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.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus's death was supposed to pay for the sin we inherited from Adam and Eve. And yet, we still have sin.

When will obedient humans enjoy the full benefits of the ransom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 010#854010

Can you tell me that once the flood was over, there was peace upon the Earth?

Can you tell me did God say that once the flood was over there would be "peace upon the Earth"?


RELATED POSTS

Why did God send a global flood?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 011#890011

Five Reasons for the global flood of Noah's day
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 813#874813

Why did God destroy the NEPHELIM?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 690#875690

[JehovahsWitness]

We are unrepentant because we are as genuine in our disbelief as you are genuine in your belief.

I am not here to judge you or anyone. If God sees someone will be willing to accept the ransom and change conforming their behaviour to divine standards once shown the error of their ways, then he will act accordingly. If God judges that this will not happen (or through conversations either face to face or online with Jehovah's Witnesses) that a person has been given ample opportunity to change he will judge them accordingly.

It is only for me to share the bible hope, everything else is in God's capable hands.

JW

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]

You know, it is incredibly frustrating, watching your conversations, and watching you only answer those questions you can with scripture, and ignoring everything else.

You know, it would nice to see you answering the things that are illogical and don't make sense:
Cherry-picking to avoid difficult issues is denial.
Scripture is not an authority on this forum.

Maybe you should consider a new religion, since you don't seem to b able to defend this one without ignoring the problems with it.

Zoroastrianism is nice, if you haven't considered it, and Buddhism doesn't practice warfare in the name of God. Two good reasons to jump ship.

Moderator Warning

Willum, address the content of the post. Do NOT talk about the writer of it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

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

It is senseless because:

1 The Jews already had a complete system of sin, repentance, sacrifice (not necessarily associated with the Temple), atonement and forgiveness.
In short, there was no "debt" that Judaism wasn't taking care of every day.

2 The Jewish view was that the Jewish God, Yahweh, promised the Jews that this system, and the covenant in which it was embedded, was to last forever, never to be destroyed or replaced.
Thus, the Jews did not need, and were not expecting, a Yahwistic change of mind where he would "change his mind" and renege on his promises by replacing Torah, Law, circumcision, atonement and Covenant with a new religion based on a human sacrifice (i.e., Paul's notion that Jesus's death made atonement for the world's sins).

3 Judaism also held that Yahweh had an eternal covenant with non-Jews ("Gentiles") which originated with Noah and was therefore called "the Noachide Covenant". This Rule only mandated devotion to Yahweh, abstention from idol-contaminated foods, sexual immorality, and a few other simple basics.

In the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus's brother James is portrayed as permitting Gentile converts to enter the Jesus movement under the Noachide stipulations, without needing to become full-fledged Jews. (Paul himself agreed to that, although he reneged later on, telling his Diaspora congregations that neither Jew nor Gentile need follow the Law or the Noachide Covenant - a scurrilous act for which the Judean disciples punished Paul - as told in Acts 21:20ff.)

4 It is clear, therefore, that Yahweh had, from ancient times, provided his own salvific plan of sin, repentance, sacrifice, atonement and forgiveness, which was to last forever and be binding upon Jews and Gentiles respectively.

5 And it is also clear that Judaism and its deity required no extra scheme of repentance, atonement, and forgiveness in addition to the one already established for all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike.

Because of this, the Jews never imagined that Yahweh would renege and destroy his own immortal system by making Paul's soteriology a new covenant and a new religion that was meant to displace Judaism.

This is plain from Jewish prophecies that never predict a Messiah who would topple the Law, the Covenant, circumcision, "the customs", etc. Rather, the Messiah would strengthen all of the above, and explicate Jewish scripture with an unprecedented power and authority - and not, like Jesus did, die young, killed by "unclean" Gentiles, failing to destroy Rome and to make Jerusalem a place of worship for all nations.

No: Judaism was, in its own eyes and in the eyes of its Gentile Noachides, a "forever-perfect" system provided by God himself. It had no room whatsoever for a "new" covenant based on Jesus's supposed atoning death, which would purportedly supersede Judaism.

6 Thus Paul's, John's (and later, Augustine's and Anselm's) insane notion - namely, that the Jewish Messiah appeared only in order to disenfranchise and replace the only religion ever founded by Yahweh - is as inept as it is anti-Judaic.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

How does Jesus's "sacrifice" make any kind of sense?

It doesn’t, especially from the basic understanding of the “standard� Christian theology. Yet, when we review the Old Testament’s difference between a “sacrifice� and “a free will offering,� the picture could become clearer.

The bible tells us that all humans will die, because of sin. Not only because of our own sins, but also because of the sins of others! This surely is a complicated topic, but it is reality. However, there was “one� that was the exception, the Christ. This human being did not sin, nor could sin be passed onto him, because of others. Hence, he did not earn the death penalty!

Thus, his death could not be labeled as a sacrifice…Why? Because, of the examples and laws, which are outlined in the O.T., which are related to this subject.

So, what the Christ actually did was give a “free will offering� to his Father. But, for what? This couldn’t be related to the sins of humans, because all have or will die. Therefore, we pay for our own sins by dying (one way or another)! Yet, death is a finality (unless the Great Creator intervenes), there is no going to heaven or a hell. When we die, we just cease to exist. However, the N.T. (the beginning of the new covenant) introduces the resurrections of the dead. So, the Christ gave a free-will offering (his right not to die physically) to his Father, so that most (who ever lived) will have the opportunity to be resurrected from the dead and then learn the true ways of God and accept God's ways, thus being saved from permanent nonexistence.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

Would Jesus need to "stay dead" for the Ransom to be valid?

Yes.

