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]

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 if a human decided for whatever reason to stop eating after having been given "everlasting life", he will die? So his "everlasting life" can in fact end? That is literally an oxymoron.

[theophile]

[Replying to Justin108]

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

I too would wonder where this idea comes from.

Jesus died because of our sins, and for a sinful people in an effort to redeem us, but I'm not sure where it is stated that his crucifixion somehow accomplishes a forgiveness of our sins... Unless it's the whole "forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" speech while Jesus died on the cross...

In fact, the language Paul uses in Romans 4:25 (which I assume is at bottom of this) is that Jesus' death justifies us.

I think we need to explore what that means. I have my ideas, but it is definitely not forgiveness of sins.

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.

I think theists (and atheists) need to look very closely at two events that are purposefully set next to each other in the gospels, just begging us to compare and contrast them (although nobody does...).

These events are the communion and the crucifixion.

Both have a "sacrificial" feel to them, but communion, I would argue, is the true sacrifice of the lamb (recall the original passover meal where the lamb is sacrificed? That's what we see in Jesus' communion with the disciples, not in his crucifixion... Thus anywhere we hear of the lamb being sacrificed in the bible we need to look at the communion to see the logic of it, not the crucifixion.

And communion, I think, fits rather perfectly with the idea of the forgiveness of sins.

The logic is something like this:

In communion we see the true sacrifice that saves and brings life. It is the self-giving of oneself for the sake of others that is the fundamental principle of the bible. Forgiveness of sins is a mode of this self-giving for others. Perfectly consistent with it.

In crucifixion we see the corruption of this way in a sinful world, or how a fallen world greets someone who takes this way, which is with death and destruction. We see the one who gives himself in communion pinned up on a cross, fully exposed to the world in brutal mockery of this self-giving way. We see rejection, abuse, exploitation, and ultimately destruction.

And isn't this, more or less, what would happen to someone in the world if they truly gave themselves to the world as Jesus did?...

The logic is sound.

[Justin108]

Jesus died because of our sins, and for a sinful people in an effort to redeem us

Please explain how Jesus' death redeems us?

[theophile]

[Replying to Justin108]

Please explain how Jesus' death redeems us?

To answer, it is necessary to understand the biblical context, notably Genesis 1 and our calling as human beings to rule the earth.

Thus, the redemption that Jesus accomplishes through the crucifixion, I think, is our worthiness to hold this high status.

Jesus shows through the crucifixion that he, as a human being, is worthy. And because he is worthy, it means we all are worthy. Or are potentially worthy (as human beings).

Jesus redeems humanity as a whole by showing the potential of a human being. (Recall I said it was a mockery. Jesus is given a "crown of thorns" and called the "king of the Jews." The crucifixion is him proving our worthiness to rule but is also a fallen world mocking the form of "kingship" that Jesus represents...)

The logic is something like this: just as one bad apple can cast all the other apples in doubt (that they too are no good), so one good apple can restore the reputation of the others (that, in fact, they may be good).

That is what Jesus does. In steadfastness to the communal way of self-giving (for the salvation and life of others), though the worst possible death even, Jesus proves his worthiness to rule, and in the process restores the reputation of us all.

He redeems us or, as Paul puts it, justifies us. He justifies our existence and calling to rule the earth.

That, I think, is the one and only redeeming factor of the crucifixion. Otherwise it is all evil and horrible waste. No other good in it.


Note: I find it helps to see Jesus in a long line of "redeemers." Key ones being Abraham, Job, and Jesus.

We can see all of these character's ordeals as tests that justify us in the same way.

Abraham's test is if he will self-give his most important possession, his only son, in commitment to the way that saves. He does.

Job's first test is if he will self-give his children and wealth, or persevere in the way that saves once these are given/taken. He does.
Job's second test is if he will self-give his health, or persevere in the way that saves once this is taken. He does.

But his life is explicitly spared.

Thus Jesus' test is if he will self-give his very life in commitment to the way that saves. He does.

With these tests, as with the prologue of Job, we can imagine dissenters such as the satan saying that we are not worthy of the status God gave us. We can imagine them coming up with more and more extreme requirements that we demonstrate to prove our worth. Each test can be seen as further proof or justification of our true commitment to the way that saves and, as such, makes us worthy rulers of the earth.

