Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

[fredonly]

The Christian belief that Jesus died for our sins seems illogical to me, so I've been looking around for some rationale for it. I found the following:

from this link Basically, the reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.

All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.

Here is another:

link to source When Jesus died, He died for a reason. His death was not an accident. He came to this earth in order to forgive our sins. He had to die in order to do this. He came because Adam and Eve had disobeyed God.

Sin is disobeying God. God had warned our parents - Adam and Eve - that disobeying Him would bring death. They would die both physically and spiritually. Spiritual death is eternal separation from God - not destruction of the spirit. We understand physical death. When Adam and Eve sinned they caused their children to become sinners. They died both physically and spiritually.

Questions for debate:

1. Did Jesus die in order that we would be forgiven for OUR own sins, for the sins of Adam and Eve, or both?

2. If this was to forgive us for the sins of Adam and Eve, why did WE need to be forgiven for the sins of our ancestors? Was God being unjust and vengeful to punish the innocent descendants of this sinful pair?

3. If Adam and Eve's sin caused their descendants to be sinners, are we ourselves truly to blame?

4. Why was forgiveness contingent on punishment? i.e. why couldn't God simply grant amnesty for the sins? Is God simply being legalistic - being bound by the very laws that he himself created?

5. If punishment was indeed necessary, how does it make sense that ANOTHER person (Jesus) can take the punishment that leads to forgiveness?

6. If Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, then how can his suffering truly be any kind of sacrifice? He had to endure a day or two of pain, with full knowledge he'd again be walking around 3 days after dying. What is the big deal here? This is trivial compared to the suffering of a cancer patient who suffers for months or years, and then dies - only to remain dead. (the fact that, in theory, the cancer patient goes to heaven is irrelevant...Jesus did that as well - only he got to take his earthly body with him).

[Slopeshoulder]

um...er..."critics" who don't believe that psychic abilities are a real penonomenon would therefore deny that EC had them.
Like me for instance.

[fredonly]

Does right and wrong have subjective meaning? I submit that it is objectively wrong to punish someone for the deeds of another person. Even with your view that it is sacrifice, not punishment, it is wrong to require sacrifice to compensate for the deed of another. In both cases, no purpose is served and it is therefore arbitrary. It is inconsistent with God being all-good and all-loving. It implies God is vengeful, and or legalistic rather than compassionate.

Yes, right and wrong has subjectiveness to it. And much more if one tries to legislate it.. Example: A man steals food. Right or wrong? A man steals food becuz he is too lazy to earn money to buy it. Right or wrong? A man steals food becuz he is broke and is hungry. Right or wrong? A man steals food becuz his kids are hungry. Right or wrong?

The rightness or wrongness of each of your examples is obvious - and actually better illustrate my point: that legalistic interpretations of moral principles and laws do not necessarily lead to good behavior and a just judgment. A man who steals food to feed his family, who lacks any other means to do so, obviously hasn't done anything wrong, though legalistically - it's a crime (strictly speaking, it's a violation of "thou shalt not steal" as well - I don't believe the commandment lists a set of extenuating circumstances). Nevertheless, I agree there ARE subjective moral values - such as sex outside of marriage. But even subjective morality must have subjective criteria to justify it. If you think God's behavior is subjectively GOOD, please describe the rationale. Will this rationale also work for us - if we do as God does? If not, why not?

Christians are accepting an absurdity. An omnipotent benevolent God would not act arbitrarily and unjustly. He COULD have forgiven sins without sacrificing Jesus, so if he DID sacrifice Jesus then God is unjust and arbitrary. Christians believe their God is just and benevolent. There is an inherent contradiction here.

Without detailing your points, you are bothered becuz you claim God is absurd if he does not act the way you think God should. Why is South not North and North not South?

The question is not whether I like the way God acts, the question is: do YOU? I've simply pointed out that, if the Christian beliefs are true, then God acts arbitrarily and legalistically rather than benevolently. If you think his actions are just and good, and not merely legalistic, then please describe how they are just and good and why you are so happy with this behavior of His. After all, you WORSHIP this entity - not me.

