Was Jesus' death necessary? If so, why?

[Justin108]

Was Jesus' death necessary? In what way did Jesus' death/sacrifice benefit humanity? Could God not achieve what he intended without Jesus dying?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by JehovahsWitness]

I don't know if you saw my earlier question, JW, so I'll re-ask it here.

Let's pretend that God just forgave Adam and Eve right then and there, when they ate the fruit.
Would you be here arguing that God can't do that, that a death of one kind or another had to be offered to pay the debt, that there in fact is a debt at all?

"Can't" for God is always "chooses never to", but yes that is exactly right.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, so I'll post a link to it here. It contains an explanation and a link.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 939#845939

If it's a matter of choice, if choice is involved, then your earlier assertion of
No, there was no way for this to be rightfully achieved without a life for life (blood) sacrifice.
does not hold.

God could have forgiven A & E right away, and if he had, somehow, for some reason...you would be here arguing that God couldn't have done that? That God in his nature, in his benevolence, requires a death, can't forgive without a life for life sacrifice?
I'm confused now. In earlier comments (that I can't remember where, so I'll paraphrase) from yourself, you said something along the lines of what God says, goes.

Doesn't this strike you as odd? You seem to me to be arguing the omnipotence of God on the one hand...and then imposing limits and constraints on him on the other.

[ttruscott]

What if there were no literal Adam and Eve, no literal Garden fall, would Jesus still have needed to die to "pay for" the sins of humanity?

What if there is no such thing as "inherited guilt". (Original sin.)

Does Pauline blood-atonment theology depend entirely on these literal understandings?

My conception of our fall and who is responsible for our sin doesn't need a literal Adam and Eve or serpent at all, though I do accept them as real, not analogies.

The only sin I accept that makes us guilty is choosing to do a sin by our own free will knowing that YHWH says it is a sin and that the consequence will be our enslavement to evil overshadowing our free will totally.

I don't accept Paul taught original sin but his words are misconstrued by theologists who had already denied the doctrine of our pre-existence. The verse clearly say as that Adam's death came to all men because all men sinned (implying their own sin), NOT because they inherited his sin. This was warped by the acceptance of the idea of our being created on earth and since GOD cannot create evil, a scapegoat had to be found for our being born into sin. And he also tells us that we were put into Adam's death so that Christ might die once for all the sinful elect at one time, and not a million times individually for each one. The church father's mistake have led to the maligning of Paul unjustly.

[Clownboat]

Was Jesus' death necessary? In what way did Jesus' death/sacrifice benefit humanity? Could God not achieve what he intended without Jesus dying?

Before death and resurrection of Jesus, his disciples were afraid and didn’t have courage.

You would have us believe that they ran around with the son of a god, watched him do all sorts of miracles... but they had no courage until he was killed?
This does not compute.

After those, they didn’t fear death anymore,

How can you possibly claim to know whether or not they feared death?

they got the courage to proclaim the message

Hanging out with the son of a god really wasn't enough? How unimpressive do you want us to believe Jesus was?

so that even I can now know it.

Let's be honest please. You don't know that a Jesus died and resurrected. You have a belief that he did, and you apply faith in order to claim that you 'know' that which you don't.

And for me the message has been beneficial. But obviously, it may not be beneficial for all.

Human sacrifice to the gods sure didn't benefit the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas and others, but I'm glad such a message is beneficial to you even if I don't understand how or why.

May you never feel the need to participate in such a, IMO horrible act.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by Willum]


WHY HAS IT TAKEN TIME TO SETTLE THE EDENIC ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY?


The rebellious angel that became known as Satan the Devil raised certain issues that needed time to be settled.

Adam and Eve were given a direct command not to eat from a certain tree. They were told by God that the punishment for disobeying that command was death. Satan, by directly contradicting the outcome of disobeying God, implied that not only that God was a liar but that Jehovah was actually witholding Something good from his human children. In other words, humans would actually be better off, not listening to God.

