How does Jesus's "sacrifice" make any kind of sens

[rikuoamero]

This is for the theists, of course.

Just how does it make sense? What is the debt? Why is there a debt, and how is it to be repaid?

According to standard Christian theology, there was a tree with some fruit that was forbidden to the first humans. The fruit was eaten anyway, and some punishments were handed out.
Surely that should have been the end of it right? But no, according to Christians, someone just HAD to die. Which is strange, considering that nothing of what Adam and Eve did had anything to do with death; the loss of their supposed immortality was not done by them directly, but as a part of the punishment handed out by their god.
Even so...even if we ignore that...how does Jesus dying 'solve' that, or mitigate that?

Would it have worked if Jesus had lain down in a bathtub and slit his wrists? Or hung himself, entirely of his own volition?
I'm guessing no...I'm guessing that what just HAD to be done was for some corrupt priests (were they corrupt? Apparently they were only obeying their god's laws!) called for his execution and had him nailed to a piece of wood, with Jesus not resisting in any way.
So what does that accomplish? What does that show? From what I can see, it only shows that (some) people can kill, are ready and willing to do so, in the name of their god even if (apparently) this "isn't" what God wants (but it is!)

Now, I'm going to guess I'm going to get answers that ignore most, if not all, of what I said. I will be told that the only acceptable sacrifice was Jesus, since he's a sinless, perfect human. Notice that I didn't comment on that part.

[OnceConvinced]

How does Jesus's "sacrifice" make any kind of sens

First of all, I want to say, Jesus could forgive sins before his death, so his death was not necessary for forgiveness of sins:

I'm glad at least one of our theist members can see this. God was able to forgive without the need for any sacrifices whatsoever, so to say that Jesus was needed in some way for that seems ludicrous. He was never needed before and he still isn't needed. God could forgive and redeem without the need for a barbaric immoral sacrifice. Jesus's sacrifice was completely redundant.

However, the idea of sacrifice is not wrong,

I believe that any sacrifice where human or animal blood is spilt is immoral. Are you ok with blood sacrifices? Do you see them as moral?

Jesus used his life for us, that can be seen as sacrifice.

Which was completely unnecessary really. Unless of course God was UNABLE to forgive without some kind of sacrifice or penance being done. However an innocent man paying the price is hardly moral. In fact it's completely immoral for an innocent man to pay the price for someone else's atrocities.

Just imagine it, if Adolf Hitler was on trial for his atrocities and then some Christian guy (say his name is Jack) comes along and says "Hey, everybody, I love Adolf so much that I'll take his place on the electric chair instead." Do you think we'd all be happy with that? That Adolf is going to get off scot free because Jack is willing to go to the chair for him?

Of course not. We would all be outraged. We would consider it completely immoral. Likewise it would be completely immoral for a god to deem us sinful humans all not-guilty because Jesus stepped up to pay the price for us. '

I for one believe people should step up and take responsibility for their own atrocities. That would be the moral and ethical thing to do. Are you ok with an innocent man suffering the punishment for you atrocities even if he volunteered? Would you be ok with Hitler getting away with his atrocities thanks to Jack?

And by preaching, we got the message from God that could save us and cause change in our heart so that we become righteous and can get eternal life. That is why Jesus can be called the perfect sacrifice, he used his life for us and because of that, we have chance to live.

And what about Jesus's sacrifice makes any difference at all to the wrath of God? How does it sway God from punishing us?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

Jesus' wording explained it best, he paid a "ransom" - a ransom is a price paid to free some. Jesus death "paid" for the sins we inherited from our first parents Adam and Eve.

Freed from who?

Not "who" , what?



HUMANS ARE SLAVES TO SIN AND DEATH

Adam's act of disobedient lead to all his children being subject, by reason of inherited sin, to sin and death. Paul likened sin (and death) to being a king that has reigned over mankind a metaphor for our "captive" condition unable to "escape" the eventuality of both (see Romans 5:21)

And why did it take the death to do that?

Because death is the price that must be paid for sin. God had said as much in the garden of Eden, if you sin you die. That's the divine rule and the condition upon which life was given.




RELATED POSTS

The Ransom, was another way possible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p848933

Why did the ransom have to be equal to the sin committed?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p909872

LEARN MORE: Why did Jesus suffer and die?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016164

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

FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE PURPOSE OF LIFE

[JehovahsWitness]

In your link you say that the ransom had to be equal to the sin. But why? [...] Someone could put up a ransom that was far less than what was equal but it would still be ransom paid

• Because that is what JUSTICE demands; if something of value is lost, justice, demands equal payment. If someone were to deliberately kill your daughter and offered you a pet mouse and told you to forget it, would you view that as fair or an insult to your very being? If the judge ordered the killer pay for you and your wife to take an all expense paid holiday to Florida would you call that justice?