[sleepyhead]

um...er..."critics" who don't believe that psychic abilities are a real penonomenon would therefore deny that EC had them.
Like me for instance.

Hello slopeshoulder,
Many people have found the information in the readings helpful in their lives. There may be a subject matter within the readings that would interest you, and there may not be. Whether you believe that EC, or anyone, can have psychic abilities isn't relevant.

[Zzyzx]

.

Whether you believe that EC, or anyone, can have psychic abilities isn't relevant.

I disagree.

When writings or tales are BASED upon supposed psychic or "paranormal" or "miracle" claims, the acceptance of those as truthful and accurate IS relevant in consideration of the credibility of the tales and any information presented.

That there may be some useful information in a writing is not indication that it is worth reading. There are credible sources of information that come without the baggage of supernatural claims and stories (which, in my mind, reduce the credibility of what is said unless they can be verified).

[sleepyhead]

.

Whether you believe that EC, or anyone, can have psychic abilities isn't relevant.

I disagree.

When writings or tales are BASED upon supposed psychic or "paranormal" or "miracle" claims, the acceptance of those as truthful and accurate IS relevant in consideration of the credibility of the tales and any information presented.

That there may be some useful information in a writing is not indication that it is worth reading. There are credible sources of information that come without the baggage of supernatural claims and stories (which, in my mind, reduce the credibility of what is said unless they can be verified).

Hello zzyzx,

The boldened portion of what you wrote doesn't make sense to me. Can you go into more detail with regards to why information that an individual, based on his own evaluation, has found a certain body of information useful, shouldn't be worth reading.

The vast majority of writings which claim to come from a supernatural source, use that supernatural source as the reason why these writings should be read. People are expected to read the bible, koran, etc. every day not because they are helpful to an individual but because they are God's word. The Cayce material doesn't make this pitch. The study of any material should only be based on whether one finds the material to be a value. How the material was obtained is secondary.

One of my favorite books is Jonathan livingston seagull. I later learned that Bach claimed to receive the story in a vision. Should I now stop reading the book?

[sleepyhead]

Hello again zzyzx,

With regards to being verified. The activities of EC are not a part of ancient history. He did his thing up until 1945. During those many years he gave numerous medical readings for individuals who had lost hope in the medical establishment of that time. Many of these individuals got well. The ARE collected the letters from individuals who were helped.

While he was alive many individuals appeared on the scene determined to expose him. They had numerous readings given to individuals which by verifying could have used to expose him if it had been a fraud.

In my opinion the accuracy of the readings was verified.

[Goat]

Hello again zzyzx,

With regards to being verified. The activities of EC are not a part of ancient history. He did his thing up until 1945. During those many years he gave numerous medical readings for individuals who had lost hope in the medical establishment of that time. Many of these individuals got well. The ARE collected the letters from individuals who were helped.

While he was alive many individuals appeared on the scene determined to expose him. They had numerous readings given to individuals which by verifying could have used to expose him if it had been a fraud.

In my opinion the accuracy of the readings was verified.

That reminds of Uri Geller. He was a magician that claimed to have psychic powers.. and he fooled many people. Even after he was caught being a fraud, people believed in him.

[Zzyzx]

.

With regards to being verified. The activities of EC are not a part of ancient history. He did his thing up until 1945.

So what? Similar acts are performed daily in Las Vegas currently by illusionists (who cannot be shown to be any more or less valid than EC).

During those many years he gave numerous medical readings for individuals who had lost hope in the medical establishment of that time. Many of these individuals got well. The ARE collected the letters from individuals who were helped.

There are many tales of "faith healing" and many testimonials. All that is lacking is evidence that they are true – that "healing" actually occurs when critically examined.

If "faith healing" works, why do religious people go to doctors instead of just praying? Honest answer: Because they realize that medical help is far more likely to cure their disease or improve their condition than is "praying" or "faith healing".

Test: If you (collective term) have a child with a fever of 107, do you call a doctor or a faith healer?

While he was alive many individuals appeared on the scene determined to expose him. They had numerous readings given to individuals which by verifying could have used to expose him if it had been a fraud.

