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?

[polonius]

t why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

There was no other legitimate way to annul the inherited sin Adam's children were born under. This Adamic sin means that no human could live forever and God wanted to give obedient mankind the chance to live forever as per his original purpose.

For further explanation please consult video below (4"mins)

[youtube][/youtube]

RESPONSE: That is the original sin legend presupposing that the Creation story in Genesis was a real historical event.

The story was written in 800-700 BC and is part of Jewish folklore, not history.

And Jesus was crucified for insurrection in claiming that he was a King.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 119 by rikuoamero]

I find this part of your response to be malformed, or not clear at the very least. You seem to be talking about TWO groups of people, but refer to both using the same word 'we'.

You seem to indicate that 'we' (as in us humans) are going to lead some other group (...humans?) an that 'we' have to prove ourselves to that other group (...humans?)

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The goal is to form and fill the formless and empty world. That means with all kinds of life. (Best metaphor being a garden, which needs to be tended, where one plant can't be allowed to choke out others, where we need to create a harmony of kinds...)

So plant, animal and humankind all need to flourish in this world, and our role as human beings is to be the gardeners, and create the conditions that make it possible.

The outcry against us is when our leadership is self-interested. It may be, for example, when we think about humankind over animalkind. When we destroy animal environments so we can form our own. When we kill animals for ivory trinkets to adorn ourselves with. The outcry against us in this example may come from animals, who are being oppressed and destroyed by us. It may come from human beings who care for animals and feel their suffering. Both form that voice that speaks against our worthiness to rule.

In another example, maybe our leadership is even more self-interested. It is when we think about our own selves over humankind more broadly. When we take from our poor employees as greedy businesspeople. When we don't help the widow or orphan. When we...

So yes, you read me right. We humans are called to lead we humans, as well as the rest of creation, in the creative process (i.e., the forming and filling of the world). We may have to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of the job.

Is that not how it is? ...

(There have been people on this site who have explicitly declared their loss of faith in humanity. That we are a virus in this world. That we are unworthy.)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 120 by JehovahsWitness]

Without compromising his own righteous standards and "stealing" them back, God could not legitimately save mankind without a ransom.

If God HAD done that, would you be arguing that God shouldn't have done it?

Why would the ransom be paid to God? Because God is the hightest authority in existence; Jehovah God is both lawgiver, judge and executioner.

So then he has no-one to account to if he were to do certain things...like accept back Adam and Eve without saying Jesus has to die.

If mercy is to be extended, it is He who will do this, and if He exacts a basis upon which that mercy will be given, it must be given to him.

And apparently that basis is that Jesus just HAS to die, otherwise people like yourself will call foul?

who does the man present the documentation verifying the conditions have been me to?

The judge. The judge who initially had a sentence of 10 years for the crimes but then allows the criminal to go free after 5 years plus 6 months community service.
...I thought you were trying to argue that the judge CAN'T relent on the sentence imposed, on what the ransom is that has be paid?

The judge put the man in prison because the law had been broken. Validation of having met the conditions of release were presented to that same judge, because he set the conditions of release.

Again, the judge in your analogy initially set 10 years, but then relented after 5 and a half.
Your analogy does not work because you have been arguing that God cannot do this. Apparently the price is one perfect human life and gosh darn it, God cannot waver from that.
For your analogy to work, the judge would NOT accept the appeal, would NOT allow the man to go after 5 yrs plus community service. The judge would have insisted on the full 10 years.
Anyway, your analogy doesn't work at all, because in the justice system, judges do not accept someone else going to jail on another person's behalf. Your analogy doesn't factor in Jesus paying the ransom for us; HE would have to have gone to jail on the criminal's behalf.

Returning to our illustration, what is extraordinary is that the Judge, not the convicted criminal was willing to provide the basis upon which mercy would be extended*. It as if he himself said "Ok, I see you are really sorry, but I cannot simply wave 5 years away without a legal basis because a crime has been committed...

Your analogy doesn't wash again, because you previously indicated that the Judge here is ALSO the law-maker, as in, the Judge in this analogy IS NOT constrained by laws he doesn't write as to what sentences for crimes should be.
In the real world, a judge can give say life in prison for the crime of murder, if that is what the text in the law books indicate. The judge has no power to alter that.
The God whom you have previously indicated DOES have that power...?

I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll ask my son if he is willing to do the community service for you" The man broke the law, the man was justly convicted but the JUDGE provides the basis for release and his SON does the time.

Another way your analogy doesn't wash. Jesus 'dies' for a mere 3 days or so, then rises up from death to rule over the universe.
Imagine this analogy playing out in the real world. Bob is sentenced to 10 years. After 5 years have passed, he appeals to go free, and the judge (who also writes the laws on the law books) says "I'll ask my son Jerry if he's willing to go to prison for the rest of the five years".
Thing is, Jerry doesn't stay in prison five years. Also, what is not told to Bob is that after however long Jerry stays in prison, Jerry is given a promotion to Immortal Emperor of All Mankind.
This...isn't a ransom, in my eyes.

