossians 1:12-14
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.


Could God forgive us without having his Son die?
No. His holiness and justice require sin to be punished. Did Christ have to die? Only if our salvation was to be accomplished. God could have just let us bear the penalty of our own sin. But then He wouldn't be the merciful God we know Him to be.

If so, why didn't he do it? If not, is he really all-powerful?
What does omnipotence have to do with satisfying the demands of justice? Why would the mere exertion of power be able to satisfy justice? This sounds rather like "might makes right."

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟59,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And righteousness doesn't care who is being sacrificed, just so long as somebody is sacrificed?
Righteousness says the wages of sin is death. Righteousness demands the death of the one who sinned. However someone without sin can substitute themselves for the sinner.

So it really doesn't matter if we find the guilty party in a murder trial? Is righteousness satisfied as long as somebody is killed in retribution?
In God's economy or our own?

In my view, killing an innocent person is not a righteousness act.
Your not God so your view amounts to nothing. It is God's righteousness in which we must account of our deeds and not "doubtingmerels" views.

Can you understand why some of us think it is not righteous to allow an innocent man to die for something he did not do?
So if a man jumps on a grenade to save his buddies this is not a righteous act for you? what do you think Christ did for us?

Can you understand the love it takes to die for someone else? What of the love it takes to die for someone who does not deserve it? what of the Love it take to die for someone who hates you? What of the love it takes to die for someone who will not even acknowledge the sacrifice you made? Are you willing to look beyond your own sense of righteousness to find the answers to the questions you seek?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Righteousness says the wages of sin is death. Righteousness demands the death of the one who sinned.



And sometimes righteousness forgives, yes? And sometimes righteousness fogives without asking that anybody die for the wrong, yes? So righteousness does not always say what you claim, does it?

If righteousness sometimes forgives, then righteousness is not always demanding the death of the sinner.
However someone without sin can substitute themselves for the sinner.
How do you know that "someone without sin can substitute themselves for the sinner?"

Is righteousness satisfied as long as somebody is killed in retribution?
In God's economy or our own?

In any economy.

Is righteousness ever satisfied when an innocent person is killed in retribution? I think not.

In my view, killing an innocent person is not a righteousness act.
Your not God so your view amounts to nothing. It is God's righteousness in which we must account of our deeds and not "doubtingmerels" views.

What about in your view? Can killing an innocent person in retribution be a righteous act?


I have stated my view: Killing an innocent person in retribution is not a righteous act. What is your view?

So if a man jumps on a grenade to save his buddies this is not a righteous act for you?
Of course that is a righteous act.

We were discussing the act of killing an innocent person in retribution for a guilty person's act. We were not talking about jumping on a grenade to save others.

We all agree that jumping on a grenade to save others can be a righteous act. I agree with that.

But I don't think it is right to kill an innocent person to pay for a guilty person's act. Can you see the difference?

Can you understand the love it takes to die for someone else?

Yes. If a person jumps on a grenade to save others, believing he will never live again, that is a wonderful act of love.

But if a person dies knowing that in three days he will rise again, never to die again, that is not the same as the person who willingly dies expecting to never live again, is it? Those acts are not the same level of sacrifice, are they?

Are you willing to look beyond your own sense of righteousness to find the answers to the questions you seek?

Certainly.

How about you? Are you willing to look beyond the sense of righteousness you have been given to find new answers to life's questions?
 
Upvote 0

steve_bakr

Christian
Aug 3, 2011
5,918
240
✟30,033.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
doubtingmerle said:
And sometimes righteousness forgives, yes? And sometimes righteousness fogives without asking that anybody die for the wrong, yes? So righteousness does not always say what you claim, does it?

If righteousness sometimes forgives, then righteousness is not always demanding the death of the sinner.

How do you know that "someone without sin can substitute themselves for the sinner?"

In any economy.

Is righteousness ever satisfied when an innocent person is killed in retribution? I think not.

What about in your view? Can killing an innocent person in retribution be a righteous act?

I have stated my view: Killing an innocent person in retribution is not a righteous act. What is your view?

Of course that is a righteous act.

