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]

It's not a matter of ability but a matter of legitimacy.

How is sacrificing Jesus "legitimate"?

If He can pardon anyone at will, His realm is no longer a lawful realm but a lawless realm.

He already broke his own law by allowing Jesus to die in our stead.

"The soul that sins shall die." - Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus was not the soul that sinned, so why did he die for us? By allowing Jesus to take our place, God is breaking his own law

You can imagine that if the president of US can free anyone from jail as he wishes and by his own will.

I'd be much more disturbed if the president allowed innocent people to go to prison on behalf of guilty people (as Jesus died on behalf of us)

I tried to explain to you in the other thread. It's not difficult to understand. Without Jesus' blood, humans cannot be saved legitimately.

You keep repeating that but you're not explaining what's so legitimate about Jesus' blood? Why does God want Jesus' blood so much?

[OnceConvinced]

If God can do anything, and God did do something, or more accurately caused something to be done according to his will, then what's the problem? The problem is that you don't like what God actually did, or caused to happen. So your argument isn't really that god can do anything, but that god should have done something else, correct?

I know for me it would be why did God choose such a primitive and barbaric means to deal with the problem of forgiveness? What he did I would expect from more barbaric and primitive gods.

A God that can do anything can do something idiotic,

It seems kind of idiotic to me to deal with the problem of sin by having an innocent being slaughtered.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

Do you understand the difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do?

Who determines what is the right thing to do? God?

Of course God!

Indeed. So God determined that sin would cause death. God determined that the only way for sin to be forgiven was that something/someone innocent had to die. He determined that the RIGHT thing to do was to have something innocent die instead.

So saying that God had to do the right thing, is all based on what God determines to be right. He somehow determined that the brutal slaughter of an innocent being was the right thing to do.

He determined that the ONLY way for you to be forgiven is to have someone die horribly in your place. An INNOCENT person! He deemed that the right thing to do. He determined it. He made the rules.

Whatever he decides is right is the right thing to do. So it's not about the right thing, it's just about what God wanted to do. What he decided was going to be the thing to do, right or wrong.

Who else would be in a position to know any action that has or will ever happen and know the short and long term effects of that action?

It isn't about what he knows. It's about what he SET UP! The system he ordained. He designed a system where sin would cause suffering and death. He designed a system where the only way for you to be forgiven is to have an innocent being slaughter brutally on your behalf.

Who determined that sin would be inherited? God? Why did he determine it to be this way? Why would it be considered right or just that we inherit the sin of our parents?

I have already dealt with these issues, I'll re-post the link in case you missed it

inheritance & sin
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 335#381335

Blame & inheritability
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 418#381418

I'm not seeing how any of those answer my questions. Most of them are an attempt to answer questions I haven't asked and even then they tend to dance around those questions.

The whys all have to come down to how God set things up. He set them up to operate a certain way. If sin destroys, then it was God's plan that it destroys. If death is the only way to cleanse sin, then it was because he planned it that way.

How does the death of an innocent cleanse sin?

I notice you have avoided my questions in the previous post. I'll ask them again:

Why was there no other legitimate non-bloodthirsty way of annulling the sin?
Surely God could have someone live forever simply by speaking his will, as he did when he created the universe?

And the big question in my mind:
Lets say for a minute that a sinner accepts Jesus's death on the cross. They repent. What happens at that point to take the sinner from being mortal to suddenly being able to live forever?

[JehovahsWitness]

Lets say for a minute that a sinner accepts Jesus's death on the cross. They repent. What happens at that point to take the sinner from being mortal to suddenly being able to live forever?

Many people confuse the idea of immortality (being immortal) with living forever, believing falsely that they are synonyms. In scripture they are not, somone that is immortal essentially "cannot" die, they are essentially indestructable. Someone that is "immortal" has life that is not dependent on anything or anyone else. Obviously by that criteria, a human, that needs to eat, drink, breath, to continue to live, can never be immortal.

Humans will never be granted "immortality" but according to the bible, obedient humans will be given "everlasting life", ie never lose the right to live.

At that point to take the sinner from being mortal to suddenly being able to live forever?

The bible indicates that the benefits of the ransom will be administered during the 1000 year reign of Christ. Thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus, God will allow Jesus and his 144,000 co-rulers to guide humanity back to there original state of perfection. We cannot say exactly by what process this change will take place, any more than we can exactly explain by what process sin resulted in sickenss and death. What we do know is that the bible says that Jehovah God is the source of all life, and that, when sin cut us from Him, humans began to die. When that is reversed, every lasting life will once more be possible.


JW

[OnceConvinced]

I think a better analogy would be...

There's nothing wrong with my analogy

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

It fits perfectly

No, it doesn't.

