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).

[EduChris]

...It seems that very few pairs of Christians in this thread, despite their apparently genuine interest in being honest and open, have similar or even compatible answers to fundamentally important questions about their faith and their deity...How do we explain this?...

What you are observing is the human inevitability that intellectual questions and intellectual answers will change from one generation to the next, and from one culture to the next. Every generation has their own way of looking at the world, their own "plausibility structures," their own unique questions. This is actually a good thing because we all need to spend the time to find the answers that work for the questions that we personally find meaningful.

The problem is that sometimes we humans get intellectually lazy. We rely on the questions and explanations that worked for previous generations, and we don't bother to reformulate the questions and relearn the kinds of answers that address our new questions. Whenever we rely on the answers and the questions from past generations, those old formulations will appear increasingly absurd--first to the "outsiders" of the tradition, and finally even to the insiders.

[EduChris]

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

Your questions are good, and they deserve good answers, but unfortunately for me you have offered more than "a few" questions, and I simply cannot keep up the pace with the limited amount of free time that I have. If you want to focus on just a few (two or three) of your more urgent questions, I will do my best. Or, if you'd like something to read on these topics, my favorite introductory theology text is Faith Seeking Understanding.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Correction: Many Christians feel a need to be “forgiven for our ‘sins’�. However, “sin� is a religious concept that only applies to believers. The term is defined as: “a transgression of religious law: an offense against god�.

A person who does not accept god theories is not obligated to follow any of the “laws� supposedly set forth by any of the proposed “gods�.

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.

Do you reject the mainline Christian dogma that implies that humans are “cursed� or influenced by the supposed “sins� of the hypothetical “Adam and Eve�?

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.

According to the tale (correct me if I err), Adam and Eve were supposedly punished for eating fruit of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil� (and “disobeying ‘god’� in the process. Is that basically correct?

By that “reasoning�, is it forbidden for humans to learn about “good and evil�?

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.

Is that a statement from “god� or is it your opinion?

Humanness, moral accountability and dignity do NOT require a “god�. Those characteristics exist in individuals who do not worship any of the proposed “gods�.

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.

So goes the unverified tale.

According to at least one bible tale, Jesus displayed hostile behavior toward “money changers in the temple� (if memory serves correctly). Is hostile behavior not a “sin� when the same person is purported to have said “Love they neighbor as thyself�?

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."

Is the serial killer who converts to Christianity, accepts “Christ as savior�, confesses, and asks forgiveness – FORGIVEN by “god� and supposedly “admitted to heaven�? Is the person who lives an exemplary life in cooperation with others but who refuses to worship “gods� condemned to “hell� or “eternal damnation� (or whatever is currently popular in Christendom)?

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.

Opinion noted.

Christians are wont to claim that Jesus was/is 1/3 of “god� (whatever that might mean). As such, did he not know he was “god�, did he not know that he was “supernatural�, did he not know he could ‘perform miracles’?

Some statements attributed to Jesus, such as “I and the father are one�, seem to indicate that he understood that he was “god� or “part of god�. Do you disagree?

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.

Exactly how do you KNOW this?

I accept that you GUESS or CLAIM that you know the mind of Jesus, but I question any claim of actual knowledge – and suggest that those who project their opinions onto others (including Jesus) are merely stating conjecture and opinion (often presented as factual).

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.

Correction: God worshipers / believers may “acknowledge that god can decide what sufficient punishment should be�. Non-believers are not bound by the opinions of believers.

Jesus' incarnation, life, and death was sufficient in God's eyes, and God vindicated this judgment by raising Jesus from the dead.

Jesus, who is said to be 1/3 of “god�, an eternal being, supposedly takes human form, “dies� temporarily to appease another 1/3 of himself, and the other third raises him from the dead. Is that a proper summation?

If so, where is the “sacrifice� in a temporary “death� of a supposedly eternal being (or part thereof)?

Do you present this (or something similar, and perhaps worded euphemistically) as a serious statement of fact in debate?

[EduChris]

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

Hell is what you are left with after you have rejected the Source of all love.

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?

Nope. I believe that the Judge of all the earth will do what is right. God is not seeking for ways to condemn us, but rather God is looking for ways to give us life and hope and love.

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?

It seems to me that what you mean by the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient" do not describe the God of the Bible.

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?

No, we are not punished for the sins of our ancestors. Each of us is responsible for more than enough sin, all on our own. But God has become human, God suffered with us and for us, so that we can be forgiven our sins and yet still retain our humanness, our dignity, our freedom.

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

Nope. Such behavior is unacceptable.

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

Whether literal or not, I can't say. But in either case, my interpretation would be the same. God created everything good, but humans (despite God's warnings) all choose to experience evil.

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 loves us; God does not "entrap" us. God was willing to pay the price so that we could enjoy truly loving relationships with each other and with our Creator.

8. Do people have free will in Heaven?

Yes.

9. Do people sin in Heaven?

No.

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

I assume you mean, why didn't God just skip over the tough part here on earth, so that humans could enjoy Heaven right away and not be subject to sin. My guess is that we have to know something about sin in order to know how bad it is. God didn't want us to ever learn about sin and suffering, but if he hadn't given us that choice, we wouldn't truly be free.