We were discussing the act of killing an innocent person in retribution for a guilty person's act. We were not talking about jumping on a grenade to save others.

We all agree that jumping on a grenade to save others can be a righteous act. I agree with that.

But I don't think it is right to kill an innocent person to pay for a guilty person's act. Can you see the difference?

Yes. If a person jumps on a grenade to save others, believing he will never live again, that is a wonderful act of love.

But if a person dies knowing that in three days he will rise again, never to die again, that is not the same as the person who willingly dies expecting to never live again, is it? Those acts are not the same level of sacrifice, are they?

Certainly.

How about you? Are you willing to look beyond the sense of righteousness you have been given to find new answers to life's questions?

I choose the Way of Jesus Christ, what about you? Every day is a new opportunity to receive his grace by way of faith and love.
 
Upvote 0

Tenorikuma

Newbie
Sep 17, 2011
12
0
✟15,122.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Doubtingmerle gets it.

No number of flawed analogies can get around the fact that punishing an innocent person for the guilt of another is not just, righteous, or merciful by any reasonable definition of those words. Especially when the judge is the one who made up the rules in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Doubtingmerle gets it.

No number of flawed analogies can get around the fact that punishing an innocent person for the guilt of another is not just, righteous, or merciful by any reasonable definition of those words.

God did not simply "punish someone else" for the guilt of another. God took the penalty of our sin upon Himself. Jesus is God incarnate. (Col. 2:9, 10; 1Ti. 3:16) Therefore, God willing sacrificed Himself and bore the punishment for our sin upon the cross. And this was mercy - in the finest demonstration of it that is possible. God didn't have to do as He did. He could have left us all to suffer the penalty for our sin, which we richly deserve. But His loving nature wouldn't allow it. So, God found a way to satisfy His justice and holiness and His great love for us. He satisfied His own "rules," born of His holy, just and loving nature, and saved us from an eternity in hell. In doing so God did for us what we could not have ever done for ourselves.

Especially when the judge is the one who made up the rules in the first place.

God didn't just "make up the rules." His "rules" are expressions of His nature. He is (among other things) just, holy, loving, merciful, and gracious. These characteristics shape His conduct as God and the demands He makes of us to be likewise holy, just, etc. God cannot violate His own nature. (Tit. 1:2)

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

Tenorikuma

Newbie
Sep 17, 2011
12
0
✟15,122.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Therefore, God willing sacrificed Himself and bore the punishment for our sin upon the cross.

This is an interesting twist. How exactly does one sacrifice oneself? Especially when you are infinite and cannot die? And what was with Jesus being forsaken at the cross, asking to be spared his death, etc.? This doctrine certainly doesn't jive with the stories I read in the gospels.

I wonder if onlookers are beginning to see what a precarious house of cards the basic premise that God was punishing Jesus for our sins is.

God didn't just "make up the rules." His "rules" are expressions of His nature.

Since you appear to believe that Jesus died to "save us from Hell", tell me: is Hell an expression of God's nature, or is it something he created specially?
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This is an interesting twist. How exactly does one sacrifice oneself? Especially when you are infinite and cannot die?
Jesus the God-man could die. Christ's material form, his physical body, could die (and did). The book of Philippians explains:

Philippians 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.


Christ set aside his heavenly glory and humbled himself, taking on human form in order that he could die for you and I.

Being infinite doesn't necessarily preclude being able to die. What is death, after all? It is simply the expiration of one's physical body. One's eternal soul goes on. Surely, God taking on a material human form which dies is not such a remarkable thing. His body dies but He does not, which, it seems to me, is a feat not complicated by His infinite nature in the least.

And what was with Jesus being forsaken at the cross, asking to be spared his death, etc.? This doctrine certainly doesn't jive with the stories I read in the gospels.
What about these things? The Trinity consists of three distinct Beings which are One in nature. In light of this, Christ's conversation with God the Father doesn't seem particularly unusual or confusing, nor does His rejection by the Father when he took on all the Sin of all mankind. Covered in our sins as he was, Jesus was separated from his perfect fellowship with the Father for the first and only time. God cannot fellowship with sin, even when it is carried sacrificially by a member of the Triune Godhead.

