Why did Jesus need to die?

[-57]

Did I ever claim that Jesus did not have to die?
Ok, I will ask you this:
I am a sinner. Penalty(price I have to pay) for my sins is death or hell according to the Bible. I will die 100% guarantee. But let's pretend I am already dead(in hell). I am paying price. Why (according to you) does Jesus have to die for my sins if I already died for my own sins?

Your scenario has you dead and in hell paying for your sins. If you trusted Christ for your salvation you wouldn't be dead and in hell paying for your sins.

 

[Alla27]

Your scenario has you dead and in hell paying for your sins. If you trusted Christ for your salvation you wouldn't be dead and in hell paying for your sins.

1)I have faith in Christ. I will die any way. Death is price for sins. I will pay price for my sins by being dead. Death is hell.
2)Why do I need Jesus to die to pay for my sins if I am going to die anyway to pay for my sins? Note: I do not deny that I need Jesus. I believe that Jesus is my Savior and the only way to Father.
I want to know what your answer is.
Doubtingmerle wants to know what your answer is.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Show me a line of theology that says Jesus didn't have to die...or move on.

No reasonable being would ever say somebody needs to kill my son or all will burn in hell forever.

Therefore if God was reasonable, he wouldn't have made up this requirement.

 

[Alla27]

Because no one can approach the altar on "steps" lest his nakedness be exposed

Yes I understand that you don't understand these spiritual words

I am not sure about how spiritual they are but they are not biblical words for sure.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am not sure about how spiritual they are but they are not biblical words for sure.

Well, actually they are.

Ex 20:26
26 "And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.'
NASU

The reason for the commandment is right there. Considering men wore robes instead of pants, if the attending priest went up by steps above the gathered congregation, the congregation would be able to peek up inside the robes. This would be impious. So they were warned not to do that.

There is no reason to hunt for any more spiritual lesson than that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But that is contrary to the law. The law would require their punishment.

Who wrote the law that says that, if somebody sins, then there needs to be a dead body and blood before God forgives? Nobody seems to want to deal with that.

If God is in charge and wrote that law, then why didn't he just write the law in a different way that did not require a dead body and blood to forgive?

But if something else wrote that law, is that something else greater than God?

 

[miknik5]

Well, actually they are.

Ex 20:26
26 "And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.'
NASU

The reason for the commandment is right there. Considering men wore robes instead of pants, if the attending priest went up by steps above the gathered congregation, the congregation would be able to peek up inside the robes. This would be impious. So they were warned not to do that.

There is no reason to hunt for any more spiritual lesson than that.

Is MATTHEW 22 true as well?

 

[miknik5]

Who wrote the law that says that, if somebody sins, then there needs to be a dead body and blood before God forgives? Nobody seems to want to deal with that.

If God is in charge and wrote that law, then why didn't he just write the law in a different way that did not require a dead body and blood to forgive?

But if something else wrote that law, is that something else greater than God?

Because and from the beginning one needed the right COVERING/GARMENT before GOD

 

[miknik5]

And if HE had not come we would have no sin

But now we need a "cloke" for our sins

GOD is HOLY

And from the beginning GOD said (and especially after Aaoron's sons just approached the presence of GOD and offered "strange fire" before HIM and died) no man could just come up into the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD unless they are first washed/consecrated and called by GOD

Even the High priests vestments before GOD were a...... COVERING

And the incense in the Breast pocket were as a pleasing aroma before GOD

All these lower things simply pointed to CHRIST

 

[Chriliman]

1)I have faith in Christ. I will die any way. Death is price for sins. I will pay price for my sins by being dead. Death is hell.

Philippians 1:21
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

Death holds no power over those in Christ because we know upon biological death we will be with Him forever, in paradise.

2)Why do I need Jesus to die to pay for my sins if I am going to die anyway to pay for my sins? Note: I do not deny that I need Jesus. I believe that Jesus is my Savior and the only way to Father.

Jesus saves us from spiritual death, which is varying degrees of torment, depending on the person and what they've done. He also saves us from biological death by giving us new glorified bodies, like the one He has now, which is yet to be fully revealed.

He also rewards us in varying degrees, depending on the good things we do for His name sake, here and now.

I want to know what your answer is.
Doubtingmerle wants to know what your answer is.

I wanted to answer because I think they're good questions

 

[miknik5]

Philippians 1:21
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

Death holds no power over those in Christ because we know upon biological death we will be with Him forever, in paradise.



Jesus saves us from spiritual death, which is varying degrees of torment, depending on the person and what they've done. He also saves us from biological death by giving us new glorified bodies, like the one He has now, which is yet to be fully revealed.

He also rewards us in varying degrees, depending on the good things we do for His name sake, here and now.



I wanted to answer because I think they're good questions

Are all saved? Do all believe THE TRUTH of THE GOSPEL?

 

[miknik5]

And for those who have heard THE GOSPEL and have not believed

When they physically die will they have another opportunity to hear THE GOSPEL?

And when the year of GOD's FAVOR is complete and HE who hold all things back is taken out of the way will those who heard
THE GOSPEL preached and have not believed and are physically alive during this time...will they have another opportunity to hear THE GOSPEL

 

[miknik5]

Is it true that in Adam all shall die?

But even as all are born of Adam and will die once...not all shall suffer the second death?

 

[Chriliman]

Are all saved? Do all believe THE TRUTH of THE GOSPEL?