[shnarkle]

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

No, Jesus died as a direct result of our ridiculous system of justice. He died as a direct result of a system that felt threatened by his message. In both cases, the act of forgiveness makes the justice system redundant. More importantly one who has already denied themselves cannot be killed. Jesus lived a life of self sacrifice. He beat them to it. it was a sacrifice that was no sacrifice.

I'm not the one who thinks God can do anything; you are. I'm not the one who thinks God can be an imbecile; you are. So I'm not the one to answer why would God do anything because my position doesn't allow for that nonsense. That's a question you have to answer for yourself. I'd be interested to know why you think this as well.

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?

No, the forgiveness 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.

God isn't doing any sacrifice. Jesus forgives from the cross he is being crucified from by the Roman empire. Again, the story is clear that his own people are demanding that the Roman empire's justice system be used to murder him. They are manipulating the justice system, and he is making their system of justice redundant by forgiving them.

Why did Jesus have to die if forgiveness was enough to trump guilt?[/b]

This isn't the right question. Your question really is "why did Jesus have to be crucified, right? Why did Jesus have to be sacrificed? The reason Jesus had to die is because he was born. Anyone who is born is going to die. He was born because it is impossible to have a relationship with a transcendent deity. He has a relationship with a transcendent deity and through him it is possible to have the same relationship. If the powers that be had accepted him, there would have been no crucifixion. You can't forgive people for crucifying you if they don't crucify you in the first place. This is not to say that he couldn't forgive them; he simply could have forgiven them when they repented. The fact is that they didn't. If they had accepted him, he still would have died eventually. Here again, this is not really a sacrifice from God's perspective. We should be able to see it as a sacrifice though in that God condescends to become a human being. He still retains divinity through emptying himself. There is no personality in Christ. This allows God's will to manifest through him. We cannot thwart God's will so even if we reject God's manifest will through our inept system of justice his purposes are still manifest through his forgiveness. The dice of God are always loaded. To repent is to follow his example and deny yourself. To argue the contrary is to just pick up those loaded dice and throw em again.

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

Of course you do. That's why you're lumped in with the rest of everyone on this planet.

in this case, especially you

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

Because this is your argument. God forgives, but since Jesus ended up on a cross, that's just too much to forgive for you. You'd rather just blame God for all this.

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"?

You're not fine with Jesus' crucifixion though, are you? Instead of seeing our system of justice as a mess, you prefer to see it as God's system of justice instead. You prefer to argue against God sacrificing His son, rather than the fact that we reject God and his forgiveness, especially when Jesus is forgiving us from the cross. God didn't invent crucifixion, we did.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Justin108]

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

I too would wonder where this idea comes from.

Jesus died because of our sins, and for a sinful people in an effort to redeem us, but I'm not sure where it is stated that his crucifixion somehow accomplishes a forgiveness of our sins... Unless it's the whole "forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" speech while Jesus died on the cross...

In fact, the language Paul uses in Romans 4:25 (which I assume is at bottom of this) is that Jesus' death justifies us.

I think we need to explore what that means. I have my ideas, but it is definitely not forgiveness of sins.

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.

I think theists (and atheists) need to look very closely at two events that are purposefully set next to each other in the gospels, just begging us to compare and contrast them (although nobody does...).

These events are the communion and the crucifixion.

Both have a "sacrificial" feel to them, but communion, I would argue, is the true sacrifice of the lamb (recall the original passover meal where the lamb is sacrificed? That's what we see in Jesus' communion with the disciples, not in his crucifixion... Thus anywhere we hear of the lamb being sacrificed in the bible we need to look at the communion to see the logic of it, not the crucifixion.

And communion, I think, fits rather perfectly with the idea of the forgiveness of sins.

The logic is something like this:

In communion we see the true sacrifice that saves and brings life. It is the self-giving of oneself for the sake of others that is the fundamental principle of the bible. Forgiveness of sins is a mode of this self-giving for others. Perfectly consistent with it.

In crucifixion we see the corruption of this way in a sinful world, or how a fallen world greets someone who takes this way, which is with death and destruction. We see the one who gives himself in communion pinned up on a cross, fully exposed to the world in brutal mockery of this self-giving way. We see rejection, abuse, exploitation, and ultimately destruction.

