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?

[shnarkle]

The literal occurrence of miracles is not "as plentiful as dirt".

Sure they are; the bible is full of them

Oh so now they're literal all of a sudden?

Of course. They have to be for you cannot explain any of them. They can only be fanciful miraculous fairy tale stories. That is probably all they will ever be to you.

You're more concerned with extraneous nonsense than what the son of God is teaching.

Zooming in on this. Let's suppose for argument's sake that Jesus never performed a literal miracle. What reason would there be to believe he is the son of God?

There is no reason. As I pointed out already, reason isn't what determines reality. Reality is what determines reality. Until you are able to get in touch with reality you will never get in touch with reality.

Let me ask you this... suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

The bible is the work of " a bunch of poets telling stories". You say it like it's a bad thing; it isn't. Poets are inspired. You just see it as bad poetry; it isn't. You don't have the ability to recognize good poetry, or the value of poetry. You've already determined it to be worthless. For you, it is truly worthless.

You didn't even begin to answer my question. I'll ask again: Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

You aren't asking a coherent question. A metaphor that indicates what? You don't care what a metaphor is in the first place so you aren't even asking a legitimate question. A metaphor presents two literal things that are made equivalent by the verb or copula. The figure is contained exclusively in the copula itself, but you haven't defined what the two literal items are. You aren't asking a legitimate question. Just some vague idea of a question. It isn't up to me to fill in the blanks.

This is why I pointed out that you don't believe in any of this as being fruitful in the first place. It's just a bunch of poets telling stories to you. Fair enough. I'm not disputing the fact that you see this as worthless, but I can't answer a question that makes no sense to either one of us. You seem to think it makes sense to you, but you don't even understand what a metaphor is in the first place. Some how you got this idea into your head that if something is a metaphor or a parable that it must not have any historical reference to it. It's not what I would characterize as a compelling theory given that people point out historical events all the time and use them as parables to teach; sometimes they even use historical parables to teach history.

If Jesus never did anything supernatural at all, would you still think he's the literal son of God?

It depends on what you mean by literal.

I wasn't aware that "literal" had more than one meaning. Did Jesus literally come back from the dead? That is to say, did he as a person die, and then become alive again? I don't know how else to explain "literal" to you

You aren't explaining "literal" at all. There is literal as opposed to figurative. There is literal as opposed to factual, and there is literal as being synonymous with fact. I've already repeated myself ad nauseam. Look at what I've said. This is the most important thing to understand. Historical facts are useful for teaching things, but they are not the things themselves. Literature is also useful for teaching things, but they are not the things themselves. Reality can only be seen through the lens of reality itself. You aren't interested in reality at all, but simply in history. History is presented through the lens of the historian's interpretation of the historical events. Even history isn't really history, but an interpretation of history. This is why it is better to see the reality being referred to than simply trying to ascertain what actually happened through the lens of history.

Even if there is a bodily resurrection, the reality is much greater than the literal history.

It depends on what you mean by supernatural.

Things that are typically considered impossible, e.g walking on water, coming back from the dead, etc. Are you just trying to drag this out or do you actually not know what "literal" and "supernatural" means?

You seem to see them as mutually exclusive; I don't.

The narratives present him as the literal son of God

You are absolutely certain that the narrative considers Jesus the literal son of God, yet you are open to the possibility that all his miracles are non-literal?

No, I'm open to the deeper reality being conveyed by what literally happened.

- How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents him as the literal son of God?

Because there are no figures of speech being used when the text refers to him as the son of God. If you see one, which one do you see? There are literally hundreds to choose from. I've looked at all of them.

- How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents his miracles as non-literal events?

I didn't. They are presented as literal events. I'm simply concluding that they point to the deeper reality which is infinitely more important than what is being used to point to reality. In other words, you're obsessing over the finger that's doing the pointing. Christians do the same thing by obsessing over Jesus the person, rather than the reality of who Christ is.