Currently no, but I have hope in our God who says He desires that all should come to a knowledge of the truth and that none should perish. He also says every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord and this won't be because God is brutally forcing them like a dictator would, but rather convincing them through His self-giving love for them and all His creation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Job is a fiction, a sort of parable on a large scale, that addressed a particular belief at a particular time in history. The Satan in this story is clearly an angel in God's heavenly court. He is not an evil figure in this story. Unwelcome perhaps but not evil. It was centuries later that Satan became conflated with Lucifer and even the Serpent.

Actually I heard, contrary to expectations, that most rabbis consider the story to be true.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How to explain the Mystery of the Atonement has never been a "core principle" of the Christian faith; the core ideas of Christianity are pretty well agreed upon as contained in the historic Creeds. There has never been a dogmatic statement on any one Theory of the Atonement--what is agreed upon is the Atonement itself--that Christ reconciles the world to God.



That's not really germane to Christus Victor itself, as Christus Victor is about the significance of the Atonement itself; this question is really more of a soteriological one and depends on one's soteriological view. As a Lutheran I subscribe to the Lutheran teaching of Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone; the quote from the Large Catechism in my previous post largely covers the Lutheran position: Christ's work is appropriated to us by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace (i.e. the preaching of the Gospel) which creates and grants faith to us apart from ourselves. Faith is the gift which God creates in us through which He appropriates Christ's work and His gifts; faith here is something that comes from outside ourselves, from God. Insofar as it is God who works faith in us by the preaching of the Gospel, apart from our own will or efforts, and it is faith through which we benefit from the promises of the Gospel then yes faith is required. Because faith is God's work in us to make us His own, unite us Christ, etc.

As a disclaimer: This should not be taken to mean that any who don't have faith, such as those who have never heard the Gospel, are damned. That isn't what is meant by faith is required. Lutheran theology makes a big deal about confessing what is normative, ordinary, and revealed and trying to stay silent about what is not revealed, or what may be extraordinary. A Lutheran, for example, can't say that unbaptized or unborn children aren't saved because we have no basis to say anything one way or the other on such a topic. But that faith is the working of God in us to turn us toward Himself in His own kindness by the power of the Gospel, that is what is revealed and that which we can affirm in the positive as a statement of faith.



A human sacrifice doesn't defeat evil. But the Christian teaching on the Harrowing of Hell is that Christ--on account of Who He is--has destroyed the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil. In death Christ died, and swallowed up in death descended into Hades and there despoiled it.

St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily is helpful in articulating this particular Christian doctrine:

"He has destroyed death by undergoing death.
He has despoiled hell by descending into hell.
He vexed it even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he cried:
Hell was filled with bitterness when it met Thee face to face below;
filled with bitterness, for it was brought to nothing;
filled with bitterness, for it was mocked;
filled with bitterness, for it was overthrown;
filled with bitterness, for it was put in chains.
Hell received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven.
O death, where is your sting?
O hell, where is your victory?

Christ is risen! And you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is risen! And the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is risen! And the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen! And life is liberated!
Christ is risen! And the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."

The idea here is rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation, St. Gregory Nazianzus states, "Whatever is not assumed is not healed", what has been united to Christ's Deity is healed--therefore Christ, being completely human, completely heals humanity. Thus in dying Christ-God participates and unites Himself to human death, in dying therefore He submits Himself to our universal mortal fate: Death. It is in His rising that He defeats death, because He has conquered it. He is swallowed up in death and then three days later defeated it. And therefore, in Him, by our sharing in Him, we have the promise that we will likewise be raised up. That is the Christian hope, the future resurrection of the body.

-CryptoLutheran

You disavow penal substitution theology because it is a new invention and because it is unsound. Yet the very same thing can be said of the trinity. The idea arose centuries late and has little biblical support. Aside from John 10:30 I see nothing that puts Jesus on equal footing with God and countless verses that place him below God.

The trinity is a late invention with little scriptural backing and is an idea that obfuscates theology. It is logically unsound. By your reasoning, shouldn't it be abandoned?

 

[miknik5]

You disavow penal substitution theology because it is a new invention and because it is unsound. Yet the very same thing can be said of the trinity. The idea arose centuries late and has little biblical background. Aside from John 10:30 I see nothing that puts Jesus on equal footing with God and countless verses that place him below God.

The trinity is a late invention with little scriptural backing and is an idea that obfuscates theology. By your reasoning, shouldn't it be abandoned?

The trinity was put in place because men born of THE SPIRIT had to put into words for those not born of THE SPIRIT explaining their restored relationship to THE FATHER, in THE SON and through the HOLY SPIRIT and they could not and would not remove from the equation in their restored relationship the very ONE who is the object and the subject of that equation

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Every question in this post means you haven't understood or accepted what I wrote or something major in Christianity. Every assertion is based on lack of understanding. There's no value in me writing more.

Wow, nice dodge!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Being an atheist I understand you need to look at it that way...But, there are other ways to look at it.
Gills commentary says this about the subject:
"The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die; which would be a visible testimony of God's displeasure at his sin, to all men that should hear of it, and know it; and being taken away in such a manner would be a great affliction to him, and the more as his affections were much towards the child, as appears by what follows; or otherwise the removal of it might have been considered as a mercy, since its life would have kept up the remembrance of the sin, and have been a standing reproach to him."

Utterly inadequate. Your source is irrelevant as it is not connecting the dots between the two verses. It's trying to justify infanticide with morality (shouldn't that already be a red flag?). I'm asking you to reconcile the two verses and you don't even address what I'm talking about.

This is why atheists get cantankerous. Apologists ceaselessly sidestep questions and engage in dishonesty. Just be honest and admit you don't know the answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because and from the beginning one needed the right COVERING/GARMENT before GOD

OK, then why didn't God just give us the right garment? Why does there need to be spilled blood and a dead body before God can give us a garment?