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

As I said previously, I disagree with your understanding of these "omni" words. I think most of us do not really appreciate how much God gave up in order to create beings in his image, able to choose, able to learn, able to love.

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

Yes, the "Pavlov's dog" routine is probably well known to every pet owner. God, however, wanted something better for us, God wanted to create us in his image. We are more than animals, more than pets.

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?

God came to earth and suffered on the cross himself. God did this to expose the magnitude of sin, the awful consequences of sin, and God's enduring love for us despite our sin.

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?

God judges us according to what we do know, or what we could know if we really wanted to learn. God doesn't judge us on what we cannot know. But beyond that, I don't think that God punishes us; rather, we choose to reject the Source of love, and in that case we get what we ask for.

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?

I don't accept the premise of your question.

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 could have given into the fears and insecurities that plague the rest of us, but somehow he found a way to believe that love is always the best choice.

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

Intellectually, perhaps not. At the heart level, certainly yes.

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

That is possible, but I really can't say for sure. The horror that Jesus experienced during the final moments on the cross, when he felt abandoned by his father, that is probably something none of us will ever be able to judge.

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?

I can be reasonably convinced that a tightrope walker can carry me across the Niagra Falls, but I don't think I'd have enough faith to hop onto his shoulders.

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?

Before he gave up his life on the cross, he had to became human. That in itself must have been a pretty big sacrifice for God--the infinite, becoming finite.

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?

I suppose some would volunteer, but none of these volunteers would have a sinless life to offer. None of them would be able to atone even for their own sins, much less anyone else's.

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?

One of the unique things about the Christian faith is that God really participates in our experience, our suffering. The "gods" of other religions sit up in their lofty places and judge us without ever really sharing in our condition. Jesus shared our lot, and Jesus forgives us.

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?

I would really be happy if someone came along and paid off my mortgage. I would be off the hook, and yet the lenders will have gotten their money back.

Thank you for your answers.

Thanks for the questions.

[fredonly]

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...
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."

First you say we have moral accountability, then you say someone else can take the punishment – removing the accountability. To suggest that sin must be balanced against punishment, but allow for this to be inflicted on someone in your place removes the entire rationale for the punishment. At best, it is purely legalistic – God’s law requires punishment, but a loophole allows the punishment to be taken by another. The fact that God himself created the law, enforces it, and is judge and jury suggests that he behaves as absurdly as Zeus. Remember, he is inflicting punishment on HIMSELF, one of the members of the Trinity. It serves no purpose that couldn’t have been accomplished by the simple act of forgiveness by this deity. Forgiveness without requiring punishment would have exactly the same impact on the sinners as does forgiveness which follows punishment of himself (or, from the Mormon point of view, punishment of another part of the Godhead).

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.

What is your basis for suggesting Jesus was NOT certain he would rise from the dead?

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.

You do seem to have a rather unique view of Jesus’ divinity- since you suggest (contrary to scripture) that Jesus wasn’t fully confident he’d rise from the dead. Surely this must also mean that he wasn’t sure he was God because if he knew he was god, he knew his capabilities.

[EduChris]

First you say we have moral accountability, then you say someone else can take the punishment – removing the accountability.

Apparently you believe that if a child commits an act of vandalism, and if the child can't repay the damages he caused, then the child must be thrown into debtors prison or else simply forgiven with a wave of the hand, as if nothing had happened. Fortunately, we have a better way. The parents of the child can repay the damages on behalf of the child, and then the parent is free either to forgive or to discipline the child in some other way.

On another line of thought, though, I'm reminded of South Africa's Truth & Reconcilliation Commission. After Apartheid had ended, it simply wasn't conducive to the healing of the country to try to convict everyone who had commited acts of violence (on either side) during the Apartheid days. So it was decided that people who had commited crimes during Apartheid could be forgiven anything which they confessed before a panel of judges. The only thing was, everyone on the judging panel had to meet one requirement: they had to have suffered violence in their own families in order to be qualified to pronounce forgiveness on the offenders. Jesus is our judge; he is qualified to forgive us on the basis of the violence he suffered at our hands.

What is your basis for suggesting Jesus was NOT certain he would rise from the dead?

Jesus emptied himself of the divine attributes he had prior to his incarnation. While he was on earth, he was not omniscient; he had to rely on faith and on his perception of his relationship with his Father.

You do seem to have a rather unique view of Jesus’ divinity- since you suggest (contrary to scripture) that Jesus wasn’t fully confident he’d rise from the dead...

Jesus had confidence that was based on faith and trust, rather than on intellectual certainty.

[EduChris]

...Jesus, who is said to be 1/3 of “god�, an eternal being, supposedly takes human form, “dies� temporarily to appease another 1/3 of himself, and the other third raises him from the dead. Is that a proper summation? ...

I'm afraid I don't have time to keep answering all of these many questions from you and from others, but I will say that in a debate where both parties are interested in moving toward a better mutual understanding, it's necessary that each party try to summarize the other's views as best and as sympathetically as possible, so that the other side will recognize that there is a genuine attempt to understand the opposing view. Now of course I haven't yet had time to discuss my views on the Trinity (on another thread) but I will say that your summarization comes nowhere close to my own understanding. Maybe we can pick this up at another time on another thread.