Many frauds are difficult to "expose", particularly when claimants refuse to perform their magic under close observation and supervision.

In my opinion the accuracy of the readings was verified.

Opinion noted. I disagree. Which position do you suppose has greater credibility with readers?

That reminds of Uri Geller. He was a magician that claimed to have psychic powers.. and he fooled many people. Even after he was caught being a fraud, people believed in him.

People tend to believe their favorite frauds no matter what.

Evidence: Tens of thousands of different religions teach / preach mutually exclusive dogma. When one says "yes" and the other says "no" on significant matters (such as requirements to gain rewards in an "afterlife"), one or both of them MUST be wrong – yet the various competing sects have multitudes of followers – some of which must be believing false / fraudulent statements about "gods".

[EduChris]

1. Did Jesus die in order that we would be forgiven for OUR own sins, for the sins of Adam and Eve, or both?

We need to be forgiven for our own sins. We do not need to be forgiven for the sins of others.

2. If this was to forgive us for the sins of Adam and Eve, why did WE need to be forgiven for the sins of our ancestors? Was God being unjust and vengeful to punish the innocent descendants of this sinful pair?

This question is moot in light of my answer to #1, above.

3. If Adam and Eve's sin caused their descendants to be sinners, are we ourselves truly to blame?

We can't pass the buck to our ancestors. True, our ancestors are responsible for starting the ball rolling, but all of us keep adding to the snowball effect of sin. We are all guilty of doing things we shouldn't do, and we are all guilty of not doing things we should do. The story of Adam and Eve is really the story of Everyman.

4. Why was forgiveness contingent on punishment? i.e. why couldn't God simply grant amnesty for the sins? Is God simply being legalistic - being bound by the very laws that he himself created?

God created a world in which free agents would be given the ability to make meaningful choices with real consequences. If God were to simply say, "Oh, it matters not one whit what you do to harm others," then our humanness, our moral accountability, our dignity--all of these and more would simply evaporate, and we would be nothing more than irrelevant pets to God.

5. If punishment was indeed necessary, how does it make sense that ANOTHER person (Jesus) can take the punishment that leads to forgiveness?

God came to earth as a human; he lived a sinless life and so deserved no punishment, but yet he endured a terrible execution. For God, this is punishment enough to allow him to say to us, "Yes, your sins matter. Sufficient punishment has now been meted out. The debt has been paid. You can ask to be forgiven, and I will forgive you on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."

6. If Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, then how can his suffering truly be any kind of sacrifice? He had to endure a day or two of pain, with full knowledge he'd again be walking around 3 days after dying. What is the big deal here? This is trivial compared to the suffering of a cancer patient who suffers for months or years, and then dies - only to remain dead.

You are assuming that Jesus knew with certainty that his suffering would end, and that he would rise again. I think these are false assumptions. Jesus was tested in every way that we are, and that means that he gave up his divine attributes in order to live the same life of faith and trust that we all need to do. Jesus believed God, Jesus trusted God, Jesus had faith that God would raise him from the dead. But Jesus didn't know this with certainty. On another line of thought, people who have suffered great tragedy sometimes say that "death isn't suffering, but instead it is living that is suffering." Such folks believe that Jesus didn't suffer as much as they themselves have personally suffered. Now it's true that most of us have no idea how excruciatingly painful crucifixion was, but without having to decide where the balance of greatest suffering lies, we simply have to acknowledge that God can decide what sufficient punishment should be. Jesus' incarnation, life, and death was sufficient in God's eyes, and God vindicated this judgment by raising Jesus from the dead.

[Woland]

Hello EduChris,

I have a few, easily answered questions for you concerning your post above. I will number them for convenience.

We need to be forgiven for our own sins. We do not need to be forgiven for the sins of others.

1. Do you believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment (or separation from God)?

2. Do you believe that the only way to avoid Hell (or be forgiven, depending on 1.) is to accept the offer of a being that non-Christians do not believe even exists?