I wonder if onlookers are beginning to see what a precarious house of cards the basic premise that God was punishing Jesus for our sins is.
If there was such a house I suppose they might. God wasn't simply punishing Christ for our sins, but was sacrificially offering Himself as an expression of His loving nature, in the person of Christ, as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Since you appear to believe that Jesus died to "save us from Hell", tell me: is Hell an expression of God's nature, or is it something he created specially?
Most certainly Hell is an expression of God's nature. God is loving, but not all-loving. He hates sin with a perfect, absolute hatred. And He will judge it with terrible wrath and vengeance.

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

steve_bakr

Christian
Aug 3, 2011
5,918
240
✟30,033.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
aiki said:
Jesus the God-man could die. Christ's material form, his physical body, could die (and did). The book of Philippians explains:

Philippians 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Christ set aside his heavenly glory and humbled himself, taking on human form in order that he could die for you and I.

Being infinite doesn't necessarily preclude being able to die. What is death, after all? It is simply the expiration of one's physical body. One's eternal soul goes on. Surely, God taking on a material human form which dies is not such a remarkable thing. His body dies but He does not, which, it seems to me, is a feat not complicated by His infinite nature in the least.

What about these things? The Trinity consists of three distinct Beings which are One in nature. In light of this, Christ's conversation with God the Father doesn't seem particularly unusual or confusing, nor does His rejection by the Father when he took on all the Sin of all mankind. Covered in our sins as he was, Jesus was separated from his perfect fellowship with the Father for the first and only time. God cannot fellowship with sin, even when it is carried sacrificially by a member of the Triune Godhead.

If there was such a house I suppose they might. God wasn't simply punishing Christ for our sins, but was sacrificially offering Himself as an expression of His loving nature, in the person of Christ, as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Most certainly Hell is an expression of God's nature. God is loving, but not all-loving. He hates sin with a perfect, absolute hatred. And He will judge it with terrible wrath and vengeance.

Selah.

Good post, although I hope for universal salvation. The unbelievers are always thinking that they are exposing some weakness in our faith, but to us who experience the grace of Jesus Christ, there is no weakness--mystery, yes; weakness, no.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,829
1,928
✟1,000,546.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is an interesting twist. How exactly does one sacrifice oneself? Especially when you are infinite and cannot die? And what was with Jesus being forsaken at the cross, asking to be spared his death, etc.? This doctrine certainly doesn't jive with the stories I read in the gospels.

I wonder if onlookers are beginning to see what a precarious house of cards the basic premise that God was punishing Jesus for our sins is.



Since you appear to believe that Jesus died to "save us from Hell", tell me: is Hell an expression of God's nature, or is it something he created specially?

Read my post 11 and the follow up post.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Jesus is God incarnate. (Col. 2:9, 10; 1Ti. 3:16) Therefore, God willing sacrificed Himself and bore the punishment for our sin upon the cross.
God was bearing somebody else's punishment? How can that be justice?

Suppose your school teacher had said that, if anybody talks in class, then she would punish herself by hitting herself on the head with a hammer. Do you think that would have been an effective way to keep her students quiet?

God didn't have to do as He did. He could have left us all to suffer the penalty for our sin, which we richly deserve.

I see.

And we "richly deserve" what exactly? Is suffering "the penalty for our sin" just a whitewashed way of describing burning in hell in eternal conscious torment forever?

And do you think that you and I, "richly deserve" to have the smoke of our conscious torment ascend up forever and ever?

Oh, dear sir, I beg to differ with you. I don't think any human being richly deserves to be placed in a state of conscious torment forever.

God found a way to satisfy His justice and holiness and His great love for us. He satisfied His own "rules," born of His holy, just and loving nature, and saved us from an eternity in hell.


And his own rules state that he won't save from hell unless he first submits himself to physical punishment?

If he is God, and can make any rules he wants, then I don't understand why he cannot make a rule that says he will forgive others without first punishing himself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What is death, after all? It is simply the expiration of one's physical body. One's eternal soul goes on. Surely, God taking on a material human form which dies is not such a remarkable thing. His body dies but He does not, which, it seems to me, is a feat not complicated by His infinite nature in the least.
His body dies, but Jesus does not die? Interesting.

