What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:04 am

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it. They try, but once I give my rebuttal to their attempts, they eventually stop replying. Hopefully I can get an answer this time.

Note: This topic is specifically for Christians who believe Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven.

This is arguably the core of the Christian faith that Jesus died for our sins and made it possible for us to live for eternity in heaven... but why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

If god is satisfied by punishment without guilt (Jesus), why is he not satisfied with guilt without punishment?

shnarkle · Post by **shnarkle** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:15 pm

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 95 by OnceConvinced]

The bible teaches this. Bad = sin. Sin cannot be around God.
What about when Adam and Eve were naked, before they ate the forbidden fruit and realised that their nakedness was a sin?

The text doesn't say that their nakedness was a sin. It just says that they became aware that they were naked. They became aware that they had violated God's sole command, and became intensely aware that they were already exposed. They probably thought that what they were doing would not be seen by God.

What about when Jesus ate meals with sinners?

Is eating a sin? It doesn't say that Jesus sinned with sinners. The text states that Jesus came in the form of "sinful flesh" which kinda creates a buffer to God's smiting. He didn't come as a transcendent holy deity that annihilates any sinner that gets within a universe's distance to him.

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:22 am

earl wrote: There are two gospels.
One by Jesus...

Wait, Jesus wrote a Gospel?

earl wrote: a sacrifice must occur

Why?

earl wrote: Most Christians believe Paul's gospel.
A few others believe Jesus' gospel.

Are you saying Paul is wrong?

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:58 pm

theophile wrote: [Replying to OnceConvinced]

Ok, then lets just focus on 1) which is kind of what this thread was trying to do. It seems that the good/bad apple analogy is irrelevant.
No, it's relevant. The OP was about the logic of Jesus' crucifixion. And what its saving or redemptive power is. Answer: apples.

I donâ€™t see how that is logical. Jesus could be the good apple without having to be killed. Does a good apple ever have to be chopped apart and be put back together to justify the batch of bad apples?

theophile wrote:

How does the provision of the lamb save US? How does its body allow us to live? Why can't we be given life without the need for the lamb to be slaughtered?
Umm, again, you are a creature of needs. Made of dust. The lamb can provide for your needs (at least some of them). It's a metaphor for any self-giving for the welfare of others.

How does a metaphor in any way have any physical or spiritual effect on anything?

theophile wrote:
See also the Samaritan giving his time and money to help someone beaten and left for dead. See also Jesus giving his power to lots of others to heal them, feed them, etc.

All these things were done while they were still alive. How does a sacrificial death change any of this?

theophile wrote:
As far as I can see we can have a good apple in the basket without Jesus having to be a blood sacrifice for us. All Jesus needs to do is live as a human and be the good apple that makes the batch acceptable. No life needs to be given for this.
Well clearly you haven't read the book of Job.

I have read it several times, so you are dead wrong.

theophile wrote:
The satan found some pretty good reasons to doubt Job, even on the basis of what you say here.

Note, that Job lived. He never had to die to prove himself a good apple. Out of all the people God had slaughtered in that story, Job was never slaughtered.

Don't you think God is capable of fixing the problem of sin without the need for the blood of an innocent?

theophile · Post by **theophile** » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:30 pm

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

I donâ€™t see how that is logical. Jesus could be the good apple without having to be killed. Does a good apple ever have to be chopped apart and be put back together to justify the batch of bad apples?

This is a simple but also extremely subtle argument I'm making, so please bear with me. Best to imagine some context to see my point. The same context that the book of Job explicitly provides.

So let's imagine the same thing happened back when Abraham was tested: the satan comes to God's court heavily doubting humankind's worthiness to rule, just as happens in the book of Job. "What is a human being that you make so much of them?" the satan may ask God. To which God may reply, "have you considered my servant Abraham?"...

You can see where this is going. Maybe the satan then says, much like in Job: "Abraham is only good because of what is in it for him. He is good only out of self-interest. Tell him to give back the son you gave him, and he will curse your name."

Thus we can imagine God telling Abraham to give Isaac up, as a test, to see if Abraham's motives are truly non-self-interested, or if he is only good because of what is in it for him.

As we see, he passes the test in his willingness to give up Isaac.

Same with Job. Except now the stakes are higher. Time has passed and it's going to take more to appease the satan's doubts.

Thus, Job has his children and wealth taken away to test his motives. Then he has his health taken away (but his life, you'll notice, is explicitly spared).