By disobeying God Adam and Eve sided with Satan, calling into question the rightfulness of Jehovah's rule. By implication, Satan's victory with the first human couple, also raised the question "Would all humans side with Satan or would some voluntarily want Jehovah to rule over them? "

These issues could not be settled by Killing Satan indeed this could well make God appear like a tyrant rather than a loving souvereign. It would also no doubt prompt others to raise the same issue, whether or not they dared do so openly or not. God would, if the issue was not settled satisfactorily, have to reign by terror rather than by love. The wise thing to do was, not kill the opposition, but allow time to settle the issues.

Please watch this VIDEO: Why Does God Allow Suffering? (Duration: 3:26) : https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#e ... 50_1_VIDEO

To illustrate: A man is a loving and kind father. However a neighbour goes to the police and charges him with abusing his children. The police, for the sake of the children have to launch an investigation. The children may well be temporarily removed from the home and suffer hardship because of this groundless accusation. Would it help or hinder the father's case if he were to take out a revolver and shoot the accuser dead? Would it not be wiser, even though he was completely innocent of the charges to allow time for a thorough investigation to be held. To allow his children to testify that they had not been mistreated, and let the truth eventually be established?

In a similar way, the issues raised in the garden could not be settled merely by Killing the accuser. Countless other intelligent creatures, angels, observed the scene. If God allowed Adam and Eve to have children, they too could wonder ...

- Would human independence, given enough time and technology, eventually lead to and earth of peace and happiness?

- Would any humans prove faithful to Divine rulership? Could anyone prove perfectly faithful to God?

It would take time, thousands of years, to settle these issues but once settle, the testimony history would provide would become be a legal precedent for any other such rebellions, and the process would not have to be repeated. The stability of all God's domaine would but be assured.

[YouTube][/youtube]

FURTHER READING : Why does God allow evil and suffering?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... suffering/





JW


RELATED POSTS



Why has it taken so many millenia to settle the issue of universal sovereinty?
viewtopic.php?p=1097903#p1097903

Will there be any long lasting negative effects of the permission of evil?
viewtopic.php?p=1108143#p1108143

When were the edenic issues settled and what comes next?
viewtopic.php?p=1097660#p1097660

What is the issue of universal Sovereignty? [Defined]
viewtopic.php?p=1031210#p1031210

Why has it taken so long to settle the issue of universal sovereinty?
viewtopic.php?p=1097903#p1097903

When were the edenic issues settled and what comes next?
viewtopic.php?p=1097660#p1097660

Should not a loving God have ignored the issues in order to avoid suffering?
viewtopic.php?p=908722#p908722

Why did God allow Job to be tested?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 26#p908726
[/quote]

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

SATAN , HUMAN SUFFERING and .... THE ISSUE OF UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY

[Willum]

[Replying to post 24 by JehovahsWitness]

A father isn't God, and men forget soon.
So this argument is sand without lime.

You've made an argument of perception, and the only way God could lose is if he is far weaker than you presume him to be.

By this argument, Satan has won, utterly and completely.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Was Jesus' death necessary? In what way did Jesus' death/sacrifice benefit humanity? Could God not achieve what he intended without Jesus dying?

God can achieve anything He wants with a thought (or a single word). But God is a terrible drama-queen. And He has a thing about blood.

[ttruscott]

Was Jesus' death necessary?

If GOD did it this way it was necessary for some reason. All doctrine flows from GOD's perfection in morals and purpose.

In what way did Jesus' death/sacrifice benefit humanity?

It did not benefit all humanity but only those of His elect who sinned by fulfilling HIS promise of salvation in them.

Could God not achieve what he intended without Jesus dying?

No way - since He died for us, that was the best therefore the only way to achieve our redemption.

I don't pretend to know why He had to die, why that was the best method for our redemption and all other methods fell short of HIS perfection BUT I guess that it has something to do with the absolute and ultimate disvalue of evil.

