"I forgive you but SOMEONE has to pay!"

[Elijah John]

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

[De Maria]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I'm assuming that you are referring to the fact that Jesus paid for the sins of the many.

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

There is something more at play here, than meets the eye. Remember what Jesus said to St. Peter:

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.�

And I think it ties back to Adam and Eve in the Garden. When man had it all, lived in Paradise, he abandoned God. But when man is in mortal danger and suffering, man desperately turns to God for salvation.

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

God's mercy requires justice. Notice that God only extends His mercy to those who are merciful.

James 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

A human lender generally does. This is why they generally require sureties for those who have no established credit.

God does not. Notice that in the instance of Christ, it is God who paid the price because man could not. We believe that Jesus is God.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 16 In the case of a will,[a] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

That is the point of the fact that Jesus died upon the Cross. God paid the price for us.

[Waterfall]

If someone lies about me, and they realise it, and ask me to forgive them, then I will forgive them and say...go and tell the truth about me. I have not lost anything because of your lying. You on the other hand lost something on the way...the truth about me, right?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 18 by shnarkle]

You explained your understanding of the whole ransom/payment theology. But I do not see how that answers the question, "how is mercy that demands payment still mercy"?

I may be talking past you. God doesn't demand payment. It just appears as a payment to those who are damned. When one sees the kingdom freely offered, it is impossible to resist it without throwing away one's own life. That's the "payment", but it's like tossing out your garbage AFTER you see the kingdom. Before you see the kingdom, it's like being asked to give away your prized possessions.

The gospels point out that there really is nothing more important to the damned than ourselves. Christ says, "deny yourself", and this is horrific to the ego. However, when the kingdom is revealed, the ego is seen for what it truly is, which is nothing but a silly idea. Psychology backs this up by pointing out that our identities are formed during infancy.

Think of it this way: The story tells us that Adam is created in God's image. So if you want to see what God looks like, you look at Adam. Adam gets this idea that he wants to be just like God, not knowing that he couldn't be more like God than he already is. This false idea creates a false identity which he, along with the rest of humanity continues to believe. We believe that we all have our own separate identities. We do have these identities, but they are still nothing but our own cherished ideas about ourselves.

Christ comes along and points out that these ideas need to be rejected, denied, given up, etc. He also points out that the body which is associated with these ideas is God's temple which is being abused due to these false ideas taking on a life of their own. The body is where God dwells, and it is his temple, not ours. This alone should be enough to point out that the body is not who we are, and therefore it is nothing to give it up. This alone isn't enough though. We can't do this ourselves because who we think we are is nothing but an idea, and ideas, even if they believe they have a life of their own, are still just ideas. Ideas can't do anything.

Christ comes along and not only tells us what's going on, but shows us how one denies themselves. The gospel narratives are simply illustrating the point that only someone who has completely denied themselves can see that they are the image of God; God's son.

What we see is a payment made, but this is only because we still haven't been born again. We haven't discovered the kingdom which is the prerequisite to being able to set aside our lives for Christ's sake.

The other reason it is a payment is because as Christ, he already has set aside his life, but he must take it all the way to show just how pointless it is to hold onto a physical body as if it is who he is. He isn't the body so he discards it as trash. He points out that he is in everyone. e.g. "Apart from me you can do nothing"; "whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me" etc.

He has to pay with "his life" to show that it isn't really his life at all. It's God's life. He can discard it as if on a whim because he isn't discarding anything at all.

[ttruscott]

I was not asking about the resurrection, I was asking about the existence of the original Adam, and how it would affect the whole "ransom" blood-atonement theology if he were only a myth.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is moot.
If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity is moot.

That is all.

GOD is not about ordering history for it to be understandable to all in later generations but for it to be a lesson to HIS people who hear HIS explanation about what it means in later generations. Faith, not proof.

[ttruscott]

But I do not see how that answers the question, "how is mercy that demands payment still mercy"?

The mercy is found in that the payment by Christ was not a necessity until GOD promised to save those who put their faith in HIM. Before the promise there was no obligation upon GOD to save any corrupt criminal sinner from eternal death...and it was a mercy that HE gave us the opportunity and methodology to be saved from our self chosen evil to enter eternal life.

When HE separated us as those who put their faith in HIM becoming HIS elect from those who refused to put their faith in HIM and so became condemned at that moment, HE had no obligation to save any elect who later chose to become evil in HIS sight from the same fate as the reprobate but in HIS loving mercy, HE did promise as part of the election package to save them from the eternal consequences of their choosing evil, from their foolishness in idolizing the satanic over HIM, by the work of The Son.

[William]

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

What is the thing which is being 'forgiven' and what determines if forgiveness has occurred, related to that?

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

What is 'payment'? Is it simply the cost of something? In that, regardless of 'forgiveness' or 'mercy' a 'price' still has to be paid?

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

See my question above. If the one who has loaned is able to write that off and not count it as a loss at all, is mercy still shown to the one who was in debt, but then forgiven the debt?

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

You are speaking of your Lord, YHWH? I do not get that impression based upon some/many of the stories attributed to that Lord. Some kind of 'payment' is always associated with offending him.

[myth-one.com]

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

Everlasting life is a Gift of God to those who choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior from the wages of their sin:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

No payment is required.

In fact, no amount of payment can buy everlasting life or salvation.

The only human to ever "earn" everlasting life under the Old Testament Covenant was Jesus.

But He will not accept His reward of everlasting spiritual life, but offer it to those who believeth in Him:

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

No payment.

[marco]

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is moot.
If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity is moot.

Christianity can healthily regard Adam as a a metaphor; the fruit he ate being symbolic of some wrong turn. The Resurrection - dead people rising into new life - is like the rebirth of knowledge. Can we find places where the dead have come to life - BUT WERE NOT REALLY DEAD? Of course! Take the prodigal son. "For this my son was dead, and is alive again." In the same way Christ has died but his message lives on.


The tale of Christ in the wilderness, entertaining Satan, is another metaphor. Of course we have no knowledge of direct speech when Christ was alone but we can understand that Christ fought with earthly temptations in the wilderness of his lonely contemplations and overcame them.


When Christianity depends on a real Adam, we have lost Christianity.

[shnarkle]

I was not asking about the resurrection, I was asking about the existence of the original Adam, and how it would affect the whole "ransom" blood-atonement theology if he were only a myth.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is moot.
If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity is moot.

Perhaps this is applicable to your brand of Christianity, but it certainly doesn't moot the truth of the myth. Faith isn't based upon history. It is based upon truth, and myths convey eternal truths. Adam and Eve don't have to be literal historical figures to convey truth. The text says that Adam was created from the "adamah", the earth, and we see that when a body dies it returns to the earth. It turns back into lifeless dust.

The story spotlights a silly idea that people get into their heads, i.e. identifying with the created body rather than reflecting God's image. We see where this leads today with identity politics. It's pure insanity.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

I'm not sure I can wrap my head around a God that needs or for that matter requires forgiveness. God does not require anything more than He is, otherwise he would be lacking, which is not God.
You can not hurt God, hurt his feelings, nor cause him to take your actions personally. God is good, not emotional. Our actions (known by him before we even act) do not change his goodness.
Why would he wait around for eternity for someone to ask or grant forgiveness?
In my mind forgiveness comes from a lack, it is not an optimal state of being, there fore God does not require it.