Same with Jesus. Except, again, higher stakes... This time the satan needs a human being to make the ultimate proof that his / her motives are not ultimately self-interested. That we can truly care for others and, as such, be worthy to rule...

Does that make sense? I can't make it any simpler. The ultimate test is the test we can imagine Jesus going through. So no, he doesn't need to die to be "the good apple" - Abraham and Job passed easier tests. But the ultimate test that we are not ultimately self-interested means giving up that which is of most interest to us: our lives.

Jesus passes that test.

How does a metaphor in any way have any physical or spiritual effect on anything?

When did I say that it did? A person following the idea behind that metaphor has physical effect. i.e., someone actually giving up something dear to them for the sake of others.

As far as I can see we can have a good apple in the basket without Jesus having to be a blood sacrifice for us. All Jesus needs to do is live as a human and be the good apple that makes the batch acceptable. No life needs to be given for this.
Well clearly you haven't read the book of Job.
I have read it several times, so you are dead wrong.

Well that's logical.

Look, in the book of Job the satan explicitly questions Job, a man who has done good all his life. A perfect man according to the narrative. Yet the satan still raises valid questions about Job's motives that undermine his entire life's example.

Thus, in making the statement you do here, you neglect this obvious point made by the book. That simply living a good life is not enough to prove our worth.

Questions of motive remain. And those are important.

Don't you think God is capable of fixing the problem of sin without the need for the blood of an innocent?

The problem of sin is a separate problem. I don't think the blood of an innocent does anything to directly fix the problem of sin.

At most, it influences. Or can cause a change of heart. That is the only relationship I could draw between those two.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:51 am

[Replying to post 104 by theophile]

Thus we can imagine God telling Abraham to give Isaac up, as a test, to see if Abraham's motives are truly non-self-interested, or if he is only good because of what is in it for him.

By 'giving up' do you want readers to picture this

or this

It always tickles me pink to see theists downplaying the act of killing other humans all supposedly on a God's say so.
What makes Abraham virtuous for being willing to kill Isaac versus the Canaanites who were willing to do the same to their kids for Baal?

More to the point - how is Isaac Abraham's to give up? Is Isaac a possession, like a rock or a flower or a toy? Given the cultural context the story was written in, yes, Isaac would have been considered property. In which case, we have the God-breathed 'wisdom' of the Bible downplaying human self-worth, advocating for slavery.
If no, then Abraham had no right to try to kill Isaac, as Isaac's life would NOT have been Abraham's to give to God. Instead, what 'should' have happened is that Isaac tried to kill himself, with no assistance from Abraham. (Oh wait...God dislikes suicide, doesn't he?)

theophile · Post by **theophile** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:55 am

[Replying to rikuoamero]

It always tickles me pink to see theists downplaying the act of killing other humans all supposedly on a God's say so.

How did I downplay it? Nobody downplayed the seriousness of the ask.

But it always tickles me that atheists can't hear the true ask here. No offense, I don't think Abraham does either, and that's one of the points of the story.

In a fallen world, the word that calls for life is heard as though calling for death.

I know that sounds ridiculous at first blush, but if you actually think about it, you'll realize it's true.

Take the very idea of sacrifice. When we hear it, when we are called to do it, we don't think of the life-giving potential of our sacrificial act, but instead focus only on the life-taking aspect of it. Our fallen hearts and minds (which care only about our own self-interests) hear only death-to-the-self when called to make a sacrifice (in this case, Isaac, which was Abraham's greatest care and interest). They don't hear how the call to sacrifice is truly a call to give life to the other (versus take life from the self). And that through giving life to others we in fact have life returned upon us in greater fold.

What makes Abraham virtuous for being willing to kill Isaac versus the Canaanites who were willing to do the same to their kids for Baal?

I suppose that depends on Baal, and what Baal's intentions are. Is a gift to Baal truly a gift for others in the world? Or is it simply a gift to Baal - to hell with others in the world?

More to the point - how is Isaac Abraham's to give up? Is Isaac a possession, like a rock or a flower or a toy? Given the cultural context the story was written in, yes, Isaac would have been considered property. In which case, we have the God-breathed 'wisdom' of the Bible downplaying human self-worth, advocating for slavery.

What Abraham is asked to do here is show that he is not in this only for himself. Isaac "belongs" to Abraham insofar as Isaac is (arguably) Abraham's greatest care and interest.