Man = rapist
Jesus=victim who forgives rapist setting rapist free. The narratives themselves supply the best analogy with the release of Barabbas. ]

That can't possibly be an accurate analogy. Remember how the whole sacrifice thing came into play originally.

Originally in the OT it was this:

Man = rapist
God = Victim
Sinless animal (say a sheep) = goes to jail on behalf of the rapist (ie, slaughtered)

So if we now move to the new testament, we have the same thing, except that the sheep is voluntarily offering itself up to be slaughtered.

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

Justin's analogy is indeed more accurate.

You may want to try to say that Jesus is actually God so he's sacrificing himself to himself, but we can see how absurd that idea is.

No, the idea of the sacrifice was to give up something so that you could earn your forgiveness. The idea was that something innocent had to pay the price for your sins. It PAID your price. It took the death you should have suffered. God masquerading as a sheep is not going to cut it. It would be going against the system that God set up to begin with. Sacrifices to HIM! So that HE would forgive you.

Tell me, what happens after say the sacrifice has been accepted. Let's say the rapist repents and is forgiven. He accepts Jesus's sacrifice on his behalf. What happens at this point? What causes this rapist to now be cleansed and have eternal life?

[OnceConvinced]

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

That's where your mistake is. It's not a matter of ability but a matter of legitimacy. If He can pardon anyone at will, His realm is no longer a lawful realm but a lawless realm.

But he didn't have to demand the death of an innocent man did he? He could have found some other penalty. Perhaps the sinner has to spend the next year working for free, helping the needy or working for God in some other manner. Or maybe his WHOLE life!

Just look at Jesus. He supposedly gave up his seat in Heaven. He gave up his cushy number... his living in luxury with godly powers and he came down to live as a lowly human on earth. He spent over 30 years having to suffer a life of hardships. He had to be like us. Flesh and blood.

Then he spent his adult years, working... teaching... healing the sick, helping those in need, working working working to make the world a better place.

Wasn't it sacrifice enough that Jesus came to earth for us? Isn't it sacrifice enough without adding his bloody brutal death into it? Why did God feel the need to add in that brutal death when surely the fact that Jesus was here on earth as one of us was sacrifice enough?

Without Jesus' blood, humans cannot be saved legitimately.

How does Jesus blood actually do the saving?

You can imagine that if the president of US can free anyone from jail as he wishes and by his own will. Then is it US still a country of rule of law?

Nobody expects a president to let people off scot free. However we would expect him to use less barbaric means than capital punishment. And he does! That makes the president far less barbaric and cruel than the god of the bible!

Nor would we expect a president to have an innocent man pay for the crimes of others. We would find that abhorrent and immoral.

[OnceConvinced]

Lets say for a minute that a sinner accepts Jesus's death on the cross. They repent. What happens at that point to take the sinner from being mortal to suddenly being able to live forever?

Many people confuse the idea of immortality (being immortal) with living forever, believing falsely that they are synonyms. In scripture they are not, somone that is immortal essentially "cannot" die, they are essentially indestructable. Someone that is "immortal" has life that is not dependent on anything or anyone else. Obviously by that criteria, a human, that needs to eat, drink, breath, to continue to live, can never be immortal.

Humans will never be granted "immortality" but according to the bible, obedient humans will be given "everlasting life", ie never lose the right to live.

So it's given to them by God right? This eternal life.

At that point to take the sinner from being mortal to suddenly being able to live forever?

The bible indicates that the benefits of the ransom will be administered during the 1000 year reign of Christ. Thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus, God will allow Jesus and his 144,000 co-rulers to guide humanity back to there original state of perfection.

Oh ok, so God ALLOWS this! So it's not a matter of him having to allow it right? God is not forced to do it.

So God will allow the state of the human to return to the original state of perfection. Nothing is forcing God to do that right?

We cannot say exactly by what process this change will take place, any more than we can exactly explain by what process sin resulted in sickenss and death.

But supposedly this process will involve God doing something. Performing some kind of supernatural action, right?

What we do know is that the bible says that Jehovah God is the source of all life, and that, when sin cut us from Him, humans began to die. When that is reversed, every lasting life will once more be possible.

So it's god who sets the reversal process in action right? He takes us from dying to living eternally.

[shnarkle]

If God can do anything, and God did do something, or more accurately caused something to be done according to his will, then what's the problem? The problem is that you don't like what God actually did, or caused to happen. So your argument isn't really that god can do anything, but that god should have done something else, correct?

I know for me it would be why did God choose such a primitive and barbaric means to deal with the problem of forgiveness?

Yes, I can see how you might see this as a problem. Forgiveness isn't the problem. Forgiveness is the solution. The justice system in which he found himself was the problem; it's still the problem.