No sin is lesser than another sin, no sin is more.
Any taint of sin puts a non-elect in hell.
Any taint of sin in an elect puts Christ on the cross.
Therefore no one gets to say "Thank you for not making me like that that tax collector" (the perfection of self righteousness) but rather comes to understand that their evil is not something to sniff at or pass by...it is the death of their Saviour from that sin. His death lends weight and importance to our evil that is not found in any other place or event.

Nothing else suggests with the same power that evil is terrible and must be eradicated at any cost as His death.

The corollary to this idea is that it also shows that GOD will do all that is necessary to redeem us, to fulfill His promise to us, no matter what the cost and in this way His death also measures HIS love for us and His willingness to suffer for us.

People ask "who killed the Christ - the Jews or the Romans?" I contend that we, the sinful elect killed Christ by necessitating His death to save us from our evil. If no elect had rebelled against the call to judgment of the reprobate, the judgement would have happened at that moment and the heavenly state would have been instituted.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 24 by JehovahsWitness]

Any analogies I've seen you use require that God immediately lose his omni- traits. You give us the analogy of a police investigation into a potential child-abuse-by-parent case, not realizing that that analogy only works if the police (or God) don't actually know before they remove the children from the home, whether or not the father is actually abusive.

These issues could not be settled by Killing Satan indeed this could well make God appear like a tyrant rather than a loving souvereign.

God appears only all too willing to kill those who do not follow his orders in the Old Testament. I can give you some examples if you like, but I'm sure you're familiar enough with them already.
So I'm wondering why you're essentially arguing that it wouldn't be good PR for God to kill Satan, when he's willing to kill other people all too readily. Heck, in the Book of Job, he lets loose Satan on a pious man and his family and servants.

God would, if the issue was not settled satisfactorily, have to reign by terror rather than by love.

Again, Old Testament. This latest reply from you ignores the Old Testament.

In a similar way, the issues raised in the garden could not be settled merely by Killing the accuser.

Another way your analogy doesn't work is that Adam and Eve actually eat the fruit. It's not an empty accusation from Satan.

Countless other intelligent creatures, angels, observed the scene.

But somehow God didn't. Somehow God was away, he closed his eyes, turned off his omniscience or something.

The stability of all God's domaine would but be assured.

Implying there's a possible world, a possible state of affairs, where God's domaine, is not assured...somehow, even though we're talking about an all knowing all powerful God here.

[ttruscott]

QUESTION: Why didn't God destroy Satan immediately?

The parable of the good but sinful seed answers this question in a straightforward manner. The tares, the people of the evil one including the devil himself, must be allowed to live together with the sinful elect because the judgement would pull them up with the uprooting of the reprobate. Matt 13:29 “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest.

The harvest is the time of the maturity of the wheat and the only maturity that would save the good seed from their sin and guilt that makes them liable to the judgement is their maturity into righteous holiness. When the last unrepentant sinful but good seed repents unto perfect holiness, that is, accepting GOD's plans perfectly, then the judgement will happen, ushering in the heavenly communion.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 24 by JehovahsWitness]

A father isn't God, and men forget soon.
So this argument is sand without lime.

You've made an argument of perception, and the only way God could lose is if he is far weaker than you presume him to be.

By this argument, Satan has won, utterly and completely.

Well said.
Beyond just that though, DNA analysis points strongly to European Neanderthals and humans from Africa cross breeding. This would require either that Adam and Eve be dated very far back, before human mental attributes could reasonably be argued, or that the highly explanatory African origin model for Homo sapiens sapiens be rejected.

It seems that a literal Adam and Eve just never happened. It's a shame that we can't be sinners that deserve hell any longer because our great, great, greats.... ate from the wrong tree. Hopefully we can continue on as a race without this self loathing.

What will happen to the churches though as people start to realize that we are not sick (born deserving hell or whatever the denomination chooses to claim). Wont they stop buying the medicine that all the different churches are offering? Perhaps that is why Christianity has begun to decline in America and much of Europe already?