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?
What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #151
Can you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "antitype", why it is absolutely necessary and how it is anything more than just more artistic symbolism?ttruscott wrote:Read it again hey? The first passover was the symbol (type) and provides the meaning of the second passover (the antitype), HIS death.Justin108 wrote: 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.
Your strawhorse just died...
I did a quick search on the term "antitype" and I got this:
antitype
ˈantɪtʌɪp/
noun
1.
a person or thing that represents the opposite of someone or something else.
"the antitype of female virtue"
2.
something that is represented by a symbol.
So it looks like the "antitype" is nothing but more symbolism... which means my "strawman" as you put it is still very much alive.
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #152
Justin108 wrote:So it looks like the "antitype" is nothing but more symbolism...
The Antitype the real thing fulfillment which the (often prophetic) symbol points to.Three Old Testament Types/Antitypes of the blood of Christ
The antitype is the real thing. The type is an image of the antitype. The hammer on an old typewriter, was the antitype. When this hammer hit the paper through the ink ribbon, it left an image of the antitype. This image is called the "type". When you pulled out the paper, the letters were mere type images of the original antitype.
For example, the incense of the Old Testament tabernacle in the Holy Place was an type of the prayers (the antitype) of the saints. Revelation 5:8. The symbol was the physical incense, the real meaning was literal prayer.
The skin coats in the garden is the type for the antitype, Christ's crucifixion, the real time fulfillment of their prophetic meaning.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #153
Ok so it is nothing but symbolism then? But when I called it symbolism, you called my claim a strawman? How is it a strawman?ttruscott wrote:Justin108 wrote:So it looks like the "antitype" is nothing but more symbolism...The Antitype the real thing fulfillment which the (often prophetic) symbol points to.Three Old Testament Types/Antitypes of the blood of Christ
The antitype is the real thing. The type is an image of the antitype. The hammer on an old typewriter, was the antitype. When this hammer hit the paper through the ink ribbon, it left an image of the antitype. This image is called the "type". When you pulled out the paper, the letters were mere type images of the original antitype.
For example, the incense of the Old Testament tabernacle in the Holy Place was an type of the prayers (the antitype) of the saints. Revelation 5:8. The symbol was the physical incense, the real meaning was literal prayer.
The skin coats in the garden is the type for the antitype, Christ's crucifixion, the real time fulfillment of their prophetic meaning.
Post #154
[quote="earl"]
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.
***We can not blame satan for the choices we make. Man has been created with free-will which means that we shall be making good and bad choices.
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.
***Jesus knew everything that awaited Him 'for this purpose I came into the world'.
He endured countless humiliation, temptation, each time He overcame them He freed Himself from the human traits He inherited through mother Mary. Crucifiction was the final temptation which he chose to endure and without which there would not have been ressurection, no powers to evercome evil - satan, no everlasting life.
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?
***Does Paul actually says, first man? Your proof that men existed before Adam is interesting; that would have been loooong time ago...
Would they benefit from Jesus crucifction, we don't know. They might have been people of the Golden Age, celestial.
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.
***We can not blame satan for the choices we make. Man has been created with free-will which means that we shall be making good and bad choices.
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.
***Jesus knew everything that awaited Him 'for this purpose I came into the world'.
He endured countless humiliation, temptation, each time He overcame them He freed Himself from the human traits He inherited through mother Mary. Crucifiction was the final temptation which he chose to endure and without which there would not have been ressurection, no powers to evercome evil - satan, no everlasting life.
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?
***Does Paul actually says, first man? Your proof that men existed before Adam is interesting; that would have been loooong time ago...
Would they benefit from Jesus crucifction, we don't know. They might have been people of the Golden Age, celestial.
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #155
Read what I wrote. It is not all symbolism....so it is a strawdog argument that has no bite. I'm done - you do not seem to be able to follow.Justin108 wrote:Ok so it is nothing but symbolism then? But when I called it symbolism, you called my claim a strawman? How is it a strawman?ttruscott wrote:Justin108 wrote:So it looks like the "antitype" is nothing but more symbolism...The Antitype the real thing fulfillment which the (often prophetic) symbol points to.Three Old Testament Types/Antitypes of the blood of Christ
The antitype is the real thing. The type is an image of the antitype. The hammer on an old typewriter, was the antitype. When this hammer hit the paper through the ink ribbon, it left an image of the antitype. This image is called the "type". When you pulled out the paper, the letters were mere type images of the original antitype.
For example, the incense of the Old Testament tabernacle in the Holy Place was an type of the prayers (the antitype) of the saints. Revelation 5:8. The symbol was the physical incense, the real meaning was literal prayer.
The skin coats in the garden is the type for the antitype, Christ's crucifixion, the real time fulfillment of their prophetic meaning.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #156
[Replying to post 154 by Monta]
Many Christians hold with what is called the "penal-substitutionary theory of teh Atonement." This is not the only of teh Atonement, in Christendom, but it is very popular.
Accordingly, God was in a major dilemma, a house divided against itself. God wanted to punish everyone for their sins, meaning all are Hell bound, but God also wanted to forgive. So, as a house divided against itself, one part of God is calling for blood revenge, horrible punishment, whereas the other is calling for mercy, forgiveness, remission of punishment. God "resolved" the conflict by taking out his vengeance on his own Son. Christ was a kind of whipping boy. Punish min, take it out on him, him, so that others don't have to take that punishment. By "others," I mean the lucky reprobate or the elect, those predestined to eternal salvation. They are just as guilty as the rest of the reprobate, the vast majority of humanity, but via God taking it all out on his Son, God saw fit to give that small number of persons, the elect, a break, give them something they didn't deserve, salvation, Heaven. The reprobate, the vast majority of humans get what they deserve, eternal damnation.