Abraham cannot be a true human being, which is to say ruler of the earth, if his interests are so narrow and self-serving. His care must be genuinely for others. For every other, not just this particular one.

Thus, it's not a matter of Isaac being Abraham's to give. Isaac is just a proxy for Abraham's interests in this world. And the test is whether Abraham is willing to give up his greatest self-interests for the sake of others.

(As Jesus later tells us, we must hate our mothers and brothers if we are to follow him. Not because we should hate them, but because our cares need to be for all, without special favor or interest, if we are to truly take our place as kings and queens of this world.)

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:26 pm

theophile wrote: [Replying to OnceConvinced]

I donâ€™t see how that is logical. Jesus could be the good apple without having to be killed. Does a good apple ever have to be chopped apart and be put back together to justify the batch of bad apples?
This is a simple but also extremely subtle argument I'm making, so please bear with me. Best to imagine some context to see my point. The same context that the book of Job explicitly provides.

So let's imagine the same thing happened back when Abraham was tested: the satan comes to God's court heavily doubting humankind's worthiness to rule, just as happens in the book of Job. "What is a human being that you make so much of them?" the satan may ask God. To which God may reply, "have you considered my servant Abraham?"...

You can see where this is going. Maybe the satan then says, much like in Job: "Abraham is only good because of what is in it for him. He is good only out of self-interest. Tell him to give back the son you gave him, and he will curse your name."

Thus we can imagine God telling Abraham to give Isaac up, as a test, to see if Abraham's motives are truly non-self-interested, or if he is only good because of what is in it for him.

As we see, he passes the test in his willingness to give up Isaac.

Same with Job. Except now the stakes are higher. Time has passed and it's going to take more to appease the satan's doubts.

Thus, Job has his children and wealth taken away to test his motives. Then he has his health taken away (but his life, you'll notice, is explicitly spared).

Same with Jesus. Except, again, higher stakes... This time the satan needs a human being to make the ultimate proof that his / her motives are not ultimately self-interested. That we can truly care for others and, as such, be worthy to rule...

Does that make sense? I can't make it any simpler.

Yeah that makes sense. I'm still not seeing the need to go to such extremes though.

theophile wrote:
The ultimate test is the test we can imagine Jesus going through. So no, he doesn't need to die to be "the good apple" - Abraham and Job passed easier tests. But the ultimate test that we are not ultimately self-interested means giving up that which is of most interest to us: our lives.

Jesus passes that test.

Really who is it that needs anything proven to him? You say the Satans. But why would it matter what they think? God is the only one whos going to be unleashing his wrath on the batch of apples so it's only him that needs to be appeased. God and God only. Nobody else needs anything proven to them. Not Satan. Not anyone.

God being God, does not require anyone to die for him to know whether someone is a good apple. No test is needed when God already knows.

theophile wrote:

Look, in the book of Job the satan explicitly questions Job, a man who has done good all his life. A perfect man according to the narrative. Yet the satan still raises valid questions about Job's motives that undermine his entire life's example.

Why would we need to convince any Satan of anything? All that matters is that God sees the good apple so that we the bad apples can be saved. No death is needed for God to be able to know a good apple from a bad apple.

theophile wrote: Thus, in making the statement you do here, you neglect this obvious point made by the book. That simply living a good life is not enough to prove our worth.

The only one anyone needs to prove their worth to is God and he already knows whether we're worthy or not.

theophile wrote:
Don't you think God is capable of fixing the problem of sin without the need for the blood of an innocent?
The problem of sin is a separate problem. I don't think the blood of an innocent does anything to directly fix the problem of sin.

Ok, well this is what I was trying to point out. The death of an innocent can't possibly have any affect on anything, unless its to appease a wrathful being.

If the death of a being does nothing to fix the problem of sin, then it's something else. From what the bible tells me, it's God who fixes the problem. He's the one who deems a man worthy. This can be done without anyone actually dying. It can be done without anyone having to prove anything.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:41 am

[Replying to post 107 by OnceConvinced]

Abraham was what biblically providing a prophetic drama, his actions illustrated on a small scale the sacrifice God and Jesus would later demonstrate for real.

The point was to communicate to mankind the price that God and Jesus were willing to pay to save mankind. Evidently the story has indeed marked mankind's collective memory since we are still talking about it thousands of years later.

The price couldn't have been higher, the love couldn't have been more.

JW

Debating Christianity and Religion

What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

Re: What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?