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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 60 by Justin108]

I agree that Jesus calling bread his body was never to be understood as literal.

The Catholic Church might disagree with you there friend, what with transubstantion and all that...

[shnarkle]

Parables are not metaphors.

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

Not necessarily. Jesus taught a parable of the man who planted a crop, but "the evil one" crept in at night and planted weeds. When the crop was harvested, the wheat was taken into the barn while the weeds were burned. Today we have another quite similar parable for our times where Farmers plant their crops and genetically modified seed from Monsanto finds its way into their fields and because the patent for this seed is owned by Monsanto, the farmer is not legally allowed to clean his seed anymore. He must therefore take all of it and have it destroyed. This is a parable that makes satan look like an amateur. The fact is that it is a parable, but it also literally happened. Jesus is telling a parable about something that actually happened, he is not talking about literal seed and tares though.

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?

They could have actually happened, but the important thing to see is that they point to a far more deeper truth. Look for the truth that the sign is pointing to rather than being obsessed over what the sign looks like itself. When you see a sign that indicates pedestrians are crossing the street ahead of you, the question isn't to pick apart the different aspects of the sign itself, but to be on the look out for what the sign is pointing out, i.e. the pedestrians that may be crossing the street ahead of you. Look at what the sign is indicating rather than obsessing over the sign itself.

For example, there is the story of Jesus turning water into wine. Perhaps he was able to actually turn water into wine, perhaps there was enough wine at the bottom of the barrels in the lees to make the added water taste good enough to fool the guests who were already too drunk to notice the difference; but this isn't the big question to be asking. The question to be asking is what is significant about this sign; what is it really pointing to? What is the reality that the sign is pointing to?

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?

And I'm pointing out that you're like the guy who walks into heaven and completely ignores the splendor of the heavenly host because he's obsessed with the golden pavement. He's obsessed with something that is as plentiful as dirt is on earth so he never see's the real beauty surrounding him.

The answer is that it could have happened, but what's really important is to see what the sign is pointing to which is the real message; the truth; the reality. Do you want to know what is a historical fact, or would you rather see ultimate reality?

You can know something is a historical fact, but it will probably never indicate ultimate reality simply as a historical fact. One needs to look deeper to see any significance. When reality is seen, the historicity will may be known as well, but it ceases to be as significant as reality.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 60 by Justin108]

I agree that Jesus calling bread his body was never to be understood as literal.

The Catholic Church might disagree with you there friend, what with transubstantion and all that...

The Catholic church might not disagree in that they're not saying that what Jesus said is necessarily literal either. What they're pointing out is that what Jesus said is pointing to something that is real; a real presence of God in them through this sacrament.

This isn't really inline with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but it does make the distinction between what is literal and what is real, at least to a Catholic. From a literal perspective there can be no transubstantiation; it can only be from something they believe is really happening in their Eucharistic ritual.

Here again, I would say this ritual is pointing to something far more real than the ritual itself. Catholics would necessarily disagree.

[theophile]

[Replying to shnarkle]

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've always seen the bible as literature. As with any literature, I think there is a wealth of deeper / richer meaning possible once we leave literal behind. In fact, that's where the real value lies.

I wouldn't read Homer, for instance, and at any time think "literal." Once I encounter clear evidence of story telling, that's it. Bye-bye literal. And it doesn't take long to encounter that in the bible.

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.

I honestly don't think there was an historical Jesus who actually turned water into wine, raised the dead, fed thousands with next to nothing, etc.

To me the meaning of the miracles lies beyond a literal interpretation such as this. What they indicate, as I suggested earlier, is the expansion of possibilities that comes through widespread commitment to self-giving communion.

The more and more people / things in the world join in communion, the more things will become possible. The impossible will become possible. That to me is the true significance of the miracles, and it is non-literal.

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?

Again, it's a story to me, so once you start asking historical questions I'm going to say "no, probably not" or "don't care."

So no, there probably was not an historical Jesus who actually rose from the dead.

Rather, we need to understand the significance of the story. It's the same as the miraculous. It conveys the impossible becoming possible. Through the power of communion, even death itself will be conquered.