If someone transferred a sum of money into your bank account to pay off your mortgage, then it can be considered paid.
If they then did a reversal of that payment a few days later, the mortgage is no longer paid.
Believing that it was paid makes absolutely no difference to the status of the debt.

[rikuoamero]

JW on the topic of failures, I'd like to ask you a question.
Let's imagine a hypothetical world q. In q, God does what he does in Genesis. He creates the world, creates Eden, creates plants, animals and then Adam and Eve.
He also places the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden.

However, in q, A & E do not eat the fruit. They obey. They have progeny and descendents. IS it possible or even plausible for q to exist as an actual world, where NO-ONE eats the forbidden fruit? Where for uncountable trillions of years, literally no-one gives into temptation?

[Bust Nak]

God has promised to resurrect many (possibly millions) of people that may have died without having the opportunity to learn about Jesus and the RANSOM. They may have made bad choices out of ignorance. The wrongdoer that was executed next to Jesus would fall into this catagory. Evidently he may have lived a "evil" life, stealing and probably murdering, and found himself executed for his crimes. Jesus promised this man a RESURRECTION. Of course the man can no longer steal and murder but once resurrected he will be given an education that will enable him to make better life choices in the future.

The bolded bit seemed to have made it clear that most non-believing English speakers alive now, like myself, would not qualify since it's kinda hard to avoid learning about what the gospel says.

I'm not sure what you mean by judged as "temporarily wicked" if you mean it was judged that they may have acted wickedly but God reads their hearts and judges they will be willing to change when taught how, then yes absolutely. Of course, the Buddhist in your example will have to immediately abandon his Buddhism, accept Christ, cease any actions that are not acceptable under the new regime and live by Christian standards while progressing in genuine faith, but absolutely, yes, that is what the bible indicates will be on offer.

... but now you seems to saying that hearing the Gospel and rejecting it isn't automatically fatal...

The provision of the RESURRECTION is for people who, out of ignorance may have lived lives that are contrary to God's will.

... So the question is, by "ignorance" are you talking about someone who has never even heard of Jesus, or those like me who has know the message but ignorant the fact that message is indeed true?

I am not here to judge you or anyone. If God sees someone will be willing to accept the ransom and change conforming their behaviour to divine standards once shown the error of their ways, then he will act accordingly. If God judges that this will not happen (or through conversations either face to face or online with Jehovah's Witnesses) that a person has been given ample opportunity to change he will judge them accordingly.

Now it is sounding that knowing what the gospel says and rejecting it is enough to bar someone from resurrection. It's clear that ignorance of the message is a valid defense; but what about ignorance of the truth of the message?

From what you said here, there is an implication that hearing Jehovah Witnesses' witnessing, IS being shown the error of our ways, IS the ample opportunity to change our minds. By not believing you now, it indicate that it's not worth resurrected us after Harmageddon, since we still wouldn't change our minds then.

Surely that's not what you meant to imply?

[JehovahsWitness]

IS it possible or even plausible for q to exist as an actual world, where NO-ONE eats the forbidden fruit?

RESPONSE: The point isn't whether nobody would have eaten the fruit, the point is, "Is perfect integrity possible from ANYONE?"

The answer for that was provided by Jesus, who, despite every conceivable pressure, temptation and even torture remained perfectly faithful, thus proving that such a thing is possible. Even imperfect humans such as Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Joseph, Rahab, Ruth... Job! have played a part in providing an answer to the question of integrity. Although they couldn't provide a perfect example of integrity (since they weren't perfect) they did prove humans do not have to rebel against God's rulership. These men and women proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a human can live an entire life without ever once staking an open rebellion against God and willfully defying his sovereignty. And that was the point of the Tree.

ONCE IT IS PROVEN THAT INTEGRITY IS POSSIBLE; LACK OF INTEGRITY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TOLERATED

Going back to "Q-theory" where hypothetically nobody eats the fruit. That's fine, that would simply prove that people overwhelmingly display good sense and it was not necessary for anyone to shove their hand into a fire to see if its hot.

• Such a perfect record by everyone is of course possible but in the event that that proved not to be the case, as long as others exist to prove that that rebellion was not inevitable there would be no need to tolerate rebellion. The faithful humans would provide the evidence that rebellion was not an unavoidable part of human nature . If Adam and Eve had stayed faithful but Cain and Abel had not, we can speculate our ("our" as in the human family's) story would have been very different. In any case however God chose to deal with individual cases of rebellion, the human family would have had the start they deserved.
  
  The "problem" came that the rebellion was introduced with the first couple; Satan had 100% success with all humans on the planet, sure there were only two people alive at the time, but 100% is 100%. The implication being, "I got everyone on earth to rebel, and they were perfect, naturally all their weaker damaged children will be in the bag" . But God knew there would be Abrahams and Sarahs and Jacobs and Jobs, he knew there would be Jehovah's Witnesses, people that would prove Satan wrong, but to prove this he had to let them be born (see Prov 27:11).

CONCLUSION Is perfect integrity for all integrity possible. Thanks to Jesus (The Last Adam) and the faithful angels we can say such a thing is indeed possible. Had the "first" Adam past his test of integrity, there would be no reason to wait thousands of years for another man to be born in a little town just south of Jersualem to show us it could be done.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 79 by JehovahsWitness]

One man being "perfect" and never eating the forbidden fruit does not mean ALL humans are perfect. Is my world q plausible? Can it exist as an actual world where literally nobody gives into temptation or curiosity and eats the fruit?

Upon reading your full response, you have answered yes. That world can exist. I would have to ask you if you understand human nature at all. How can humans exist for uncountable trillions of years without at least one of them giving into temptation and curiosity? Eventually someone would just have to try the forbidden fruit.