Justice demands life for life. A life is the most precious thing a person has, there can only be one just payment for a life lost. Adams deliberate sin lead to the loss of life, not only of one little girl but of all the little girls and boys, men and women that lived since. There can be no rectifying that with a mouse or a dog. There had to be payment equal to that which caused the problem.

Adam and Eve sinned. They rightly died for their action. But their actions caused the death of countless billions of other humans. Divine justice demanded that these deaths be paid for, there would be no offering a trip to disneyworld, no mouse and no ignoring it. The sin of a perfect man caused these the problem, the sacrifice of a perfect man would be needed to rectify it.

If God is God, surely he can forgive or free someone without the need for the death of an innocent being?

No. See above.



RELATED POSTS



Why did God not just ignore the original sin?[*]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p848933

Why did Adam and Eve's death not end the matter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 36#p909836

ROMANS 5
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin [...] in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come [...] by one man's trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many!"

Adam equal to Jesus




Personal BLOG
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/?m=0

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ORIGINAL SIN , ADAM and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[benchwarmer]

In your link you say that the ransom had to be equal to the sin. But why? [...]

• Because that is what JUSTICE demands; if something of value is lost, justice, demands equal payment. If someone were to deliberately kill your daughter and offered you a pet mouse and told you to forget it, would you view that as fair or an insult to your very being? If the judge ordered the killer pay for you and your wife to take an all expense paid holiday to Florida would you call that justice?

Justice demands life for life. A life is the most precious thing a person has, there can only be one just payment for a life lost. Adams deliberate sin lead to the loss of life, not only of one little girl but of all the little girls and boys, men and women that lived since. There can be no rectifying that with a mouse or a dog. There had to be payment equal to that which caused the problem.
JW

So who has to die to pay for all the lives God killed during the flood? Or the inhabitants of Sodom? The Cannanites? Where is the life for life there? You seem to be suggesting that the sacrificing of one life (Jesus) can somehow cover all the other lives lost. That doesn't add up. That's not even getting into the glaring issue that Jesus didn't give up his life, he resurrected remember? No life lost. Justice not served.

Adam's 'deliberate sin' should have been paid for by Adam. When Adam died, why didn't that work? That's life for life. Though I never saw Adam kill anyone in the Bible, so none of this still makes any sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible talks a lot about the blood of Jesus and how it was necessary for the forgiveness of sin, but what is [it] about the blood of Jesus that ... enables God to forgive and to redeem?

BLOOD REPRESENTS A PERSON'S LIFE

• Blood in itself cannot in itself do anything, but in scripture the blood represents a person's (or animal's) life and is therefore something precious to God. When Cain murdered his brother, God is recorded in scripture as saying "Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground." (Genesis 4:10). Obviously it did not mean that Abel's blood was literally speaking, but it was used as a metaphor for his life and God was expressing that Abels life was precious to Him (Jehovah) and his murder would not be overlooked.

BLOOD IS RELIGIOUSLY SACRED

• It is for this reason blood is viewed as sacred, not for its literal properties, but as a symbol of a person's life that ultimately belongs to God. It is for this reason the bible has strict standards of what is and is not to be done with the blood of any living thing whether a person or an animal.

THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS

As a perfect human, Jesus was in a position to redeem or pay for the sins of all humanity. By giving his life as a perfect sacrifice, symbolically pouring out his blood for mankind, he could offer the value of his perfect human life to God and redeem mankind. On the last night of his life Jesus used wine to symbolize his blood, and explained it (ie his life) would validate the various covenants or agreements to the blessing of mankind. He asked his followers to commemorate his death because of its import*

CONCLUSION Jesus blood was symbolic or represented his perfect life, and it was the value of his life (not money) that was offered as a ransom to redeem mankind. (see John 3:17).


RELATED POSTS

Do all the gospel writers refer to Jesus blood sacrifice?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 647#887647



[*] JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES commemorate the death of Jesus in the way he instructed early spring each year

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by OnceConvinced]

SIN AND REDEMPTION

HEBREWS 9:22
The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

QUESTION: Did God (and Jesus) not forgive prior to Jesus sacrifice?

• Yes, but that was based on the sacrifice Jesus was to make in the future. Jehovah had such confidence in his son, that he was willing to forgive repentant sinners throughout the ages based on the future sacrifice His son would make. Like buying on credit, God knew that the payment would be made and was willing to place his own good name and reputation on his son's shoulders, knowing his confidence would not be misplaced (compare Genesis 3:15).

