Why did Jesus need to die?

[ViaCrucis]

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?

A high Christology is fairly abundant in the writings of the New Testament, and is consistently taught by the fathers. What became chiefly important in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries was what it meant to call Christ God. On the one hand Sabellianism taught that Christ was the Father, this was rejected as heretical. Arianism, on the other hand, in its zeal to avoid Sabellianism taught that Christ was a separate and second God. The doctrine that Christ, as the Son and Logos, is homoousios with the Father and therefore God of God and begotten not made is nearly by necessity to confess the orthodox teaching and avoid the errors of Sabellianism and Arianism.

I believe Penal Substitution is a problem because it damages the message of the Gospel and because it is fundamentally disconnected from the historic teaching of the Church. Neither of these things is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, which arises organically from the faith and confession of the Church as noted above.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A high Christology is fairly abundant in the writings of the New Testament, and is consistently taught by the fathers. What became chiefly important in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries was what it meant to call Christ God. On the one hand Sabellianism taught that Christ was the Father, this was rejected as heretical. Arianism, on the other hand, in its zeal to avoid Sabellianism taught that Christ was a separate and second God. The doctrine that Christ, as the Son and Logos, is homoousios with the Father and therefore God of God and begotten not made is nearly by necessity to confess the orthodox teaching and avoid the errors of Sabellianism and Arianism.

I believe Penal Substitution is a problem because it damages the message of the Gospel and because it is fundamentally disconnected from the historic teaching of the Church. Neither of these things is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, which arises organically from the faith and confession of the Church as noted above.

-CryptoLutheran

There is no doubt that the New Testament places Christ very high. But that does not mean he is God. You have jumped to conclusions.

 

[-57]

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.

Atheist get cantankerous when a reasonable answer is presented...and they realize their argument has an answer.

 

[miknik5]

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?

It wasn't ready yet

Remember HE sent Adam and Eve out from HIS PRESENCE.....and covered them?

The fullness of time had not yet come and the body prepared from the foundation before the world ever was had not yet come into the world

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Atheist get cantankerous when a reasonable answer is presented...and they realize their argument has an answer.

That's two chances you had to answer the question now. We're through.

 

[miknik5]

That's two chances you had to answer the question now. We're through.

What are you waiting an answer on?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It wasn't ready yet

Remember HE sent Adam and Eve out from HIS PRESENCE.....and covered them?

The fullness of time had not yet come and the body prepared from the foundation before the world ever was had not yet come into the world

But you have evaded the question. Why does their need to be a dead body before God can cover us? Why not just cover us.

 

[JackRT]

But you have evaded the question. Why does their need to be a dead body before God can cover us? Why not just cover us.

Why not indeed? If God is indeed all powerful, all just and all compassionate there is no good reason that a blood offering is needed. Perhaps this concept has nothing to do with God at all?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What?! God is a sinner?! God breaks law?! did you just made this up? or is this biblical claim?

Duh.

Please, give me at least one verse in the Bible where God claims that He is a sinner and He paid for His own sin?


May be because there is no such claim from God.

God does not reveal every truth there is in the Bible. For example, merely owning a slave is a sin. But you don't see that truth in the Bible. You have to figure it out from biblical principles.

 

[miknik5]

But you have evaded the question. Why does their need to be a dead body before God can cover us? Why not just cover us.

Why not indeed? If God is indeed all powerful, all just and all compassionate there is no good reason that a blood offering is needed. Perhaps this concept has nothing to do with God at all?

It has everything to do with the HOLINESS of GOD

To claim that one can come before The Holy PRESENCE without the RIGHT GARMENT is as a false profession of oneself as HOLY apart from CHRIST washing and covering us in HIS COVERING which is the ONLY acceptable and holy GARMENT before the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD

Try coming up into the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD without the right covering and it is as "strange fire" before HIM

 

[miknik5]

God does not reveal every truth there is in the Bible. For example, merely owning a slave is a sin. But you don't see that truth in the Bible. You have to figure it out from biblical principles.

GOD has fully revealed HIMSELF in HIS SON

And THE TESTIMONY of JESUS....IS....,THE SPIRIT of PROPHECY

Every WORD of GOD forespoke of and pointed us to HIS SON

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What are you waiting an answer on?