And let's suppose for argument sake you're right... Suppose the narrative did consider him the literal son of God. Why would you believe the narrative?

Because I can see it's the truth.

If Jesus never did anything remotely supernatural, then why would you believe anyone who claimed he was the son of God?

Because it all make perfect sense. He's saying that when you deny yourself; you are freed from the bondage of a single solitary perspective. The world is no longer seen as you see it, but as it really is.

The Genesis account presents Adam as a son of God as well.

Wait so you believe Adam is a literal character?

In literary circles this must be the case. When reading literature, the characters are referred to as characters. So, yes. Adam is a literal character. Did he actually exist? Let's say he did. The deeper reality is much more important than the fact that he actually existed. What is the story telling us? It's telling us that man is made from the earth itself. It's telling us that when he dies the body is returned to dust. This is empirically verifiable. People scatter the ashes of their loved one's all the time. Are you going to obsess over the historicity or those stories as well?

Adam "walked with God". Perhaps this is telling us something else? Perhaps this is telling us about the first person to walk and talk with God. The first person to have a relationship with God. The first person to screw up that relationship with God. Those themes are all present in the story, and are quite a bit more compelling than whether or not some guy named Adam actually existed. Perhaps it was a guy just like him with the same name. Maybe it was Uhdumb. It makes no difference to the historical significance. The story gives him the name Adam indicating that he is made from the "adamah" i.e. the earth. He's dirt. You're dirt, and when you die you will return to dirt because that's as far as you can see. Some people see something else that is far deeper and significant than the historicity of the story.

Let's say that it isn't based on historical fact. Let's say that it is based on reality instead, and the author is presenting an allegory of reality. He is presenting these narratives to point to reality. Look at it either way, but look for what the author is pointing to, rather than what he's using as a pointer.

Super is not opposed to what is natural when it is supernatural.

Please can we keep this discussion to plain English? This sentence means nothing to me. I have no idea what this is supposed to be saying

Take the pieces separately then put them together. This isn't rocket science.

"Super:ADJECTIVE
informal
very good or pleasant; excellent:
"Julie was a super girl" · [more]

synonyms: excellent · superb · superlative · first-class · outstanding · [more]

(of a manufactured product) superfine:
"a super quality binder"
ADVERB
informal
especially; particularly:
"he's been super understanding"

natural: ADJECTIVE
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria" · [more]

of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something:"

The common definition gets it partly right with this:

"ADJECTIVE
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:"

When it is understood by scientific understanding, then it ceases to be seen as a miracle. This only changes how it is perceived; it doesn't negate the fact that it happened. More importantly it doesn't change the deeper reality in the slightest.

In other words, Jesus doesn't turn air into dirt, or cutlery into trees. He works within the natural order.

So from all appearances, he's just a guy. Then why do you think he's the son of God?

Because reality isn't determined by appearances, or one's thought process.

Jesus plainly points this out by saying: "not by observation".

There's no way you will ever be able to understand any of this because you first have to understand that there is something more to understand than a proof of the story's historicity. This is not what is required to understand what the stories are conveying. You seem to think this is a requirement; it isn't and it never will be.

Don't feel bad. Christians don't get it either. The vast majority will never understand any of this because Jesus plainly tells how one is to go about understanding this. The first thing one has to do is believe, walk in faith, and just to make things really fun, he says "sell all you have and give the money to the poor, then follow me". You see any Christians doing this lately? You think you'd like to give it a shot? Do you know that there is documented evidence of this happening, not just in the narratives in the Acts of the Apostles, but even today there are cases of people who have actually done this. Does the historical fact make any difference to you in the slightest? I suspect it makes no difference because you will never ever consider this as something you would willingly do in the first place.

[Justin108]

Of course. They have to be for you cannot explain any of them. They can only be fanciful miraculous fairy tale stories. That is probably all they will ever be to you.

So we've shifted from a serious discussion to sarcastic banter?