That idea, I think, needs to be taken extremely literally. But that is an idea conveyed by the text, not a literal reading of the text.

So yeah, as a true Christian I (should) have no fear of death. Or better, I should have real hope in the resurrection. But it's not because of actual historic events. It's because I buy the philosophy conveyed by the story.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to shnarkle]

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've always seen the bible as literature. As with any literature, I think there is a wealth of deeper / richer meaning possible once we leave literal behind. In fact, that's where the real value lies.

I wouldn't read Homer, for instance, and at any time think "literal." Once I encounter clear evidence of story telling, that's it. Bye-bye literal. And it doesn't take long to encounter that in the bible.

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.

I honestly don't think there was an historical Jesus who actually turned water into wine, raised the dead, fed thousands with next to nothing, etc.

To me the meaning of the miracles lies beyond a literal interpretation such as this. What they indicate, as I suggested earlier, is the expansion of possibilities that comes through widespread commitment to self-giving communion.

The more and more people / things in the world join in communion, the more things will become possible. The impossible will become possible. That to me is the true significance of the miracles, and it is non-literal.

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?

Again, it's a story to me, so once you start asking historical questions I'm going to say "no, probably not" or "don't care."

So no, there probably was not an historical Jesus who actually rose from the dead.

Rather, we need to understand the significance of the story. It's the same as the miraculous. It conveys the impossible becoming possible. Through the power of communion, even death itself will be conquered.

That idea, I think, needs to be taken extremely literally. But that is an idea conveyed by the text, not a literal reading of the text.

So yeah, as a true Christian I (should) have no fear of death. Or better, I should have real hope in the resurrection. But it's not because of actual historic events. It's because I buy the philosophy conveyed by the story.

This post indicates that you are replying to me, but none of these quotes are mine.

[Justin108]

Jesus taught a parable of the man who planted a crop, but "the evil one" crept in at night and planted weeds. When the crop was harvested, the wheat was taken into the barn while the weeds were burned.

Ok this is a parable..

Today we have another quite similar parable for our times where Farmers plant their crops and genetically modified seed from Monsanto finds its way into their fields and because the patent for this seed is owned by Monsanto, the farmer is not legally allowed to clean his seed anymore. He must therefore take all of it and have it destroyed.

This isn't. If this literally happened, it's not a parable.

The fact is that it is a parable, but it also literally happened

Look I'm not going to argue about what is and isn't a parable. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand

Jesus is telling a parable about something that actually happened

When did Jesus tell a parable about something that actually happened?

They could have actually happened, but the important thing to see is that they point to a far more deeper truth.

The important thing is did it actually happen or not. If it didn't happen, what reason is there to believe Jesus was anything more than just a man?

For example, there is the story of Jesus turning water into wine. Perhaps he was able to actually turn water into wine, perhaps there was enough wine at the bottom of the barrels in the lees to make the added water taste good enough to fool the guests who were already too drunk to notice the difference; but this isn't the big question to be asking.

Yes it is. If Jesus did the latter, then he's nothing but a fraud

And I'm pointing out that you're like the guy who walks into heaven and completely ignores the splendor of the heavenly host because he's obsessed with the golden pavement. He's obsessed with something that is as plentiful as dirt is on earth so he never see's the real beauty surrounding him.

The literal occurrence of miracles is not "as plentiful as dirt". I'm "obsessing" over it because I would like to determine if Jesus was actually the son of God, or if the authors were just a bunch of poets telling stories

Do you want to know what is a historical fact, or would you rather see ultimate reality?

If none of this is historically factual, why would I think it is the ultimate reality? It would have to be historically accurate before I even begin to consider the possibility that it is "the ultimate reality".

Let me ask you this... suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God? If Jesus never did anything supernatural at all, would you still think he's the literal son of God?

[Justin108]

[Replying to shnarkle]

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've always seen the bible as literature. As with any literature, I think there is a wealth of deeper / richer meaning possible once we leave literal behind. In fact, that's where the real value lies.

I wouldn't read Homer, for instance, and at any time think "literal." Once I encounter clear evidence of story telling, that's it. Bye-bye literal. And it doesn't take long to encounter that in the bible.

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.