Post #47.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

GOD has fully revealed HIMSELF in HIS SON

And THE TESTIMONY of JESUS....IS....,THE SPIRIT of PROPHECY

Every WORD of GOD forespoke of and pointed us to HIS SON

Huh? What are you trying to do, change the subject?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God does not reveal every truth there is in the Bible. For example, merely owning a slave is a sin. But you don't see that truth in the Bible. You have to figure it out from biblical principles.

What a bizarre thing to say. Owning a slave is a biblical right. Leviticus 25:44-46. Also if you read Exodus 21 you see how racist it is in that Hebrew slaves are treated differently than Gentile slaves.

 

[miknik5]

But God did sin, didn't he? What is sin if not disobedience to the commandments? Do you not know the commandment, "The son shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa"? But God did execute David's son for David's sins. In fact God tortured the newborn before killing him.

If you want to do a patented apologist back flip midair 1080° with the perfectly stuck landing and say that the laws do not apply to God, then we're done! The laws don't apply to God, so he can just forgive us. He does not have to be just if the laws don't apply to him.

So back to the title of the thread... why did Jesus have to die?



So then... Jesus did not actually atone for our sins, did he?



You seem to be disavowing hell. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus paid this wage for us by dying in this life and not in the next. So if he paid our wages by a physical death, then I am left to believe that old expression that hell is the grave. If hell exists, Jesus would need to suffer eternal conscious torment to pay our debt - provided, of course, that the notion of substitutional atonement is coherent in the first place.

Did the curse upon all men come before or after David's sin?

The reason I ask this is because the same Word of GOD given to GOD's first chosen which said be careful to do all that is written in the Law, Also said cursed is anyone who does not continue to do all that is written in the law

And the WORD of GOD also says that there is none who do right all the time and never sin

So while you are looking at the smaller picture of David's personal sin and the consequence of that sin, what about all mankind?

Were they fine?

 

[miknik5]

There is no doubt that the New Testament places Christ very high. But that does not mean he is God. You have jumped to conclusions.

So then who do you say HE is?

Because that will always remain the question that one will have to personally answer for themselves

For if HE were just a mere man, no different than any other man then there would be no confidence that all that HE said and claimed are true and steadfast PROMISES

And that already would be the difference between promises we are sure of and promises that are like fleeting mist in our hands

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Did the curse upon all men come before or after David's sin?

The reason I ask this is because the same Word of GOD given to GOD's first chosen which said be careful to do all that is written in the Law, Also said cursed is anyone who does not continue to do all that is written in the law

And the WORD of GOD also says that there is none who do right all the time and never sin

So while you are looking at the smaller picture of David's personal sin and the consequence of that sin, what about all mankind?

Were they fine?

Nothing you have ever said to me is remotely germane to the post you are quoting.

 

[miknik5]

Nothing you have ever said to me is remotely germane to the post you are quoting.

You want to be able to bring a charge against GOD but you don't even understand HIS GRACE and the GIFT OF HIS GRACE in HIS SON

David is fine
David's infant son is fine

However, David's adult son Absalom, is not fine

 

[miknik5]

Do you at least agree that this CHRIST JESUS came into the world and was crucified?

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is no doubt that the New Testament places Christ very high. But that does not mean he is God. You have jumped to conclusions.

By high Christology I mean the identification of Christ as divine. For example He is called the Logos who is "with God and ... was God", in Colossians He is described as "being the fullness of Deity in bodily form", He is called "the express image of God's Being", "our Great God and Savior", etc. That same language continues in the writings of the fathers, such as St. Ignatius, "the blood of God" in reference to Christ's blood, saying also, "our God, Jesus Christ" etc.

It's not jumping to conclusions, it's really just a matter of consistency. Christ's divinity, from the perspective of the apostolic Church, was never in doubt, the chief issue was what it meant to call Christ divine, what it meant to identify Christ as God. That's where the various Christological controversies arise--Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, etc. None of these denied the Deity of Christ, on the contrary they all asserted He was divine.

So when I say the writings of the New Testament present a high Christology, I mean they present a view of Christ which identifies Him as divine, Jesus is unique in His relationship to the Father, and is frequently described in terms as being God, and in several places rather explicitly identifying Him with YHVH, as St. Paul does in Philippians 2 where the language is too similar to not be on purpose (in the Greek) with the text of Isaiah where YHVH says He is God and every tongue shall confess it.

That Christians, historically, believed Jesus to be divine is a matter of the historical record and is found in the earliest Christian writings there are--the [authentic] Pauline epistles and the four canonical Gospels.

-CryptoLutheran