" Jehovah provided the ransom at great cost to himself.

What is that cost? As others have said on the site, the way this is described in the Bible, it should be a bounced check, since Jesus doesn't stay dead.

The price wasn't 6 months community service, the price wasn't 10 years in jail,

So why bother with that analogy at all? Why bother including it in your response?

the price was a life.

Remember, you indicated God is the law-maker. Why did he write the law in such a way that life is the ONLY valid payment?

Jehovah could not have provided a more precious ransom (every parent knows they would rather die than see their child die)

Your analogy doesn't wash. AGAIN. A parent doesn't designate a third party to die on their child's behalf. Also, the parent isn't all powerful.

Ask yourself this - why is it that whenever you present to us non-believers reasons why Jehovah God is so great and wonderful, likening him to a parent who sacrifices for their children, you IMMEDIATELY forget about the 'fact' that he is supposed to be all powerful?
Have you ever seen Watchmen, the movie (or read the graphic novel?) If not, watch this scene, it's 2 mins long.
[youtube] [/youtube]
Listen to what Comedian (the man with the gun) says at the end. Dr. Manhattan, the blue guy, is all knowing and all powerful...and yet he let Comedian shoot the pregnant woman, and did nothing to stop it.
In the real world, I have heard of prison sentences being handed down to bystanders who did nothing to prevent rapes from occurring.

the fansom is a testimony to how much God loves mankind!

Don't you mean ransom?

Here's how I see it.
God is all powerful, he is judge, law maker and executioner as you say.
A proto-ancestor of mine disobeys a command from God.
All of humanity shares in the punishment given to this man.
In order to forgive or waive the punishment for this crime, a certain human has to be killed.
God can't just waive the punishment that he set himself, he loves me too much to do so.

...wait, what?

[Justin108]

QUESTION Who was the ransom paid to and why?

God created a perfect couple, Adam and Eve. His purpose was for them and their children to live forever on a garden like planet (earth) never getting sick or growing old. Sadly Adam rebelled and sinned, he lost one perfect human life: his own. Having lost perfection Adam only had imperfection (and that which results from human imperfection... death) to pass on to their children.

Why did God design imperfection to be genetically inheritable? Why didn't God design human biology to allow for everyone to be born perfect (as Adam and Eve were) until they sinned (as Adam and Eve did)? It looks like a pretty major design flaw

Like children of a slave, humans couldn't buy their own freedom from the sad eventuality of inherited imperfection and death because the price would have to be that which was lost, one perfect human life.

Ok let me see if I understand this analogy

Slaves = Adam and Eve
Children of slaves = humanity
Sin = slavery

So far so good. But then we take a closer look at this part...
Children of slaves being unjustly born into slavery = the sad eventuality of inherited imperfection and death

Now keep in mind that this is an analogy of the universe that God designed. So you're telling me that God designed a world where children are metaphorically born into slavery? How exactly is this a just God? The first generation of slaves deserved it. They messed up and as punishment, they were turned into slaves. But it's a pretty messed up justice system that punishes the children with slavery as well. And God designed this system?

Paying a ransom, freeing the hostages

A ransom is a price paid to free someone. Humanity found itself "hostages" of sin and death, not because of God

Yes because of God. God designed sin to be an inheritable trait. Going by your slavery analogy, God came up with the law that "if your daddy is a slave then so are you". A just God would allow all children to be born free

but because of Adam's rebellion. Without compromising his own righteous standards and "stealing" them back

Earlier you called humanity "hostages". How is freeing hostages considered stealing?

Oh and funny thing... God literally did exactly this in Exodus. The Jews were slaves to the Egyptians and not only did God "steal" the Jews back, he also killed all the Egyptians. So metaphorically stealing something is wrong... but literally stealing (and murdering by the way) is perfectly ok

God could not legitimately save mankind without a ransom.

So if the army sent in a rescue team (instead of paying the ransom) to rescue a bunch of hostages, you would consider this illegitimate and immoral?

Why would the ransom be paid to God? Because God is the hightest authority in existence

And this authority deemed it just to punish the children of slaves with slavery for the crimes of their father.

Jehovah God is both lawgiver, judge and executioner.

And as lawgiver, he decided to legislate that all children will be punished for the sins of their father

To illustrate: A man commits a crime and is put in prison by a judge. The sentence is 10 years but after 5 he appeals to be released. Who does the criminal appeal to? If the judge demands the man does 6 months community service and if the demands are met he will release the man, when the six months are completed, who does the man present the documentation verifying the conditions have been me to?

