What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

[Justin108]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it. They try, but once I give my rebuttal to their attempts, they eventually stop replying. Hopefully I can get an answer this time.

Note: This topic is specifically for Christians who believe Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven.

This is arguably the core of the Christian faith that Jesus died for our sins and made it possible for us to live for eternity in heaven... but why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

If god is satisfied by punishment without guilt (Jesus), why is he not satisfied with guilt without punishment?

[theophile]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

There's an awful lot of imagining going on here!

There is nothing per se that stops imagination from being a fruitful way of thinking about our world and our role in it. Let's not diminish it's power please.

I still seems to me that Jesus never needed to die in any of this to work. Your system seems to describe a very limited and repressed god.

Seems? Be concrete please, or else don't harp on me for using my imagination. Also, I never said Jesus "needs" to die, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from or how you're concluding it's a "limited and repressed god."

[ttruscott]

The blood of the passover lamb had to 'cover' the Israelites houses so the angel of destruction would pass them over.

Houses - life.
Angel of destruction - GOD's justice against all who are not covered by the blood.
The blood of the Lamb - that which covers elect sinners so the angel of destruction passes them over (forgiveness) and GOD can start HIS work of redemption in them.

Jesus offered His own blood to cover the elect sinners so they could be forgiven (taken out of the line up for HIS just judgment) and redeemed.

[Justin108]

The blood of the passover lamb had to 'cover' the Israelites houses so the angel of destruction would pass them over.

You'd think God would be able to let the angel know which houses to pass over without the residents actually providing the don't-kill-us instructions.

Houses - life.
Angel of destruction - GOD's justice against all who are not covered by the blood.
The blood of the Lamb - that which covers elect sinners so the angel of destruction passes them over (forgiveness) and GOD can start HIS work of redemption in them.

Jesus offered His own blood to cover the elect sinners so they could be forgiven (taken out of the line up for HIS just judgment) and redeemed.

So Jesus underwent a torturous death just so he can be artistic? This is not an explanation for why Jesus had to die. This might be an explanation for the symbolism behind it all, but what reason was there for Jesus to be symbolic in this instance? This would be about as sensible as me and my bride drinking poison on our wedding day in reference to Romeo and Juliette. Sure it would be symbolic and potentially romantic, but it serves no actual purpose.

[Willum]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it.

I have asked it several times too. Nobody can seem to come up with any reasoning on why an all-powerful god would require the slaughter of an innocent being or animal before he was able or willing to forgive.

It seems that this god must DESIRE the death of an innocent being. He made the rule because he has a desire for blood to be spilt.

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

It does seem that the only reason that a blood sacrifice of an innocent being is needed is because God set the rule. After all God could surely forgive without the need for blood to be spilt. If God did set this rule in place... ie it was not something he was forced to do, then the question would be why did he establish that rule? The only reason I could see would be because he desired a barbaric way of dealing with the problem of sin. He got some kind of pleasure out of that rule.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

There is no way that it can be just for an innocent man to pay the price for our abominations, even if that man volunteered to do so. It is a complete injustice if a criminal gets off scot free while an innocent person pays for his/her crimes.

It is NOT good news that an innocent man has paid the price for all the atrocities of evil people in this world.

Imagine if Adolf Hitler had been put on trial and some Jew came along and offered to be executed for Adolf, imagine the outrage if the judge said "Ok." Just because someone pays the price does not make it justice. Nor should it appease any rational and caring judge if an innocent man comes forward to take the punishment.

I actually wonder how Christians can look at themselves in the mirror knowing that an innocent man took the punishment for their atrocities. Surely it would be more honourable to stand up in front of God and say "I did those things. I should suffer the consequences. It's completely immoral for Jesus to suffer on my behalf."

I would think that a rational god would be more impressed with that honesty and willingness to take responsibility for ones actions, over someone who is trying to avoid responsibility by accepting the sacrifice of an innocent man.

User, 'Divine Insight,' provided some divine insight into the post:
When do we accept God's utter defeat?, the premise of which is to assume the physical details of the Bible are true (talking snakes, etc.) but that the words and promises might be wrong -

DI said, to paraphrase for this OP:

Since it was clear Satan has been defeating God since "the Word" was first spoken, it is clear that Satan required a sacrifice to save even the smallest amount of people from him.

DI said, God was so defeated by Satan, God had to give up his only son, and even then he was only able to save the 144,000, or in any case a fraction of humanity from Satan's victory.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 143 by Justin108]


"So Jesus underwent a torturous death just so he can be artistic? This is not an explanation for why Jesus had to die. This might be an explanation for the symbolism behind it all, but what reason was there for Jesus to be symbolic in this instance? This would be about as sensible as me and my bride drinking poison on our wedding day in reference to Romeo and Juliette. Sure it would be symbolic and potentially romantic, but it serves no actual purpose."