Zooming in on this. Let's suppose for argument's sake that Jesus never performed a literal miracle. What reason would there be to believe he is the son of God?

There is no reason.

Right. So we can wrap this conversation up then

As I pointed out already, reason isn't what determines reality. Reality is what determines reality.

Reason might not determine reality but it helps us discover it. Far more so than your musings about the poetic value of ancient scripture.

Until you are able to get in touch with reality you will never get in touch with reality.

Thanks for stating the glaringly obvious

You didn't even begin to answer my question. I'll ask again: Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

You aren't asking a coherent question.

Your lack of comprehension does not make my question incoherent.

You aren't asking a coherent question. A metaphor that indicates what? You don't care what a metaphor is in the first place so you aren't even asking a legitimate question. A metaphor presents two literal things that are made equivalent by the verb or copula. The figure is contained exclusively in the copula itself, but you haven't defined what the two literal items are. You aren't asking a legitimate question. Just some vague idea of a question. It isn't up to me to fill in the blanks.

And what metaphor could possibly be enough to indicate that the Bible did in fact come from God?

This is why I pointed out that you don't believe in any of this as being fruitful in the first place. It's just a bunch of poets telling stories to you.

What is it if it isn't just a bunch of poets telling stories? If everything about the Bible is non-literal, then what makes it any more divine than any other poetry book? Do you believe the Bible is divine? If so, why?

Fair enough. I'm not disputing the fact that you see this as worthless

I'm not saying it's worthless as a whole, I'm saying it's worthless in a discussion on metaphysics. When I talk about God, I talk about metaphysics. About reality. About the real, literal world. I don't see the point in metaphorical language when literal language is a hundred times more sufficient at communication. So please can we limit this discussion to literal matters?

but I can't answer a question that makes no sense to either one of us.

Ok since the word "metaphor" is what seems to have thrown you off... let me rephrase.

Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible never actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

You aren't explaining "literal" at all. There is literal as opposed to figurative. There is literal as opposed to factual, and there is literal as being synonymous with fact.

Why is it so damn impossible to get a simple answer out of you? Do you have to over-analyse every single word I use?

I honestly do not know how to make this question simpler. If I ask "did these miracles happen literally" I am asking whether or not they actually happened in the real world.

For example: did Jesus really die, and then after three days come back from the dead? I promise you I cannot ask this question in any simpler terms. I am at my wit's end.

I feel sorry for the people in your life if you cannot answer simple questions of this nature. If I asked you what you had for breakfast this morning, would you first ask me what I mean by "breakfast"? Would you ask me to define morning? It's as though you are new to the English language. Not everything needs a twelve-page analysis. It is an exceptionally simple question. If I ask "did Jesus come back from the dead after 3 days" I am asking in the simplest of terms whether or not Jesus died at one point and then after a period of 3 days, came back from the dead.

Can you please answer this question?

Even if there is a bodily resurrection, the reality is much greater than the literal history.

Ok I didn't ask you what your opinion is on what is greater and what is lesser. I simply asked you whether or not a bodily resurrection occurred. "The reality is much greater than the literal history" is answering a question no one asked

How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents him as the literal son of God?

Because there are no figures of speech being used when the text refers to him as the son of God.

Just because you didn't notice any figures of speech doesn't mean there aren't any. One could interpret "son of God" to simply be a figure of speech for "follower of God"

If you see one, which one do you see? There are literally hundreds to choose from. I've looked at all of them.

Ok you went from "because there are no figures of speech being used" to "there are literally hundreds to choose from"?

And let's suppose for argument sake you're right... Suppose the narrative did consider him the literal son of God. Why would you believe the narrative?

Because I can see it's the truth.

And how it it you know that what you see is in fact the truth? Or is this just a baseless assumption on your part?

If Jesus never did anything remotely supernatural, then why would you believe anyone who claimed he was the son of God?

Because it all make perfect sense. He's saying that when you deny yourself; you are freed from the bondage of a single solitary perspective. The world is no longer seen as you see it, but as it really is.