Keep in mind that in the end, God decided to sacrifice Jesus. So if God had mercy and gave the man 5 years instead of 10, to complete the analogy, the judge (or his son) must then spend the rest of the 5 years in prison. Right?

Alternatively if the judge can simply decide to let the extra 5 years go, then God can also decide to let our sins go without ever sacrificing Jesus.

Returning to our illustration, what is extraordinary is that the Judge, not the convicted criminal was willing to provide the basis upon which mercy would be extended*. It as if he himself said "Ok, I see you are really sorry, but I cannot simply wave 5 years away without a legal basis because a crime has been committed... I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll ask my son if he is willing to do the community service for you"

Wait wait wait... any judge who does this IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. The law is "guilty guy goes to prison". What kind of messed up justice system would allow innocent people to be punished on behalf of guilty people? I am pretty sure if the court mandates community service, you would not have the right to let someone else do the community service for you. Any court that would allow this is massively unjust.

The man broke the law, the man was justly convicted but the JUDGE provides the basis for release and his SON does the time.

And you think this is a just court...?

[JehovahsWitness]

So to summarize, the rope was useful because:
- It was long
- It was durable
- It allowed me to pull the man to safety

Now the rope in this analogy is Jesus' sacrifice. Can you please list in a similar way how Jesus' sacrifice was useful in saving us? What useful qualities were inherent in Jesus' sacrifice to allow us to be saved?

A CORRESPONDING RANSOM

What was it about the ransom arrangement that met the needs of mankind?

As we have seen, Adam's sin plunged his unborn children into an impossible situation. To get them out of the dilemma the solution had to be equal to that which got them into the dilemma. Imagine someone lost in a maze, to get out they may need to to do a 180° turn and go back the way they came. To mix our metaphors, the means of salvation must correstpond to the length, strength etc of that which needs to be saved.

A Father sells all his children

When Adam sinned, the potential lives of all his unborn children, all HUMANITY was in his loins. He was mankinds father and so his actions carried the weight of himself + all those perfect lives that never happened. The potential (ie the weight) of Adam therefore was not just of one man, but of one man plus one perfect human race.

Any humans subsequenly born however would not have such "weight" they were lightweights, they could father children, they could become fathers of an entire human race but they could never father a world of perfect humans. If they tried to pull mankind out of the ocean by offering their own lives, the rope would break. The "rope" had to be exactly corresponding to what was lost. And nobody would ever be born with a rope long enough. Mankind was doomed.

One human male capable of fathering a perfect race, the human race. This is why the bible speaks of Jesus providing a "corresponding" ransom. Being born a perfect human male, had Jesus wanted to father children they would have in principle been perfect and lived forever. By dying he provided the exact equivalent of what Adam lost, he was the "rope" of sufficient durability and strenghth to pull mankind out of the sea.



Back the way we came

Adam wasn't pushed into the "ocean", he jumped. It was an act of disobedience. He murdered himself but also the hope of a perfect human race. If one act of disobedience caused the problems, then a corresponding act of obedience can reverse it. Like walking back the way we came, if someone (of equal "weight") opts to become our father, and is willing to die so the children can live, then everlasting life can be extended to all obedient mankind.

CONCLUSION: The Ransom was exactly what was needed as it corresponded to the exact opposite of the act that caused mankind's fall.

RELATED POSTS

Does Almighty GOD have to die for mankind since the original sin was against God?
viewtopic.php?p=979715#p979715

Does waving a debt repair damages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 07#p961607

To what did the ransom correspond?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p852214

Why would GOD dying for Adam's sin violate the principle of equality of recompense?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p959845

To learn more please go to other posts related to

SIN, THE RANSOM SACRIFICE and ... MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 125 by JehovahsWitness]

As we have seen, Adam's sin plunged his unborn children into an impossible situation. To get them out of the dilemma the solution had to be equal to that which got them into the dilemma.

Okay...what got Adam and his unborn children into the dilemma was Adam disobeying a command to not eat a certain fruit.

...what's equal to that? Humans NOT eating the fruit? There are trees outside my house but I'm pretty sure none of them are the particular Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Imagine someone lost in a maze, to get out they may need to to do a 180° turn and go back the way they came.

So to sum up...obey God. Okay.
Now...try and factor in how humans obeying God is STILL somehow not enough, we STILL need to kill Jesus on a cross (or impale him).
I thought you were arguing about equality?

A Father sells all his children

So children are the property of the father?

If they tried to pull mankind out of the ocean their "rope" their life, the rope would break. The "rope" had to be exactly corresponding to what was lost.

Why not? Adam's children didn't disobey the command to eat the fruit. The command was made to Adam and Adam alone (Eve too, if we want to include her).