Unless you study science, you'll never become scientist; likewise don't expect to understand spiritual realities unless you read and sudy the books that talk about it.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 143 by Justin108]


"So Jesus underwent a torturous death just so he can be artistic? This is not an explanation for why Jesus had to die. This might be an explanation for the symbolism behind it all, but what reason was there for Jesus to be symbolic in this instance? This would be about as sensible as me and my bride drinking poison on our wedding day in reference to Romeo and Juliette. Sure it would be symbolic and potentially romantic, but it serves no actual purpose."

Unless you study science, you'll never become scientist; likewise don't expect to understand spiritual realities unless you read and sudy the books that talk about it.

That's why I'm here asking questions about it - in order to understand. But the explanation that Ted proposes is that Jesus did it for the sake of symbolism, which is utterly pointless. If Jesus sacrificed himself solely for the sake of symbolism then he's no different from an art student cutting off his own arm for an art exhibit. Would you consider this art student's act as necessary? Or pointlessly symbolic?

[earl]

We must be reminded that It was Paul who taught "my gospel"a gospel partly based on Jesus gospel.
Paul's developed the atonement doctrine ,based on a biblical perspective, based on the reason as to why Jesus could save others from dying but did not come down from the cross to save himself from dying.The bible mentions this attitude of on lookers who said this.
Paul filled in the blank in his mind when he could not figure it out.
Scapegoating was another popular method also then .
1. The crucifixion does not show the character and manner of Spirit that God is.The personality that we know as God is nothing like the personality named Jesus who Jesus represented,My Father and I are one.Every one even today are still in wonder as to why Jesus did not come down from the cross.
2.There is no such thing as sin transference.Everyone is responsible for their own sins.No one can assume another's sin by birth or inherit them.
Common sense and perfect judgement shows that if Satan is the cause for world trouble then Satan should be crucified not Jesus only after a proper trial.
3.Because no one biblically knows why Jesus did not come down from the cross it is poor judgement to fill in the blank with something such as the atonement doctrines.
4.Paul states the first man ,Adam sinned and this is where we are today.
Well I have biblical proof that there existed man before Adam so what is their condition?Did they need saving by the cross?

[ttruscott]

That's why I'm here asking questions about it - in order to understand. But the explanation that Ted proposes is that Jesus did it for the sake of symbolism, which is utterly pointless.

Read it again hey? The first passover was the symbol (type) and provides the meaning of the second passover (the antitype), HIS death.

Your strawhorse just died...

[ttruscott]

Since it was clear Satan has been defeating God since "the Word" was first spoken, it is clear that Satan required a sacrifice to save even the smallest amount of people from him.

The second thing Christ achieved by His death is found in Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Origen did no one a service when he understood this to mean Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan which is pretty hard to argue though it is often used as a blunt object (no finesse at all) to beat Christians down). Ransom does mean "the payment to free a slave" so we must look there:
John 8:34 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Does sin here refer to an addiction to sin as I contend or to Satan, the god of sin? Even Deuteronomy 5: 15 which reminded the Israelites to remember being a slave in Egypt is to be read with Egypt symbolizing our sinfulness, our addiction to evil and not as personifying Satan.

Nowhere can I find it said we are slaves to Satan, only that he uses our addiction to keep us in the world. Rom 6. Therefore the ransom mentioned must be a legal fulfilment of the requirement to make His elect sinners free from their addiction to evil as well as to fulfill the legal requirements that there is no forgiveness without blood.

The crucifixion did two things: It broke our addiction to evil (called a ransom) and it paid the requirement of blood to free us from the legal consequences of our evil as forgiven.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 149 by ttruscott]

Huh? I am with a hand tied behind my back speaking for DI, but it makes perfect sense, if you ignore the CLAIMS and SAY-SOs of the Bible.

Obviously Satan defeated God in the Garden, and there was nothing God could do about it but remove the evil, which we are taught pains him, from himself.

He spends the next 8,000 years trying to salvage something, constantly thwarted by Satan's influence, unable to prevent evil, God is constantly forced to retreat, losing man, cities, eventually the entire world before he has to settle for the pathetic remains of humanity that was Noah and sons.

Even then, with such a small population, God was unable to instill goodness in man and resorted to negotiating with Satan, saying he would sacrifice his son if Satan would just give him a tiny fraction of humanity.

And that seems to be a very logical explanation for the crucifixion. A desperate God, virtually helpless in the face of Satan, gives up his son for humanity.