A lot of people have told me a lot of things that make perfect sense... should I now conclude that they are all the sons of God? You realize that someone (like Jesus) can give you some good advice and still just be a man?

How did you conclude that good advice = therefore, son of God? Can you please explain your though process to me?

Because reality isn't determined by appearances, or one's thought process.

Yet when you said that what Jesus said "made perfect sense", aren't you describing your own thought process? If something "makes sense", it means that your though processes conclude them to make sense. You cannot criticize reason and though without it becoming a self-defeating ideology

[OnceConvinced]

No, God is not the victim.

The bible teaches that when we sin, no matter what it is, we sin against God. It also teaches that the good we do to others, we do for God.

More strawman arguments. How about addressing the arguments that I actually present?

I am not making any strawman arguments. I am trying to cover all possible arguments here.

No, the idea of the sacrifice was to give up something so that you could earn your forgiveness

I don't know what you're talking about. Please elaborate where you're getting this from the text, or more importantly; from anything that I've posted.

I am trying to point out how it was in the old testament. When you sinned you had to make a sacrifice to God so that you could be forgiven. It wasn't God who paid the price. YOU did. You gave up the life of an unblemished sheep to pay for your transgressions.

When NT times came, God decides to provide a lamb that would take care of all those sacrifices once and for all. The lamb of God... Jesus was brought in. That lamb was killed instead. The lamb was to be the payment for the sins that YOU committed.

So it's still about the price YOU have to pay to be forgiven.

The idea was that something innocent had to pay the price for your sins. It PAID your price. It took the death you should have suffered.

I've got news for you; we're all gonna die.

According to the bible, once we die we get ripped out of our graves, resurrected, put on trial and then either admitted into heaven or killed a second time. The Lamb of God is there so that we can avoid the SECOND death, not the first one.

God masquerading as a sheep is not going to cut it. It would be going against the system that God set up to begin with. Sacrifices to HIM! So that HE would forgive you.

I'm not following. What are you talking about?

Are you aware of how the OT sacrifice system worked? If you understand that, you will understand how you are looking at the NT system wrong.

Tell me, what happens after say the sacrifice has been accepted. Let's say the rapist repents and is forgiven. He accepts Jesus's sacrifice on his behalf. What happens at this point?

Most likely nothing.

So no cleansing of sin? No new life? Nothing? He continues on with filthy sin in his soul?

What causes this rapist to now be cleansed and have eternal life?

According to the texts, God is the cause. God is the only one who can cleanse anyone, and the only one who will grant eternal life to someone.

AHHA! So GOD does the cleansing at this point, right? God steps in and ABRACADABRA we are cleansed of sin. We have new life.

How does Jesus's death on the cross affect this?

It doesn't, does it? Not directly. God decides to use his magical powers and cleanse us of our sins, which he could do without the need for Jesus to die.

So why the death of Jesus if it's not necessary? God is clearly not rendered impotent. So it can only mean that he simply refuses to cleanse you if you don't acknowledge Jesus's death. Jesus dying on the cross achieves absolutely nothing otherwise. Somehow the death of an innocent being, soothes the wrath of God.

God could chose to cleanse us without the need for Jesus's death, couldn't he? Jesus's death is actually redundant to the whole scenario of forgiveness. It's ALL up to God.

[OnceConvinced]

The logic is something like this: just as one bad apple can cast all the other apples in doubt (that they too are no good), so one good apple can restore the reputation of the others (that, in fact, they may be good).

That is what Jesus does. In steadfastness to the communal way of self-giving (for the salvation and life of others), though the worst possible death even, Jesus proves his worthiness to rule, and in the process restores the reputation of us all.

He redeems us or, as Paul puts it, justifies us. He justifies our existence and calling to rule the earth.

The only way we can share in this redemption is if we repent and acknowledge Christ as our redeemer. What happens then that redeems us? What metamorphosis occurs that takes us from being a good apple to a bad apple? How does this metamorphosis occur?