I honestly don't think there was an historical Jesus who actually turned water into wine, raised the dead, fed thousands with next to nothing, etc.

To me the meaning of the miracles lies beyond a literal interpretation such as this. What they indicate, as I suggested earlier, is the expansion of possibilities that comes through widespread commitment to self-giving communion.

The more and more people / things in the world join in communion, the more things will become possible. The impossible will become possible. That to me is the true significance of the miracles, and it is non-literal.

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?

Again, it's a story to me, so once you start asking historical questions I'm going to say "no, probably not" or "don't care."

So no, there probably was not an historical Jesus who actually rose from the dead.

Rather, we need to understand the significance of the story. It's the same as the miraculous. It conveys the impossible becoming possible. Through the power of communion, even death itself will be conquered.

That idea, I think, needs to be taken extremely literally. But that is an idea conveyed by the text, not a literal reading of the text.

So yeah, as a true Christian I (should) have no fear of death. Or better, I should have real hope in the resurrection. But it's not because of actual historic events. It's because I buy the philosophy conveyed by the story.

This post indicates that you are replying to me, but none of these quotes are mine.

These are my quotes. I'll take it from here

[Justin108]

I've always seen the bible as literature. As with any literature, I think there is a wealth of deeper / richer meaning possible once we leave literal behind. In fact, that's where the real value lies.

Factual literature or fictional literature?

I wouldn't read Homer, for instance, and at any time think "literal."

Right, and I'm guessing you don't believe the gods homer believed in to actually exist. But this isn't true for the God of the Bible? Or is it? Do you believe in the Christian God? Do you believe Jesus was literally his son?

Once I encounter clear evidence of story telling, that's it. Bye-bye literal.

And what is the "clear evidence of story telling" in the Gospels? Do you think the author of Luke, for example, intended his Gospel to be understood as "just a story"? Or do you think the author of Luke intended the Gospel to be understood as factual claims?

For example, J.K Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series with the intention of having the readers knowingly reading fiction. No one thinks Rowling actually believed any of this happened.

Contrast this to a news article and the author is writing about something that (the author believed) actually happened. The author intends the readers to believe the writing to be literal events.

So is Luke like more like J.K Rowling? Or is Luke more like the author of the news article?

I honestly don't think there was an historical Jesus who actually turned water into wine, raised the dead, fed thousands with next to nothing, etc.

Do you believe Jesus was the son of God? Or do you just think that Jesus was a normal human being?

So yeah, as a true Christian I (should) have no fear of death. Or better, I should have real hope in the resurrection.

By "the resurrection" do you mean an actual resurrection? Or is this just another metaphor of sorts? Do you believe in life after death?

[shnarkle]

Jesus taught a parable of the man who planted a crop, but "the evil one" crept in at night and planted weeds. When the crop was harvested, the wheat was taken into the barn while the weeds were burned.

Ok this is a parable..

Yep, a parable about reality; not to be confused with reality itself.

Today we have another quite similar parable for our times where Farmers plant their crops and genetically modified seed from Monsanto finds its way into their fields and because the patent for this seed is owned by Monsanto, the farmer is not legally allowed to clean his seed anymore. He must therefore take all of it and have it destroyed.

This isn't.

A parable is not reality itself, but notice that I did say that this was "another quite similar parable".

If this literally happened, it's not a parable.

What literally happened is not a parable, but what literally happened can be used as a parable to point to reality. The harvest is great, but the workers are out of work as the harvest is being burned along with the patented seed.

The fact is that it is a parable, but it also literally happened

Look I'm not going to argue about what is and isn't a parable.

No doubt, you'd rather confuse parables with metaphors, and then ignore them altogether because you see no point to them in the first place. The fact is that Jesus taught using figurative speech because reality cannot be perceived by the intellect. This is not to say that it cannot be understood by the intellect, but to insist on ignoring them is to insist that these narratives cannot be understood. For you this is the only conclusion you can come to.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand

For you, there is no point to the topic at hand except to ignore what is most relevant.

Jesus is telling a parable about something that actually happened

When did Jesus tell a parable about something that actually happened?

