What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

[Justin108]

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?

[Justin108]

Was Jesus 100% human? Can we potentially do everything Jesus can?

It's a story. But yes, I think he's 100% human in that story.

Have you ever heard of a human (other than Jesus) walking on water, turning water into wine, things like that?

Will we be able to perform miracles as he did? It's a story.

A story? Are you saying none of it ever actually happened?

That's it? The only thing Jesus' death did was prove a point?

I think it's an awfully serious question for all of us whether or not God's design, where human beings rule the earth, is acceptable.

Yes or no, did Jesus die just so he can prove a point?

Why do you think the bible shows talking snakes? Because animals have a voice whether we want to hear them or not. What do you think all the species we've endangered or destroyed are saying? Does their blood not call out from the earth against us?

God gladly accepted and even instructed animal sacrifices in the Old Testament and now you're claiming they have a voice? How many of those animals do you suppose volunteered to be sacrificed?

The point that Jesus proves is an important one.

So that's a yes? It was all just to prove a point?

Jesus gives hope through his example that we're not that bad

People prove that we're not that bad all the time. I see no need for Jesus

So don't reduce it down to "prove a point." There's way more at stake than that.

What is at stake exactly? What do you suppose would have happened if Jesus never sacrificed himself?

The earth and everything in it.

So if Jesus didn't sacrifice himself, the world would have ended? Is that your claim?

[theophile]

[Replying to shnarkle]

He lifts himself up onto a cross; he crucifies the self. This is what Paul calls us to do as well.

Pretty sure Jesus did not lift himself up onto a cross. Pretty sure he was nailed there by the Romans...

The dead are not resurrected until we are able to forsake everything this great big wonderful world has to offer us.

How does one lead to the other? I really don't see why the world needs to be forsaken, nor how that could possibly lead to the resurrection of the dead.

Rather, resurrection of the dead will happen when humankind unites in purpose, when we welcome different views at the table, and when we expand our knowledge and power in the process. (Something not unlike the scientific process and technological advancement...)

Through that and that alone is there any hope for the dead. It is still through the way that Jesus shows us. But through the true power of that way: which is not to do magical things, but to increase our capabilities through openness to each other and the union of our differences.

There's no maybe about it. Jesus comes to show that we're worth redeeming. However, he doesn't show us that we're not that bad, but that despite how bad we really are, we have the potential to be the light of the world.

I think you just resaid what I said. When you brought in the word "potential" you basically said my "maybe."

Again, I disagree. This is especially evident in John's gospel where the crucifixion is the pinnacle of what it means to be a king in God's kingdom, i.e. denial of the self. Whatever it takes to deny the self must be done, and with the truly selfish, it takes scourging and crucifixion to see the lengths that God will go to redeem humanity.

Citations please. Yes, Jesus shows his true colors and worthiness to rule in the crucifixion. But recall what I said: the crucifixion is a mockery and abuse communion. It is what happens to someone when they approach a fallen world in communion.

So Jesus himself is doing the same thing in both events. The difference is the world he is in and how it responds. In Communion with his disciples, his gift of himself (body and blood) is accepted and reciprocated. In the Crucifixion, the Romans take him and nail him to a cross - in mockery of the way.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 51 by Justin108]

Have you ever heard of a human (other than Jesus) walking on water, turning water into wine, things like that?

I said it's a story. As in, don't take it literally. Or at least, it means I don't, and have no desire to defend literal readings.

A story? Are you saying none of it ever actually happened?

That is usually what it means. There is undoubtedly some historical kernel, but I wouldn't care to insist on it. i.e., there probably was a Jesus. And he was probably crucified. I don't really care. There definitely was a Peter and Paul. But even the stuff in Acts, etc, is probably as much story as real...

Yes or no, did Jesus die just so he can prove a point?

I don't know why he did it, or if he even knew what was going to happen to him. What I gave you is the only redeeming factor I see in what happened, whether or not it was intentional. That is what you asked for.

I also said that the redeeming factor of the crucifixion is the same as the redeeming factor of Job's tests. Job did not stay true to God to prove a point. He had no idea a point was being made. He did it, presumably, because it was the right thing to do. Because he was committed to the way. I would think the same of Jesus.

God gladly accepted and even instructed animal sacrifices in the Old Testament and now you're claiming they have a voice? How many of those animals do you suppose volunteered to be sacrificed?