What he did I would expect from more barbaric and primitive gods.

If you look at the text, it's actually humanity that is barbaric and primitive.

A God that can do anything can do something idiotic,

It seems kind of idiotic to me to deal with the problem of sin by having an innocent being slaughtered.

Perhaps. It isn't my argument. Perhaps you might want to respond to those who are presenting that argument. My argument comes at it from the other end of the spectrum. The victim forgives his accusers which effectively makes the justice system redundant.

[shnarkle]

I think a better analogy would be...

There's nothing wrong with my analogy

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

It fits perfectly

No, it doesn't.

Man = rapist
Jesus=victim who forgives rapist setting rapist free. The narratives themselves supply the best analogy with the release of Barabbas. ]

That can't possibly be an accurate analogy.

It most certainly is an accurate analogy.

Remember how the whole sacrifice thing came into play originally.

Originally in the OT it was this:

Man = rapist
God = Victim
Sinless animal (say a sheep) = goes to jail on behalf of the rapist (ie, slaughtered)

So if we now move to the new testament, we have the same thing, except that the sheep is voluntarily offering itself up to be slaughtered.

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

Justin's analogy is indeed more accurate.

No, God is not the victim.

You may want to try to say that Jesus is actually God so he's sacrificing himself to himself, but we can see how absurd that idea is.

More strawman arguments. How about addressing the arguments that I actually present?

No, the idea of the sacrifice was to give up something so that you could earn your forgiveness.

I don't know what you're talking about. Please elaborate where you're getting this from the text, or more importantly; from anything that I've posted.

The idea was that something innocent had to pay the price for your sins. It PAID your price. It took the death you should have suffered.

I've got news for you; we're all gonna die.

God masquerading as a sheep is not going to cut it. It would be going against the system that God set up to begin with. Sacrifices to HIM! So that HE would forgive you.

I'm not following. What are you talking about? Are you getting this from the texts or somewhere else? Are you getting any of this from what I posted? If so, please point this out to me because I seriously doubt I'm arguing for any of this.

Tell me, what happens after say the sacrifice has been accepted. Let's say the rapist repents and is forgiven. He accepts Jesus's sacrifice on his behalf. What happens at this point?

Most likely nothing.

What causes this rapist to now be cleansed and have eternal life?

According to the texts, God is the cause. God is the only one who can cleanse anyone, and the only one who will grant eternal life to someone.

[Justin108]

But why would he?

Because this is what you're suggesting by a god that CAN DO ANYTHING.

Right. That's why I didn't ask "why could he?", I asked "why would he?" I can cut off my leg with a saw if I wanted to. I can do that. But why would I?

There's nothing wrong with my analogy

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

It fits perfectly

No, it doesn't.

Man = rapist
Jesus=victim who forgives rapist setting rapist free. The narratives themselves supply the best analogy with the release of Barabbas.

Then where does the crucifixion come in? In your analogy with Jesus as the victim, all he does is forgive the rapist. Just like that. No strings attached. So why couldn't Jesus do the same in the real world? Why did he have to sacrifice himself?

The issue is Jesus dying for it. Your analogy is just a bunch of people forgiving someone, but where's the sacrifice?

the son in the wrecked automobile.

The son in the wrecked automobile died as a direct result of the drunk driver, whereas Jesus died as a result of a self-sacrifice.

So
- the son died because of the drunk driver
- Jesus died because of himself

Your analogy fails

Where's the "Jesus being crucified" in this analogy? In my analogy, the man who goes to prison on behalf of the rapist is Jesus being crucified. So prison = crucifixion. In your analogy, who goes to prison? Who ends up crucified?

Both the son and the father make a sacrifice. The son asks his father to forgive the man who is responsible for his death, and the father does exactly that and his forgiveness is complete.

So the sacrifice is the forgiveness? Your analogy doesn't make any sense. In reality, God forgave AND sacrificed Jesus, whereas in your analogy all that happened is the father and the son forgave the man.

So analogy
- forgiveness

Reality
- forgiveness + Jesus being sacrificed

How was the guilt removed?

Forgiveness. Forgiveness trumps guilt. Forgiveness trumps the justice system.

Then where does the sacrifice come in??? Why did Jesus have to die if forgiveness was enough to trump guilt?

We don't want to see that the guilt has been removed. We want to remove the guilt ourselves, or deny that the guilt exists in the first place.

Who's "we"?

We is everyone on this planet

As a member of "everyone on the planet", I disagree

in this case, especially you

Oh please, do tell. How is it you think you know this about me?

You don't want to see Jesus forgiving the people who are crucifying him.

When did I say this? How many times have I explicitly said "I'm fine with God forgiving us"?