We can't pass the buck to our ancestors. True, our ancestors are responsible for starting the ball rolling, but all of us keep adding to the snowball effect of sin.

3. If an omnipotent, omniscient god designed all of us, and knew that all of us would sin, would it not logically follow that this god designed us so that it was inevitable that we would sin?

4. If you admit that our ancestors "got the ball rolling" and that we are thus born in a world where sin exists and is inevitable, would you not agree that your god concept is punishing his creatures for the sins of their ancestors?

5. Do you believe that it is acceptable to punish people at birth for offenses they did not commit?

We are all guilty of doing things we shouldn't do, and we are all guilty of not doing things we should do. The story of Adam and Eve is really the story of Everyman.

6. Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the story?

7. Do you deny that your god concept, knowing that the circumstances he put his creation in would result in their sinning, is guilty of entrapment?

God created a world in which free agents would be given the ability to make meaningful choices with real consequences. If God were to simply say, "Oh, it matters not one whit what you do to harm others," then our humanness, our moral accountability, our dignity--all of these and more would simply evaporate, and we would be nothing more than irrelevant pets to God.

8. Do people have free will in Heaven?

9. Do people sin in Heaven?

10. Why did your deity not create people in the form they will take in Heaven?

11. If your god concept exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being, how exactly are humans anything less than irrelevant pets to it?

12. Do you not set rules and rewards and punishments for your own pets?

God came to earth as a human; he lived a sinless life and so deserved no punishment, but yet he endured a terrible execution. For God, this is punishment enough to allow him to say to us, "Yes, your sins matter. Sufficient punishment has now been meted out. The debt has been paid. You can ask to be forgiven, and I will forgive you on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."

13. Why would a benevolent god demand the blood sacrifice of an innocent in order to freely forgive (and indeed reward) the ones who commit transgressions?

14. If you believe in any form of Hell whereby believers are separated from non believers, why would decent human beings who acknowledges and regret the misdeeds they have committed be punished if they honestly do not find the evidence at hand sufficient to acknowledge your god concept's existence, much less accept his offer?

15. In the same line of thought, why would believers who have committed more and greater misdeeds than, say, an atheist who regrets his own, be rewarded as the atheist is punished for lesser transgressions?

You are assuming that Jesus knew with certainty that his suffering would end, and that he would rise again. I think these are false assumptions. Jesus was tested in every way that we are, and that means that he gave up his divine attributes in order to live the same life of faith and trust that we all need to do.

16. Why was Jesus able to live a sinless life if this is not even an option for regular human beings, as it plainly isn't according to most forms of Christian theology I am aware of?

Jesus believed God, Jesus trusted God, Jesus had faith that God would raise him from the dead. But Jesus didn't know this with certainty.

17. Did Jesus know with certainty that the god described in the Bible exists?

18. Do you deny that scores of people have suffered more than Jesus, both physically and psychologically?

19. How is dying a sacrifice at all if Jesus was reasonably convinced that he would in fact not die but ascend to take his place in Heaven?

20. What did Jesus give up that was so special in comparison to the innumerable humans who have sacrificed their lives for the benefit of others without even believing that there is an afterlife?

21. If people thought they could save humanity by being nailed to a piece of wood, many would volunteer to be crucified - regardless of their belief in Heaven, and even if they strongly felt that there was no such thing. Do you deny this?

On another line of thought, people who have suffered great tragedy sometimes say that "death isn't suffering, but instead it is living that is suffering." Such folks believe that Jesus didn't suffer as much as they themselves have personally suffered. Now it's true that most of us have no idea how excruciatingly painful crucifixion was, but without having to decide where the balance of greatest suffering lies, we simply have to acknowledge that God can decide what sufficient punishment should be. Jesus' incarnation, life, and death was sufficient in God's eyes, and God vindicated this judgment by raising Jesus from the dead.

23. How exactly can forgiveness of sinful humans arise from the punishment of a sinless god-man, and how can this ever be construed as being just?

24. Would you feel that justice had been served, in any circumstances except those involving your religious beliefs, if someone else was punished for your transgressions?

Thank you for your answers.

Woland