Pretty sure the bible (Jeremiah I think, or maybe Isaiah) critiques those very animal sacrifices, or the belief that God wanted them.

But there is something going on with the sacrifice of the lamb throughout scripture... And the lamb is quite clearly a symbol of Jesus. (Recall: we're in story-land here, so let's expect lots of figurative language.) So yeah, the true sacrifice is Jesus in communion, and that is voluntary.

I don't think there is any concept in the bible of actual animals actually volunteering to be sacrificed. That is just ridiculous.

So that's a yes? It was all just to prove a point?

No. You asked me up front how it is that Jesus' crucifixion could possibly redeem us, and I told you. He is like the one good apple in the bunch that gives hope in the potential of the rest.

I never said that was his reason for submitting to crucifixion, or that it was God's reason for setting it all up, or anything like that.

Again, from my first post, Jesus shows his commitment to the way. That way is communion, or the self giving of himself (his own body and blood) for the life and welfare of others.. That way is greeted by a fallen world with disdain and abuse, i.e., Rome takes Jesus's gift of himself and pins him up on a cross in mockery of this way.

So again, if anything, Jesus is simply staying true to the path that he believes is right. That of communion.

He redeems us in the process but I don't think that was his point, or what he was trying to do. That just happens in virtue of his staying true.

People prove that we're not that bad all the time. I see no need for Jesus

Great! So you have no reason to question humankind's rule of the earth.

Also, I agree there are lots of good examples (I never said we needed Jesus - so not sure why you're suggesting this). But I also think there are a lot of bad examples. And to be honest, in all my life I've never been more concerned than I am now for the future of the earth and our worthiness to rule.

But it's good that you have faith in us. So does God if we believe the stories.

What is at stake exactly? What do you suppose would have happened if Jesus never sacrificed himself?

We can only imagine.

Let's pretend for a second there is a supremely powerful and just Being out there. Let's say that Being heard a cry from various sources on the earth about our rule, and how terrible it is. How we're destroying the environment. Building walls. Endlessly fighting. Hording wealth. Ignoring the poor...

What's going to stop that Being from coming to wipe us out to free the earth of our oppression? 100 good people? 10 good people? 1 good person?...

Note: before you go off on this, recognize it is just a thought experiment. I don't actually think that would have happened. It's more about provoking self-reflection about what we're doing to others in the world, and whether we are worthy to rule.

So if Jesus didn't sacrifice himself, the world would have ended? Is that your claim?

No, that's not my claim. My claim is that if we are not worthy to rule, and if nobody can prove our worth, then the world is better off without us. That our existence, or at least our rule of the earth, is not justified, and should cease.

(As Paul says, Jesus justified us through his death.)

[shnarkle]

[Replying to shnarkle]

He lifts himself up onto a cross; he crucifies the self. This is what Paul calls us to do as well.

Pretty sure Jesus did not lift himself up onto a cross. Pretty sure he was nailed there by the Romans...

Cute. Read John's gospel. Moreover, look at the fact that Jesus explicitly claims that no one takes his life away; he lays down his life. It's no coincidence that it is John's gospel that has him say this: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:18

The dead are not resurrected until we are able to forsake everything this great big wonderful world has to offer us.

How does one lead to the other? I really don't see why the world needs to be forsaken, nor how that could possibly lead to the resurrection of the dead.

Then you've never heard the gospel because Jesus plainly states you must forsake the world and everything in it. Sell what you have and give the money to the poor. This isn't something the self can do. The self could do it, but there's no point. The self must be denied. If you don't believe the self can be denied, then you can believe in the resurrection all you want, but the self is not going to be resurrected. Do you hate your life yet? If not, then you cannot qualify to be one of his disciples until you do. Even if you do get to a point where you hate your life, you're still not a disciple until you take the next step and renounce your miserable life. Plenty of people hate their lives, but can't take that next critical step and abolish the self. If you love your life, then you will lose it. All must be forsaken for the kingdom.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

Rather, resurrection of the dead will happen when humankind unites in purpose, when we welcome different views at the table, and when we expand our knowledge and power in the process. (Something not unlike the scientific process and technological advancement...)

Sounds like a new tower of Babel perhaps a technocracy; none of which has anything to do with the resurrection of the dead. Jesus doesn't return when we get our act together through technology. Jesus comes when we're about to destroy the world.