And isn't this, more or less, what would happen to someone in the world if they truly gave themselves to the world as Jesus did?...

The logic is sound.

I have to agree with the ideas behind what you're saying, but I think it would be better stated that it is in self denial, rather than self giving. When I say self denial, I'm not talking about giving up the things that we may want out of life, but the denial of the self itself. The denial of the self itself negates the need to deny the things the self wants in the first place. There is no self to want the things of this world. When the self is denied, the Spirit is given room to live in and through this temple. When the temple is cleansed, the self is obliterated.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]

I have to agree with the ideas behind what you're saying, but I think it would be better stated that it is in self denial, rather than self giving. When I say self denial, I'm not talking about giving up the things that we may want out of life, but the denial of the self itself. The denial of the self itself negates the need to deny the things the self wants in the first place. There is no self to want the things of this world. When the self is denied, the Spirit is given room to live in and through this temple. When the temple is cleansed, the self is obliterated.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think God created us in order to have us turn around and deny what God made, neither our "selves" nor the many wonderful things in this world that ought to be loved and enjoyed precisely because of what they are.

Rather, I think we need to see in the self-giving I am speaking of the ultimate affirmation and expression of God's creation. Accomplished above all by giving ourselves to the world in service of it. We must be ourselves to the utmost so that the world can be, and also become more and more beautiful in the process.

There is still denial of self-interest for the sake of others in my thinking, but not a denial of self per se. Ideally the needs of the self and others are all met in communion, i.e., through compromise and mutuality. As I give myself to meet your needs, you give yourself to meet mine. (This reciprocity is precisely what was missing in the crucifixion and why it wasn't communion.)

Like in a good marriage, our differences, as defined by our "selves," make us stronger. They are not to be denied to create a space for God but rather we ascend to God (fully ourselves) when give ourselves in the path that seeks a future together, where everyone can fully be what they were made to be.

[Zzyzx]

.
From a Non-Theist perspective; Gospel tales about 'resurrection' suggest that a popular wandering preacher overdid resistance to Jewish and Roman officialdom and was executed. Distraught followers imagined that he 'didn't really die' and/or that he came back to life. Stories to that effect circulated for decades or generations before being recorded by Gospel writers (who apparently had no personal knowledge of what they wrote).

Tales about the preacher formed the basis of a new religion that was more acceptable to Roman officials than was its 'parent' Judaism, and Christianity eventually became the official, state sponsored, religion of the empire.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]

I have to agree with the ideas behind what you're saying, but I think it would be better stated that it is in self denial, rather than self giving. When I say self denial, I'm not talking about giving up the things that we may want out of life, but the denial of the self itself. The denial of the self itself negates the need to deny the things the self wants in the first place. There is no self to want the things of this world. When the self is denied, the Spirit is given room to live in and through this temple. When the temple is cleansed, the self is obliterated.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think God created us in order to have us turn around and deny what God made, neither our "selves" nor the many wonderful things in this world that ought to be loved and enjoyed precisely because of what they are.

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

This doesn't deny the world, or anything in it. It quite simply means to deny the existence of the ego; i.e. the self.

Rather, I think we need to see in the self-giving I am speaking of the ultimate affirmation and expression of God's creation.

We are not to affirm the creation, but the Creator. We're not to express the creation, but the Creator. We manifest God's will through the Christ, not the creation. We cease to have our identity in our created bodies, but in Christ alone. Our bodies are simply the temple in which God's spirit resides. The self is a mediator, and there can be no mediator between God and his creation, except Christ.

Accomplished above all by giving ourselves to the world in service of it.

We are to deny ourselves in the service of God.

We must be ourselves to the utmost so that the world can be, and also become more and more beautiful in the process.

The world already is, and there is nothing we can do to make the world a better place. We have taken what God created and wrecked it. He redeems it, not us. The self is denied when the Spirit indwells in the believer. It is the power of God that works within the believer.

There is still denial of self-interest for the sake of others in my thinking, but not a denial of self per se. Ideally the needs of the self and others are all met in communion, i.e., through compromise and mutuality. As I give myself to meet your needs, you give yourself to meet mine. (This reciprocity is precisely what was missing in the crucifixion and why it wasn't communion.)

I have to disagree. You are attributing the self, when the attributes are of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing to think about after the Spirit comes to dwell. The path is there right in front of the believer. He need only walk on it. Christ denied himself, and calls us to do the exact same thing. This isn't to say that we no longer enjoy life, we enjoy it to the fullest means possible because only through Christ can life be fully enjoyed. As long as we want to take credit for giving of ourselves, we're just spotlighting ourselves.

God creates us in His image, but we prefer to create God in our own image; the self.

Christ's identity is not with the self he explicitly denies. Christ is our example. He does not deny himself so we can retain ourselves. He doesn't deny himself so he can make room for himself.

[theophile]

[Replying to shnarkle]

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

This doesn't deny the world, or anything in it. It quite simply means to deny the existence of the ego; i.e. the self.

I'm happy with Jesus' quote, but it's ambiguous. You'll have to be clearer what you mean by "ego." You mean self importance? Is that what we are to deny? Versus our interests, as I've said?

How do you reconcile the denial of self-importance with the call in Genesis 1 that we take over God's work and rule the earth? That sounds pretty important to me.

I'm not saying we are to do it in a self-aggrandizing way. But let's recognize the high status that God has given us and the important role we play in God's designs. "What is a human being that you make so much of them?" the psalmist asks...

Our importance in this drama cannot be denied.

We are not to affirm the creation, but the Creator. We're not to express the creation, but the Creator. We manifest God's will through the Christ, not the creation. We cease to have our identity in our created bodies, but in Christ alone. Our bodies are simply the temple in which God's spirit resides. The self is a mediator, and there can be no mediator between God and his creation, except Christ.

See, I can't separate. God's will is creation, and all the things in it. God's will, from Genesis 1, is shaping the formless world, filling it with life, and calling us to continue in that task (to rule the world in precisely this way, i.e., in the image of God).

That is what it means to be in self-giving service of the world. To love. To be in the image of God... That is what Christ did and why he too called us to follow him.

So yes, Christ is the way. But Christ is above all an affirmation of self (through self giving) and creation (by giving himself for the sake of the world). Furthermore, this is an affirmation of God's will (from Genesis 1) and therefore of God. To be Christ is to be anointed, which means to take our place by God as kings and queens of creation. It is to rule through self-giving love as God/Christ shows us, and as we are called from the beginning.

I really don't understand the purpose of creation in your thinking. Did God make us just so we could remove ourselves from the picture? Why make us at all when all God wanted was a vessel that could be filled with God? ...

Here's the crux of it I think:

Where you want us to be hollowed out to create space for the spirit, I think we need to lift ourselves up or be uplifted wholly intact into the spirit. Becoming part of it and filled by it that way. All that is profane in this world must be made sacred. Not by denying it, but by uplifting it.

For your view, what is it about ourselves, precisely, that blocks the spirit, or prevents it from filling us?...

The world already is, and there is nothing we can do to make the world a better place. We have taken what God created and wrecked it. He redeems it, not us. The self is denied when the Spirit indwells in the believer. It is the power of God that works within the believer.

Then I don't understand our calling in Genesis 1-2. To rule the earth, subdue it, and fill it with life. To be a gardener, creating the conditions for life... To live not just by faith, but works too, since faith is dead without works...

I think if we do nothing and wait for God the world is never going to change. God is never going to come. It'll be false Messiah after false Messiah. If we simply remove ourselves from the picture, nothing will fill the void. Or the self will simply return out of necessity...

Rather, we need to uplift our whole selves up to the spirit of love and do works of love in this world. That is the way. It is extremely active on our part. It is all on us.

As long as we want to take credit for giving of ourselves, we're just spotlighting ourselves.

Who wants to take credit? That would not be a true gift if that was our intention in giving.

Christ's identity is not with the self he explicitly denies. Christ is our example. He does not deny himself so we can retain ourselves. He doesn't deny himself so he can make room for himself.

I'm not following. I think Christ denied himself so that others could live. He gave himself to the world for the sake of the world. To save it. To make it better. He is the sacrificial lamb that gives itself for the life of others. He shows us the self-giving way that I am speaking of. He has uplifted himself to the spirit of love and calls us to follow him.