Being born a perfect human male, had Jesus wanted to father children they would have in principle been perfect and lived forever. By dying he provided the exact equivalent of what Adam lost, he was the "rope" of sufficient durability and strenghth to pull mankind out of the sea.

This line of reasoning leaves out basically Jesus's teachings. As in, if it's Jesus's DYING that is what saves us, then Jesus didn't have to teach anything at all. He just has to be born and then die. Meaning someone could have sliced his throat right after birth, and according to this logic, it would have sufficed.
Also, consider the difference between Adam and Jesus. Adam is given a command, disobeys it. As in, he is punished for his actions.
Jesus though is NOT given any commands to obey, and no matter what the Bible says he did, you consider him to be perfect. Shouldn't Jesus flipping out in the Temple have warranted him being called a sinner, for example?

[Justin108]

As we have seen, Adam's sin plunged his unborn children into an impossible situation.

No, God's flaw in designing sin to be inheritable is what plunged Adam's unborn children into an impossible(?) situation

To get them out of the dilemma the solution had to be equal to that which got them into the dilemma.

Wait... what got them into this dilemma was Adam eating a fruit... so with your logic, all it would take for our sins to be forgiven is for us to eat a fruit

Imagine someone lost in a maze, to get out they may need to to do a 180° turn and go back the way they came. To mix our metaphors, the means of salvation must correstpond to the length, strength etc of that which needs to be saved.

Ok. So.. eating a fruit.

Adam messed up by eating a fruit, and Jesus had to suffer on a cross for hours before eventually dying to fix this? How is crucifixion "the same way back" as eating a fruit?

It would make far more sense if
- Adam messed up by eating a fruit
- People undo this by eating another fruit

Going by your maze analogy, eating a fruit should do the job

When Adam sinned, the potential lives of all his unborn children, all HUMANITY was in his loins. He was mankinds father and so his actions carried the weight of himself + all whose lives were to be from him.

You have yet to answer my question as to why God made sin inheritable.

Being born a perfect human male

Wait how did this happen? Why wasn't Jesus infected by Adam's sin as well? If God could simply let Jesus be born perfect, why couldn't he let all of us be born perfect?

By dying he provided the exact equivalent of what Adam lost

Which is..?

[JehovahsWitness]

if it's Jesus's DYING that is what saves us, then ... He just has to be born and then die. Meaning someone could have sliced his throat right after birth, and according to this logic, it would have sufficed.

No, first of all Adam was an adult male not a baby, further the act had to be a sacrifice. Notice the point made above (based on Romans 5:18, 19)

Adam wasn't pushed into the "ocean", he jumped. It was an act of disobedience. He murdered himself but also the hope of a perfect human race. If one act of disobedience caused the problems, then a corresponding act of obedience can reverse it.

Adam didn't trip on a stone and stumble over a cliff; he rebelled and deliberately sinned. So Jesus' death couldn't be accidental nor against his will. It needed to be an informed act of obedience, corresponding to Adam's act of willful DISobedience to be a valid equivalent

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 128 by JehovahsWitness]

No, first of all Adam was an adult male not a baby,

It was you who said Jesus was BORN a perfect human, was it not? As in, when he came out Mary's womb, he had this status of 'perfect'.

further the act had to be a sacrifice.

If you're disagreeing with third parties killing the one who has to make the sacrifice, then this annuls any claim Jesus has. He was killed by third parties. It was Roman soldiers who crucified/impaled him.

Notice the point made above (based on Romans 5:18, 19)

For reader's convenience, here is the text from the NWT
So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation,+ so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts+ is their being declared righteous for life.+ 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners,+ so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.

All I see being talked about there is obedience to God. Indeed, I couldn't call someone incorrect if they said their interpretation is that all that has to be done is to obey God's commands. I don't see anything in there that states that a life has to be given, as in, someone has to die a martyr's death or anything like that.

[JehovahsWitness]

I've already written on the point below. Maybe you missed it, so I will repost.

Wait... what got them into this dilemma was Adam eating a fruit... so with your logic, all it would take for our sins to be forgiven is for us to eat a fruit

Was Adams sin a minor dietry infaction?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 92#p848992







FURTHER OBJECTIONS

Why was the ransom necessary?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p852190

Why was the ransom paid by God TO God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p852203

How could an omniscient God not have known what the bad choices his creation would make?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p848314

Isn't God ultimately responsible since it was He who created intelligent beings?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 75#p840875

Why was the forbidden try called "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p849045

Why did God have a law in the first place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 11#p389911

Was the Edenic Law absurd or unreasonable?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p390066

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p390066

Did Adam and Eve understand the punishment (notion of death)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p849053

Why are Adams children being punished for HIS Sin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p381280

When will the full benefits of the ransom go into action
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 93#p852193

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY