Why was a sacrifice needed at all?

[nobspeople]

It's said Jesus came as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. But to whom did the sacrifice matter? God? If Jesus was also god, in a way (like some claim), he was sacrificing himself to himself...? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If Jesus is not god, then Jesus sacrificed himself to god. Why does god need a sacrifice at all? Some would say 'god can't be with sin' or the like. But why not? Surely, if god is the god it's said it is, god could change any 'rule' set up (as god itself had to set up the 'rule') and not require such a painful, terrible sacrifice? Isn't god 'enough' that being in its presence would, for lack of a better term, vaporize or negate all sin? God is greater than all sin (as some claim) then why is a sacrifice needed)
For discussion:
Why would god need a sacrifice if god created everything that is and had the ability not to need a sacrifice at all?

[cms]

If you read the Gospels (always a good idea )it seems pretty clear that the Jews were damned from the start.

Transponder, I've read both the Old and New Testaments. It depends which branch of Jewish people one is talking about. Many today call themselves Christians, but as you know, our beliefs vary quite a bit. Jesus was not from the Levitical priesthood. His ministry extends all the way back to Mel, and even to the beginning of Genesis ( In the beginning was the Word).

If God imposed the sin in some way, He could unimpose it without a rigmarole of a sacrifice.

God din't impose the sin. He tells us the punishment for it. The only thing one has to do, as Isaiah says, is "Return to Me and I will return to you."

[cms]

pretty equally totally evidence that the people of Israel were no more advanced than their contemporaries and maybe less so.

Actually they were not like other nations. In the beginning, they had judges who were apparently elected. It wasn't until Samuel,when Israel wanted to become like other nations and have a king rule over them. As this is a little off topic, if you'd like to further the discussion, maybe we can start another thread. If not, that's fine too.

[TRANSPONDER]

I dont know'if you are talking to me (one can use the "repy" button to a specific post to avoid confusion) but in case you are addressing a point in my post ....

If God imposed the sin in some way, He could unimpose it without a rigmarole of a sacrifice. If it is innate nature of humans without God having anything to do with it, where does He get off making laws about it?

Biblically God did neither: Sin was neither imposed nor is it innate. The possibility of sin is innate for all moral intelligent beings. For perfect beings the choice not to is always there. Law exists to highlight the consequences of making the wrong choice.


Given the above the rest of the post is I think, moot.



JW

Yes, it was responding to your post. I'd agree that sin (broadly) is innate. Which means that it is not for God to decide what sin is or is not. It is for us. God can interfere of course but I'm not impressed by the idea of excusing it if a couple of doves are sacrificed and a shekel in the treasury. That to me is just religion making money out of it. Law giving - well like sin, it's innate. Human law making has always obtained whatever the religion and remarkably has often found the same way of makinh laws about human behaviour.

And I even less see the point about making one person't death a way of getting out of the consequences. That's not justice but favouritism, which is as corrupt as you like. our pal above cms was doing better with Jesus' teachings being what mattered - giving better law -code, and the death being incidental.

[TRANSPONDER]

pretty equally totally evidence that the people of Israel were no more advanced than their contemporaries and maybe less so.

Actually they were not like other nations. In the beginning, they had judges who were apparently elected. It wasn't until Samuel,when Israel wanted to become like other nations and have a king rule over them. As this is a little off topic, if you'd like to further the discussion, maybe we can start another thread. If not, that's fine too.

I'm inclined to leave it alone as I have doubts that the Bible is accurate in what it tells us about 'Judges'. I would bet on Exodus being near fictitious and what the archaeology indicates is that the Jews (Hebrews) were part of the Amorite groups that came from the NE hills in the 11th c after the Sea peoples and the collapse brought down the bronze age societies. This suggests that there were tribal leaders who became kings after nations with borders were set up and I'm not sure that there's much place for Judges in that history, and that might owe more down to literary invention. I'm sure others will disagree so I prefer to leave it at that.

More what I had in mind was the warmaking, slavery and pretty much just what other peoples were doing at the time.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you read the Gospels (always a good idea )it seems pretty clear that the Jews were damned from the start.

Transponder, I've read both the Old and New Testaments. It depends which branch of Jewish people one is talking about. Many today call themselves Christians, but as you know, our beliefs vary quite a bit. Jesus was not from the Levitical priesthood. His ministry extends all the way back to Mel, and even to the beginning of Genesis ( In the beginning was the Word).

If God imposed the sin in some way, He could unimpose it without a rigmarole of a sacrifice.

God din't impose the sin. He tells us the punishment for it. The only thing one has to do, as Isaiah says, is "Return to Me and I will return to you."

All of them from what I can see. The message of Matthew is pretty clear. 'His blood be on us and out Children'. The speaking in Parables so that others wouldn't understand Jesus, turn and be saved and the lamenting over Jerusalem which Jesus would have saved but they rejected him and were destroyed. This was all known in advance and thus God had to have known right from Genesis that this was going to be how it would end. He would turn his back on the Jews and transfer his affections to the (generally non - Jewish) Christians. That at least is the message of the gospels.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #18]

Biblically* because a blood sacrifice was the only way for God to release mankind from the damage caused by inherited sin without compromising his own righteous standards.

I'm aware. The point is, god made that 'rule' and could simply 'unmake' it. Or have never made it at all. Sacrifice seems the need of an evil being if it's all powerful. The need for such a being to 'need' or even 'want' anything negates its all powerfulness as well as its loving ability IMO.

I don't need anyone to sacrifice anything to me to know they love me. And I'm not quite all powerful. Thinking an all powerful being that's perfect needs or want that is, to me (and some others) highly distasteful and, in a way, negates any faith in it being all powerful, all loving, all knowing....perfect.

But I'm aware there are those that feed off of this type of relationship - symbiotic as it were. For them, this type of 'god' is the right one. I feel bad for them.

[1213]

We almost seem to be on the same page, because you seem to be saying that a person can become righteous with or without Jesus. Now my view (and you won't agree, I know) is that doing right is a matter of morality and ethics, not of belief or Following any particular person. And if human morality can do better than what's in the Bible, then follow human ethics rather than the Bible.

We'd seem to agree that the ethical message was what mattered and the crucifixion and death, never mind the supposed resurrection (which I don't believe) did not save anyone (least of all him) and Paul's belief (that the death was necessary to allow God to rescind sin -death for Believers) was mistaken.

Because of the Romans 2:12-16, I believe it is possible to count person righteous, even if he has not heard of Jesus. And I have understood righteousness is basically like right understanding, wisdom of the just, right attitude that leads to good works.

I believe it is in any case much about how person understands things. I don't think human ethics are better than what the Bible teaches, but even if we would teach all human ethics and even what the Bible tells, it would not be useful, if person would not receive it, understand the point correctly and desire that what is good and right. And I have understood righteousness is mainly that right understanding and desire for good. It does not necessarily mean human is perfect, but that correct attitude leads him to right direction, which I believe is what God wants.

Ethical message is what matters. But, the crucifixion, death and resurrection matter also, it just was not required for to forgive sins. And i don't think that is really Paul’s point. I think his teachings are misunderstood and maybe even intentionally used to create false religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

We almost seem to be on the same page, because you seem to be saying that a person can become righteous with or without Jesus. Now my view (and you won't agree, I know) is that doing right is a matter of morality and ethics, not of belief or Following any particular person. And if human morality can do better than what's in the Bible, then follow human ethics rather than the Bible.

We'd seem to agree that the ethical message was what mattered and the crucifixion and death, never mind the supposed resurrection (which I don't believe) did not save anyone (least of all him) and Paul's belief (that the death was necessary to allow God to rescind sin -death for Believers) was mistaken.

Because of the Romans 2:12-16, I believe it is possible to count person righteous, even if he has not heard of Jesus. And I have understood righteousness is basically like right understanding, wisdom of the just, right attitude that leads to good works.

I believe it is in any case much about how person understands things. I don't think human ethics are better than what the Bible teaches, but even if we would teach all human ethics and even what the Bible tells, it would not be useful, if person would not receive it, understand the point correctly and desire that what is good and right. And I have understood righteousness is mainly that right understanding and desire for good. It does not necessarily mean human is perfect, but that correct attitude leads him to right direction, which I believe is what God wants.

Ethical message is what matters. But, the crucifixion, death and resurrection matter also, it just was not required for to forgive sins. And i don't think that is really Paul’s point. I think his teachings are misunderstood and maybe even intentionally used to create false religion.

Again I can relate to a lot of that. Paul of course talked about Righteousness 'written on our hearts' and thus innate to all humans. I agree but 'God' putting it there is for me, humans doing personal inclinations are instinctive (evolutionary) traits and the rest is taught. I would say the mental game - change of 'how would you like it if it happened to you/' opening the mind to empathy.

For the rest, discussion of ethics and morality is needed because the right answers don't always come easily and also social morality (being relative) evolves, for example Slavery was once endemic but now isn't. But that didn't come from the Bible. Morality has gone beyond the Bible and it is no longer a useful morality -guide, if it ever was.

Lastly, if the crucifixion was not required to forgive sins, why does the crucifixion death and even resurrection (if one believes it) matter?

[cms]

This was all known in advance and thus God had to have known right from Genesis that this was going to be how it would end.

They were under the curses( death) that Moses laid out in Deut., basically a reaping of what was sown.

Lastly, if the crucifixion was not required to forgive sins, why does the crucifixion death and even resurrection (if one believes it) matter?

The way I see it, the crucifixion was not required. It was the resurrection of the "body of Christ" that was needed, the body being the people who followed Jesus.
This would lift the curse. " Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you......and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, that the Lord your god will bring you back from captivity and have compassion on you." Deut. 30 1-3. As Isaiah says, "Return to Me and I will return to you."

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the whole point. Either God is working blind or He must know that the Jews won't match up in the end and He'll have to switch to the Gentiles. So why bother with the Hebrews at all if he's going to switch to the gentiles anyway? It only makes sense if He's not aware how it's going to turn ot.

But if that's the case, the predictions can't be true, can they? In which case why should we believe any of it?

Ok. The death didn't matter but the resurrection did. Why? Resurrection (the Jews expected a general resurrection at the Last Days) was already known. What was Jesus' resurrection telling anyone that wasn't already believed by the Pharisee group at least?