Through that and that alone is there any hope for the dead.

Not even close. Why would God diversify everyone when they had already united in one purpose? Why would God confuse and then change his mind?

It is still through the way that Jesus shows us. But through the true power of that way: which is not to do magical things, but to increase our capabilities through openness to each other and the union of our differences.

Jesus doesn't show the way; He is the Way. I'm not the one who is talking about magical things. I'm pointing out that the self only sees it as magic. God sees the reality. Jesus didn't come to unite the goats with the sheep, the tares with the wheat. He didn't come to unite, but "with a sword" to separate. He separates the self right down to the bone marrow. That which is flesh is flesh, that which is Spirit is spiritual.

"your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor." Luke 12:32,33

Once again our language gives it away. The self has possessions. Abolish the self, and possessions are no longer necessary or desired.

There's no maybe about it. Jesus comes to show that we're worth redeeming. However, he doesn't show us that we're not that bad, but that despite how bad we really are, we have the potential to be the light of the world.

I think you just resaid what I said. When you brought in the word "potential" you basically said my "maybe."

No, Jesus shows the potential that that you can never see with the self. When the self is denied, the potential is manifested, not through the self, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. It's a systemic process that can only happen when the self is abolished. " It is not I, but Christ" The only way one can give of oneself is to completely give yourself away; to crucify the self completely.

Again, I disagree. This is especially evident in John's gospel where the crucifixion is the pinnacle of what it means to be a king in God's kingdom, i.e. denial of the self. Whatever it takes to deny the self must be done, and with the truly selfish, it takes scourging and crucifixion to see the lengths that God will go to redeem humanity.

Citations please.

The Crucifixion itself. John's gospel shows Jesus laying down his life, and being "lifted up". Read the passion narrative. The crucifixion is the climax of John's gospel; it's the pinnacle of God's glory manifested in Christ's

Yes, Jesus shows his true colors and worthiness to rule in the crucifixion. But recall what I said: the crucifixion is a mockery and abuse communion. It is what happens to someone when they approach a fallen world in communion.

Christ reigns in his selfless crucifixion. He reigns through the mockery. He doesn't fight back; he doesn't resist any of it. he forgives through the mockery of justice. He triumphs over it all. He is in complete control. The justice system itself proclaims his kingship; "Behold your king". Jesus is in complete control. He see's prophecy coming to pass and actively participates in fulfilling it completely. He then says, "It is finished". Notice that he doesn't say, "I finished it".

So Jesus himself is doing the same thing in both events. The difference is the world he is in and how it responds. In Communion with his disciples, his gift of himself (body and blood) is accepted and reciprocated.

The only thing being reciprocated is their willingness to receive him as he received his father. We are receiving the same selflessness he exhibits and can then sacrifice ourselves as well. Sacrifice isn't giving, it's a complete negation of the self; a renunciation of the self. The self is crucified. The bread is broken and divided among them, it is given, but there's nothing left to give. The bread is covered with a towel, or napkin and broken indicating his death; the complete annihilation of the self. What is passed around is received, and consumed. There's nothing left. Look into the tomb. What do you see?

In the Crucifixion, the Romans take him and nail him to a cross - in mockery of the way.

Mockery isn't really the main theme of the crucifixion, although it is relevant in raising the irony. Crucifixion is meant to be a warning against rebellion or treason. We're meant to see that it is a justice system that is barbaric in that it is executing an innocent man. For Rome it is meant to serve as an example to keep people in line. In God's eyes it is an example of the love of God in His divine nature of self sacrifice in the face of mockery, and this mock system of justice. God's love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness are glorified through the crucifixion. Yes, it is a mockery, and God triumphs in the midst of this horrid mockery.

Mark illustrates it perfectly by taking it to the extreme of even having us peer into an empty tomb. There isn't even a body. It's just black emptiness; a complete negation of the self altogether.

[Justin108]

I said it's a story. As in, don't take it literally. Or at least, it means I don't, and have no desire to defend literal readings.

I always wonder how people who call "metaphor" come to that conclusion. What makes you think Jesus' miracles were just a story? What else was just a story? The Jews escaping Egypt? Noah's Ark? Samson and Delilah? Is God himself just a metaphor?