Some people say that Jesus died for our sins. But you say that just his body died? He did not die?

And his eternal soul came to earth and occupied a body for a while and then that body died? Why is that a big deal? After all, he was a bodiless soul before the incarnation, and a bodiless soul afterwards. And his soul could have easily made himself a new body or resucitated the old body any time he wanted to, yes? So why is the death of that body significant?
Most certainly Hell is an expression of God's nature.

And is Hell also an expression of your nature? If a human being is screaming in eternal conscious torment, and you could administer anethesia, would you do it? If you could stop the pain, would you do it? Or is Hell simply an expression of your nature?

If Hell is not an expression of your nature, but it is an expression of God's, the next time you talk to God, could you tell him that this is a point in which you disagree with him?
 
Upvote 0

TheGMan

Follower of Jesus of Nazareth
Aug 25, 2005
1,475
94
47
London
✟24,761.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
He didn't need to die. But we killed him anyway. It's not G-d that reflects badly on, in my view.

Jesus understood that death was the price of his ministry, but he didn't think it was the point of his ministry. Only Paul thought that.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
He didn't need to die. But we killed him anyway. It's not G-d that reflects badly on, in my view.

Jesus understood that death was the price of his ministry, but he didn't think it was the point of his ministry. Only Paul thought that.

Oh good, so it appears you agree that Jesus did not have to die for God to bring us salvation. Your Jesus is more interested in talking to us about life and morality, rather than deliberately letting himself be punished as a means of satisfying his own wrath?

And Paul was mistaken when he siad the death of Christ was the important thing? Paul made a number of mistakes, yes?

One would think that if Jesus was God, that he could figure out a way to minister without dying for it. After all, most of what he taught had already been taught by others, including the Greek Cynics. And they were able to teach those things without dying. Besides, if he was divine, then one wonders why he could not figure out an ecape plan.
 
Upvote 0

steve_bakr

Christian
Aug 3, 2011
5,918
240
✟30,033.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
doubtingmerle said:
Oh good, so it appears you agree that Jesus did not have to die for God to bring us salvation. Your Jesus is more interested in talking to us about life and morality, rather than deliberately letting himself be punished as a means of satisfying his own wrath?

And Paul was mistaken when he siad the death of Christ was the important thing? Paul made a number of mistakes, yes?

One would think that if Jesus was God, that he could figure out a way to minister without dying for it. After all, most of what he taught had already been taught by others, including the Greek Cynics. And they were able to teach those things without dying. Besides, if he was divine, then one wonders why he could not figure out an ecape plan.

Jesus purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation through his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus is the Mediator who brings about reconciliation between God and man. Paul, who was formerly a persecutor of the Church, was converted after having a vision of Jesus, and he was instrumental in the establishment of the Gentile Church. We also have the letters of Peter, who witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mt. Tabor and heard a voice which said, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased."

I don't know exactly what axe you have to grind, but I hope that you will come to believe in Jesus. The logic which you possess only represents a small part of human comprehension. Greater than logic is Faith, which is the clear evidence of the Unseen, as God is the maker of things Visible and Invisible. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophies of men." That goes for the Greek Cynics and the Roman Stoics as well.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Jesus purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation through his life, death, and resurrection.
OK, but what about the question of the opening post? Why did Jesus need to die to do this? Why couldn't he just give us eternal salvation without dying? Saying he had to die to give us eternal salvation because he had to die to give us eternal salvation is reasoning in a circle.

Greater than logic is Faith, which is the clear evidence of the Unseen, as God is the maker of things Visible and Invisible.

Interesting. So if I have faith that everybody does just fine after death, that there is no hell, and all will be well, then all will be well? As long as I have faith, then that is fine?

Two bridges exist over a huge river. One is built on sound engineering principles based on physical evidence and logical reasoning. The other is based on no calculations, but someone just tied a few things together and said "Trust me". Which bridge will you choose?

I choose science, reason, and logic.
 
Upvote 0