On my end of it, this theory is contradictory and most unjust. Forgiveness, at a minimum, means remission of punishment. Hence, it presents God as a contradiction unto himself. Also the whipping-boy idea, popular though it was in the Middle Ages, is most unjust. Plus, the whole notion that only a very limited number of persons are forgiven also seems unjust, makes God appear a hypocrite. So I reject this theory of teh Atonement completely.
I add that it is not the earliest theory of the Atonement. The oldest is probably what is called the "classical theory of teh Atonement." It woks much differently.
Accordingly, Satan has a right to rule the world, because people have gone for him, voted him in, so to speak. God is unhappy about that. However, God recognizes Satan's legitimate claim to all souls. There is a hitch, however. Satan has the right to have everyone, provided they all surrender to him. The minute Satan tries to swallow up an innocent man, he's out of business. Hence, Christ appeared as the innocent one. The Cross represents the fact Satan tried to swallow him up, drag him into Hell. However, as I just pointed out, that meant Santa broke the rules and therefore had to stand down and release all souls.
I don't hold with either theory. I have my own. However, at present, I'm focused on traditional Christian view of teh Atonement.
Many Christians hold with what is called the "penal-substitutionary theory of teh Atonement." This is not the only of teh Atonement, in Christendom, but it is very popular.
Accordingly, God was in a major dilemma, a house divided against itself. God wanted to punish everyone for their sins, meaning all are Hell bound, but God also wanted to forgive. So, as a house divided against itself, one part of God is calling for blood revenge, horrible punishment, whereas the other is calling for mercy, forgiveness, remission of punishment. God "resolved" the conflict by taking out his vengeance on his own Son. Christ was a kind of whipping boy. Punish min, take it out on him, him, so that others don't have to take that punishment. By "others," I mean the lucky reprobate or the elect, those predestined to eternal salvation. They are just as guilty as the rest of the reprobate, the vast majority of humanity, but via God taking it all out on his Son, God saw fit to give that small number of persons, the elect, a break, give them something they didn't deserve, salvation, Heaven. The reprobate, the vast majority of humans get what they deserve, eternal damnation.
On my end of it, this theory is contradictory and most unjust. Forgiveness, at a minimum, means remission of punishment. Hence, it presents God as a contradiction unto himself. Also the whipping-boy idea, popular though it was in the Middle Ages, is most unjust. Plus, the whole notion that only a very limited number of persons are forgiven also seems unjust, makes God appear a hypocrite. So I reject this theory of teh Atonement completely.
I add that it is not the earliest theory of the Atonement. The oldest is probably what is called the "classical theory of teh Atonement." It woks much differently.
Accordingly, Satan has a right to rule the world, because people have gone for him, voted him in, so to speak. God is unhappy about that. However, God recognizes Satan's legitimate claim to all souls. There is a hitch, however. Satan has the right to have everyone, provided they all surrender to him. The minute Satan tries to swallow up an innocent man, he's out of business. Hence, Christ appeared as the innocent one. The Cross represents the fact Satan tried to swallow him up, drag him into Hell. However, as I just pointed out, that meant Santa broke the rules and therefore had to stand down and release all souls.
I don't hold with either theory. I have my own. However, at present, I'm focused on traditional Christian view of teh Atonement.
Post #157
[Replying to post 156 by hoghead1]
"Accordingly, God was in a major dilemma, a house divided against itself. God wanted to punish everyone for their sins, meaning all are Hell bound, but God also wanted to forgive. So, as a house divided against itself, one part of God is calling for blood revenge, horrible punishment, whereas the other is calling for mercy, forgiveness, remission of punishment. God "resolved" the conflict by taking out his vengeance on his o..."
This is 21st century.
"Accordingly, God was in a major dilemma, a house divided against itself. God wanted to punish everyone for their sins, meaning all are Hell bound, but God also wanted to forgive. So, as a house divided against itself, one part of God is calling for blood revenge, horrible punishment, whereas the other is calling for mercy, forgiveness, remission of punishment. God "resolved" the conflict by taking out his vengeance on his o..."
This is 21st century.
Post #158
[Replying to post 157 by Monta]
Many of the criticisms I brought up were introduced before the 21 century, however.
Many of the criticisms I brought up were introduced before the 21 century, however.
Post #159
You keep saying Christ is the antitype without explaining what an antitype is and why it is necessary. I looked it up and the definition I found defines it as a symbol. You disagree. You tell me "it is a real thing" but that doesn't really explain what it is? Most things are real things...ttruscott wrote:Read what I wrote. It is not all symbolism....so it is a strawdog argument that has no bite. I'm done - you do not seem to be able to follow.Justin108 wrote:Ok so it is nothing but symbolism then? But when I called it symbolism, you called my claim a strawman? How is it a strawman?ttruscott wrote:Justin108 wrote:So it looks like the "antitype" is nothing but more symbolism...The Antitype the real thing fulfillment which the (often prophetic) symbol points to.Three Old Testament Types/Antitypes of the blood of Christ
The antitype is the real thing. The type is an image of the antitype. The hammer on an old typewriter, was the antitype. When this hammer hit the paper through the ink ribbon, it left an image of the antitype. This image is called the "type". When you pulled out the paper, the letters were mere type images of the original antitype.
For example, the incense of the Old Testament tabernacle in the Holy Place was an type of the prayers (the antitype) of the saints. Revelation 5:8. The symbol was the physical incense, the real meaning was literal prayer.
The skin coats in the garden is the type for the antitype, Christ's crucifixion, the real time fulfillment of their prophetic meaning.
So to an absolute layman, would you please explain the concept of an antitype and why it was absolutely necessary for our salvation?