If you're going to call "metaphor", then you're going to have to justify it. What support do you have that the stories about Jesus were just a metaphor? And if his miracles were just a metaphor, was his coming back from the dead? Was he even the son of God at all? Or was that just a metaphor too?

I don't know why he did it, or if he even knew what was going to happen to him. What I gave you is the only redeeming factor I see in what happened, whether or not it was intentional. That is what you asked for.

Do you believe that Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven?

Pretty sure the bible (Jeremiah I think, or maybe Isaiah) critiques those very animal sacrifices, or the belief that God wanted them.

Yet Leviticus (supposedly from God) instructs us on how to sacrifice animals. Why would God instruct us on how to sacrifice animals if he didn't want us to sacrifice animals? Or is this a contradiction?

I never said we needed Jesus

Did you read my OP? I was pretty precise

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

[theophile]

[Replying to post 55 by Justin108]

Did you read my OP? I was pretty precise

It's called a conversation. Did you read my first reply to the OP where I responded to what you said by saying, and I quote, "I too would wonder where this idea comes from"?

I went on to say what I think the source of the idea is and what it really means. You then asked very precisely, "how does Jesus' death redeem us," which has been the focus of the last few posts.

The fact that you engaged in the conversation suggested you were interested in an alternative view. So let's follow the conversation please. Don't forget all the proceedings and criticize me for departing from your OP dictate. Especially when I was quite clear in the beginning that my view was a departure and you took the bait.

I always wonder how people who call "metaphor" come to that conclusion. What makes you think Jesus' miracles were just a story? What else was just a story? The Jews escaping Egypt? Noah's Ark? Samson and Delilah? Is God himself just a metaphor?

If you're going to call "metaphor", then you're going to have to justify it. What support do you have that the stories about Jesus were just a metaphor? And if his miracles were just a metaphor, was his coming back from the dead? Was he even the son of God at all? Or was that just a metaphor too?

Where is your justification that it is to be taken literally?

I think there are obvious metaphoric elements. Talking snakes. Parables. Miracles...

I minimally put the question of literal truth on hold (in fact I doubt it quite highly for the same reasons you probably do), and build nothing off of it. I have no problem accepting it fully as story. Fine if you and others want to go the other way, but I think it results in a narrow, strawman view of what the bible is saying. And also requires justification on your end that it is to be taken completely literally, which I've never seen.

Would be happy to see such an argument.

Do you believe that Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven?

Follow the conversation please. My very first post said no.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 55 by Justin108]

Did you read my OP? I was pretty precise

It's called a conversation. Did you read my first reply to the OP where I responded to what you said by saying, and I quote, "I too would wonder where this idea comes from"?

I went on to say what I think the source of the idea is and what it really means. You then asked very precisely, "how does Jesus' death redeem us," which has been the focus of the last few posts.

The fact that you engaged in the conversation suggested you were interested in an alternative view. So let's follow the conversation please. Don't forget all the proceedings and criticize me for departing from your OP dictate. Especially when I was quite clear in the beginning that my view was a departure and you took the bait.

I always wonder how people who call "metaphor" come to that conclusion. What makes you think Jesus' miracles were just a story? What else was just a story? The Jews escaping Egypt? Noah's Ark? Samson and Delilah? Is God himself just a metaphor?

If you're going to call "metaphor", then you're going to have to justify it. What support do you have that the stories about Jesus were just a metaphor? And if his miracles were just a metaphor, was his coming back from the dead? Was he even the son of God at all? Or was that just a metaphor too?

Where is your justification that it is to be taken literally?

I think there are obvious metaphoric elements. Talking snakes. Parables. Miracles...

I minimally put the question of literal truth on hold (in fact I doubt it quite highly for the same reasons you probably do), and build nothing off of it. I have no problem accepting it fully as story. Fine if you and others want to go the other way, but I think it results in a narrow, strawman view of what the bible is saying. And also requires justification on your end that it is to be taken completely literally, which I've never seen.

Would be happy to see such an argument.

Do you believe that Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven?

Follow the conversation please. My very first post said no.

You're perfectly within your right to view Jesus' death as unnecessary, but the text itself points out that it had to happen. Jesus himself states that he has to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die. There's really nothing figurative or optional or unnecessary about it.

This isn't to say that we can't see any deeper truths in the text, but to say it is figurative because the bible employs figurative speech at times doesn't really follow. You have to point to a particular figure and point out why you think this figure is being used.