JW


RELATED POST

Does the ransom sacrifice of Jesus contradict the principle of forgiving others in personal relationships?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 07#p827307

To learn more please go to other posts related to

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

[JehovahsWitness]

If God created Adam and Eve in such a away that it would be impossible for them to not sin, then Adam and Eve can hardly be held responsible for that.

Adam and Eve were created in a way that made them perfectly capable of obeying God's law if they chose to. They were rightly held fully responsible for their sin.


RELATED POSTS

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

Were Adam&Eve set up to fail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p390066

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

Did God act in a "tyrannical" way in Eden?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 60#p908860

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

Justice demands life for life. A life is the most precious thing a person has, there can only be one just payment for a life lost.

I see you didn't take heed of what I mentioned at the end of my OP. I pointed out that what Adam and Eve (supposedly) did had nothing directly to do with their losing out on their immortality.
Remember, what they did was eat a forbidden fruit, a fruit that somehow has knowledge of good and evil.
It and eating it, have nothing whatsoever to do with life.
It's God who punishes Adam and Eve, and among the punishments (or payments, if I may borrow that word) is the loss of their immortality.

if something of value is lost, justice, demands equal payment.

Not always. Even in our own human justice systems, sometimes the proscribed punishment is waived. For example, someone caught speeding by a cop may be let off with a warning.
Besides, JW, do you do this yourself? If someone kills your child, do you go out and kill their child? Or is there some other reason you wouldn't do that?
I expect you to say no, you wouldn't kill the killer's child. So clearly justice doesn't always demand an equal payment.

If someone were to deliberately kill your daughter and offered you a pet mouse and told you to forget it, would you view that as fair or an insult to your very being?

If someone disobeyed me...remember, that is the story. Adam and Eve didn't kill anyone.

Adams deliberate sin lead to the loss of life, not only of one little girl but of all the little girls and boys, men and women that lived since.

Only because of what God then did. Did God have a choice in what punishments he handed out? Could he not have done something different? Couldn't he have forgiven the disobeyment?

There had to be payment equal to that which caused the problem.

Answer me this please. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, and God comes up on them...is what he does to them the punishment, the payment exacted?
If it is, it seems to me then to be very excessive to do them AND to demand that a (supposedly) innocent man many generations afterward get nailed to a piece of wood.

Adam and Eve sinned. They rightly died for their action.

So then...that's the payment. According to what you tell us about justice, about how it demands equal payment, that's where the debt or payment should stop.
Anything else violates that description, and we enter the realm of excessive debt.

But their actions caused the death of countless billions of other humans. Divine justice demanded that these deaths be paid for, there would be no offering a trip to disneyworld, no mouse and no ignoring it.

Even if I accept this, then this would NOT mean equal justice. We'd have all of humanity...and the death of one man, Jesus.
Doesn't look equal at all to my eyes.

The sin of a perfect man caused these the problem, the sacrifice of a perfect man would be needed to rectify it.

Rectify what, exactly? How exactly is the sacrifice of a perfect man needed? Is God Almighty himself unable to have the situation rectified, unless Jesus gets nailed to a piece of wood?

[JehovahsWitness]

One thing you forgot to mention is that Jesus didn't even die!

• If the bible account is to be believed, Jesus did indeed die. He was tortured, nailed to a stake (either of which could have lead to him going into shock and dying) but also stabbed in the heart and reported as dead before his body was released to his family. We should also bear in mind that the account reports that Jesus enemies, who had a vested interest in seeing Jesus die were also present at his execution. The Roman Govenor Pilate requested specifically Jesus death be verified by Roman soldiers present. Roman soldiers were highly trained killing machines and to suggest a team of soldiers answerable directly to the Governor would not have ensured that someone under their charge was actually dead should stretch the credibility of even the most extreme bible skeptic.

Jesus being resurrected and granted eternal life in heaven would not have paid the "wages of sin" which would have been death (like in permanently dead)

Would Jesus need to "stay dead" for the Ransom to be valid?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p875280

[JehovahsWitness]

Adam's 'deliberate sin' should have been paid for by Adam.

QUESTION: Did Jesus die for Adam's sin?

♦ ANSWER No, Jesus died to free Adam's children from the consequences of inherited sin. Adam died for Adam's sin.

That's not even getting into the glaring issue that Jesus didn't give up his life, he resurrected remember? No life lost.

Would Jesus need to "stay dead" for the Ransom to be valid?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 280#875280