What actually happened is something that only God can see or tell about as He "sees the end from the beginning". From our perspective Jesus tells parables about what happens in reality. A good example would be found in Matthew chapter 13 where not only does Jesus tell a few parables, but explains the reality as well. Check it out and then ignore the fact that he's telling parables and explaining what it actually means.

They could have actually happened, but the important thing to see is that they point to a far more deeper truth.

The important thing is did it actually happen or not.

No, the important thing is to try and get in touch with reality. When you lose touch with reality you're lost, confused, disoriented, and will never understand much of anything until you can get back in touch with reality. People who have lost touch with reality don't even know how to ask the right questions anymore.

If it didn't happen, what reason is there to believe Jesus was anything more than just a man?

If the story is just a story, then Jesus may not have even existed in the first place. The old joke is that it may have been a guy just like him with the same name, but ultimately it doesn't matter what his name really was, or if it all went down exactly like the author portrayed it because the author is pointing to ultimate reality which when perceived silences the intellect. The intellect need not ask where the path is when it's right there in front of you. The path isn't seen with the intellect; it's seen through reality itself. Building some instrument or faculty to view reality will never allow you to see reality.

For example, there is the story of Jesus turning water into wine. Perhaps he was able to actually turn water into wine, perhaps there was enough wine at the bottom of the barrels in the lees to make the added water taste good enough to fool the guests who were already too drunk to notice the difference; but this isn't the big question to be asking.

Yes it is.

Obviously, for you this must be the case.

If Jesus did the latter, then he's nothing but a fraud

Not really, if you're the type of person who has to have alcohol to have fun, then Jesus just saved your party. Jesus just allowed your party to go on for twice as long as it should have in the first place. He makes it possible to party forever because he is the source of the fun. More importantly, Jesus points out that he has a better wine than what you get from rotting grapes, but when this new wine is poured into old wineskins the old wineskins can't handle it; they can't contain it and are destroyed. The new wine isn't for old wineskins, except to destroy them. Jesus' teaching isn't for those who can't focus on reality. It isn't for those who are unable to receive it in the first place. It isn't for those who need booze to have fun; it isn't for those who have imposed rules on how they have to perceive reality; reality doesn't follow your self imposed rules.

Even to those who are having a good time getting loaded at this party, Jesus just saved the party, but then "every party has a pooper that's why we invited you, party pooper". Some people just don't know how to have a good time without placing all sorts of pointless stipulations and conditions on it.

And I'm pointing out that you're like the guy who walks into heaven and completely ignores the splendor of the heavenly host because he's obsessed with the golden pavement. He's obsessed with something that is as plentiful as dirt is on earth so he never see's the real beauty surrounding him.

The literal occurrence of miracles is not "as plentiful as dirt".

Sure they are; the bible is full of them, and you're obsessing over whether or not they actually happened. For Jesus and the authors these events are "nothing but a thang, nuthin but a chicken wang" Everything is possible with God. You just gotta know where the rocks are if you want to walk on water. The problem is that instead of looking for the rock, or the water, you're obsessing over whether or not this text is historically accurate.

The reality is that even if it were proven to be historically accurate, this would make little or no difference to you. You've already made up your mind that history determines reality. Reality is not dependent on who writes history, or who is interpreting history. Reality is not subject to history or interpretation in the first place.

I'm "obsessing" over it because I would like to determine if Jesus was actually the son of God, or if the authors were just a bunch of poets telling stories

Or if there is any historical evidence for what these stories are portraying, or how one determines the historical accuracy of these stories, or what the significance of the historicity of these stories could be, or the logic of the stories within the context of history, etc. You're more concerned with extraneous nonsense than what the son of God is teaching. The teaching reveals the reality. Focus on the teaching instead of all of the peripheral information surrounding it. Look at what the stories are emphasizing rather than on whether the wine was a Chablis or a Bordeaux.

Do you want to know what is a historical fact, or would you rather see ultimate reality?

If none of this is historically factual, why would I think it is the ultimate reality?

Because all you can do is think about it, and reality is not perceived through the intellect. So the only thing you can do is think about it being ultimate reality or not being ultimate reality, or being historically factual or not being historically factual. Jesus doesn't say to figure out where the path is, or to figure out what he means by the path, he's not pointing to the path; he is the path. You can't figure it out; you have to see the path in front of you and when you do there is nothing else to do but walk on it.

It would have to be historically accurate before I even begin to consider the possibility that it is "the ultimate reality".

What you're saying is that it would have to be something else entirely before I could consider what can't be considered. It would have to be something that it isn't before I could consider it. The fact is that it doesn't have to be historically accurate; it only has to be true, and your history is not what determines what is true.

Let me ask you this... suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

The bible is the work of " a bunch of poets telling stories". You say it like it's a bad thing; it isn't. Poets are inspired. You just see it as bad poetry; it isn't. You don't have the ability to recognize good poetry, or the value of poetry. You've already determined it to be worthless. For you, it is truly worthless.

If Jesus never did anything supernatural at all, would you still think he's the literal son of God?

It depends on what you mean by literal. It depends on what you mean by supernatural. The narratives present him as the literal son of God; they do not present him as some figurative son of God. The Genesis account presents Adam as a son of God as well. Both Adam and Jesus are presented as the image of God; Adam failed to live up to that image while Jesus succeeded. Super is not opposed to what is natural when it is supernatural. In other words, Jesus doesn't turn air into dirt, or cutlery into trees. He works within the natural order. Water is used to make wine naturally by being absorbed into the grape itself. There is a natural process for producing wine, and the author shows that Jesus isn't violating that process, or changing it; he's just supercharging it. Jesus doesn't come along and pour sugar into your motor, he comes along and throws a turbocharger and some nitrous into the mix.

Instead of questioning whether or not the track exists, or is a historical landmark, look at the improved time for the quarter mile. Look at all of that extra air that comes with the turbocharger. The authors are suggesting that you get behind the wheel and do a few runs on the track, but if you'd rather just whine about the price of high octane gas, or ask questions that's okay too; sit in the stands and be a spectator. Watching life go by is always easier than participating in it; it's just not as fun. As Led Zeppelin, those demigods of classic rock and roll; put it, "mellow is the man who knows what he's been missing".

[Justin108]

The literal occurrence of miracles is not "as plentiful as dirt".

Sure they are; the bible is full of them

Oh so now they're literal all of a sudden?

You're more concerned with extraneous nonsense than what the son of God is teaching.

Zooming in on this. Let's suppose for argument's sake that Jesus never performed a literal miracle. What reason would there be to believe he is the son of God?

Let me ask you this... suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

The bible is the work of " a bunch of poets telling stories". You say it like it's a bad thing; it isn't. Poets are inspired. You just see it as bad poetry; it isn't. You don't have the ability to recognize good poetry, or the value of poetry. You've already determined it to be worthless. For you, it is truly worthless.

You didn't even begin to answer my question. I'll ask again: Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

If Jesus never did anything supernatural at all, would you still think he's the literal son of God?

It depends on what you mean by literal.

I wasn't aware that "literal" had more than one meaning. Did Jesus literally come back from the dead? That is to say, did he as a person die, and then become alive again? I don't know how else to explain "literal" to you

It depends on what you mean by supernatural.

Things that are typically considered impossible, e.g walking on water, coming back from the dead, etc. Are you just trying to drag this out or do you actually not know what "literal" and "supernatural" means?

The narratives present him as the literal son of God

You are very inconsistent with what you deem as literal and what you deem as metaphorical. You are absolutely certain that the narrative considers Jesus the literal son of God, yet you are open to the possibility that all his miracles are non-literal?

- How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents him as the literal son of God?
- How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents his miracles as non-literal events?

And let's suppose for argument sake you're right... Suppose the narrative did consider him the literal son of God. Why would you believe the narrative? If Jesus never did anything remotely supernatural, then why would you believe anyone who claimed he was the son of God?

The Genesis account presents Adam as a son of God as well.

Wait so you believe Adam is a literal character?

Super is not opposed to what is natural when it is supernatural.

Please can we keep this discussion to plain English? This sentence means nothing to me. I have no idea what this is supposed to be saying

In other words, Jesus doesn't turn air into dirt, or cutlery into trees. He works within the natural order.

So from all appearances, he's just a guy. Then why do you think he's the son of God?