You talk about a talking snake, but there really is no talking snake in Genesis. It is literally a "nachash" which is to say, a "shining one" or "burning one". A nachash is equivalent to a seraph as can be seen when Moses is told to build a seraph and place it on a pole, the text shows that he complies by building a "nachash of brass"; the terms are equivalent. The new testament also points out that the "old serpent" is "the devil and satan".

The only reason a serpent is referred to as a nachash is because of the burn of its bite.

See how I just explained why the serpent isn't a literal serpent but literally the devil himself, a fallen seraph?

Here's another example: The text says that Jesus spoke to people in parables. This is explicitly stating that a figure is being used. Where does the text state anything like this concerning his crucifixion? If a figure is being used, which one? There are literally hundreds to choose from, pick a figure, any figure. If you don't have one in mind then you're just grasping at straws.

Your best bet is to just claim that it is an allegory, but this doesn't negate the fact that it could all be literal. This just simply allows you to read into the text whatever you want, which is basically what you're doing. Stick with the figure Allegory. There are no other figures that work.

[Justin108]

Where is your justification that it is to be taken literally?

It's usually the default position that a claim is meant to be understood literally until suggested otherwise, either by norms (i.e this statement is often used metaphorically, e.g "I'm so hungry I can eat a horse") or by some other cues. Or do you usually assume a claim to be metaphorical by default?

I think there are obvious metaphoric elements. Talking snakes. Parables. Miracles...

Parables are clearly metaphors by their very definition and the metaphorical nature of Genesis is very open to debate, but very very few people consider miracles to be "obviously metaphorical". I have not met a single Christian (other than you) that considers Jesus' miracles as "just metaphors" so calling it "an obvious metaphor" requires some justification.

And you didn't answer my question. If his miracles were just a metaphor, was his coming back from the dead a metaphor as well? Was he even the son of God at all? Or was that just a metaphor too? What if God himself is just a metaphor?

[shnarkle]

Parables are clearly metaphors by their very definition and the metaphorical nature of Genesis is very open to debate, but very very few people consider miracles to be "obviously metaphorical". I have not met a single Christian (other than you) that considers Jesus' miracles as "just metaphors" so calling it "an obvious metaphor" requires some justification.

Parables are not metaphors. They are both figures of speech, but distinctly different figures. Just as triangles and squares are distinctly different figures. The gospel of John is referred to by many as "the signs gospel". The signs are referring to what others call miracles. They are called signs because they point to a greater or deeper truth.

And you didn't answer my question. If his miracles were just a metaphor, was his coming back from the dead a metaphor as well? Was he even the son of God at all? Or was that just a metaphor too? What if God himself is just a metaphor?

To say it is "just a metaphor" spotlights the fact that you don't understand what a metaphor really is. A metaphor is a representation; it is emphatically a representation. When Jesus takes bread in his hands and says: "This is my body", he is using the figure metaphor. He is saying that the bread represents his body that must be broken and consumed so that others may live. He is showing that he sustains life by being consumed; not literally, but something even more true than can be expressed literally. It is not so true to fact as it is to feeling, but it is still used to show a truth that cannot be expressed literally with quite the same impact.

It is not just something that he is doing, but something that he is calling others to do as well; i.e. self sacrifice.

This is the process by which one is "resurrected" into a new life; a life free from the confines of the self or selfishness. A life free from identity with oneself. Jesus no longer lives as some objective person, but he lives in those who have "eaten" him. He now lives in and through others, and sustains them just like bread sustains the body.

[Justin108]

Parables are not metaphors.

My point is parables are clearly non-literal by their very nature

The gospel of John is referred to by many as "the signs gospel". The signs are referring to what others call miracles.

But did they actually happen?

To say it is "just a metaphor" spotlights the fact that you don't understand what a metaphor really is. A metaphor is a representation; it is emphatically a representation. When Jesus takes bread in his hands and says: "This is my body", he is using the figure metaphor. He is saying that the bread represents his body that must be broken and consumed so that others may live. He is showing that he sustains life by being consumed; not literally

I'm not talking about these kinds of instances. I agree that Jesus calling bread his body was never to be understood as literal. I'm talking about things like Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine and coming back from the dead. Did any of these things actually happen?