[rickmeist]

[quote

This Adamic sin means that no human could live forever and God wanted.....

Often an error I find when justifying any of God's actions as described in the bible. God is omnipotent and therefore could not 'want' anything.

to give obedient mankind the chance to live forever as per his original purpose.

If he had an 'original purpose' then something must have gone astray. How can the purpose of a perfect creator go astray?

For further explanation please consult video below (4"mins)

Surely no explanation is needed. If an all powerful creator God 'wants' to forgive his wayward humans then all he has to do is forgive them.

[JehovahsWitness]

God is omnipotent and therefore could not 'want' anything.
.

QUESTION Can an omnipotent God want anything?

There is no logical reason to conclude that having the power to do anything negates the desire to do anything. This is like saying billionaires never want to shop because they have too much money.



RELATED POSTS:

Can a perfect God have desires?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 829#797829

Can a lerfect7God have emotion?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 168#798168

[Justin108]

This is like saying billionaires never want to shop because they have too much money.

No this is like saying billionaires never want to shop because they already literally have anything (assuming the hypothetical billionaire already has everything). If the hypothetical billionaire already has everything, what would he shop for? "Want" implies a lack of something. What would a perfect entity lack?

[JehovahsWitness]

What would a perfect entity lack?

A perfect God would lack nothing, including an imagination. An Infinite imagination would mean infinite possibilities. The only thing that would signify a lack would therefore would be an inability to perceive or feel desire to explore those possibilities

Can a perfect God desire Anything?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 881#840881

[theophile]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

The logic is something like this: just as one bad apple can cast all the other apples in doubt (that they too are no good), so one good apple can restore the reputation of the others (that, in fact, they may be good).

That is what Jesus does. In steadfastness to the communal way of self-giving (for the salvation and life of others), through the worst possible death even, Jesus proves his worthiness to rule, and in the process restores the reputation of us all.

He redeems us or, as Paul puts it, justifies us. He justifies our existence and calling to rule the earth.

The only way we can share in this redemption is if we repent and acknowledge Christ as our redeemer. What happens then that redeems us? What metamorphosis occurs that takes us from being a good apple to a bad apple? How does this metamorphosis occur?

No, the redemption is automatic. You misunderstand.

Nothing takes us from being a good apple to a bad apple here. Rather, in finding one good apple in the batch, our faith and hope in the rest is restored. Or at least, we cannot deny that there is potential in the batch.

It does not make us good. What it does is makes it more likely for one to take another apple and give it a try... To give the batch another chance. To not destroy the batch outright (its existence being unjustified).

See? Automatic redemption. Just like the 10 good people in Sodom may have saved that whole batch if they were to be found.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 68 by Justin108]

I've always seen the bible as literature. As with any literature, I think there is a wealth of deeper / richer meaning possible once we leave literal behind. In fact, that's where the real value lies.

Factual literature or fictional literature?

As I said before, there is probably a kernel of historical truth throughout. But fictional for my purposes. I don't want to build any arguments that stand or fall on historical fact.

I wouldn't read Homer, for instance, and at any time think "literal."

Right, and I'm guessing you don't believe the gods homer believed in to actually exist. But this isn't true for the God of the Bible? Or is it? Do you believe in the Christian God? Do you believe Jesus was literally his son?

I believe that there is a theory or philosophy expressed by the stories that constitute the bible. I buy into that. And yes, the God that I see as part of it.

I do not buy into Homeric philosophy. Achilles, for instance, and his immortality through glory... I would evaluate it on the same terms however, i.e., the philosophy of it versus the literal truth of it. And I do think there is a tonne of philosophical truth in Homer. But you're right, I don't accept it like I do biblical philosophy. I don't think it penetrates quite as deep. At least insofar as I understand it.

Once I encounter clear evidence of story telling, that's it. Bye-bye literal.

And what is the "clear evidence of story telling" in the Gospels?

Umm, the visitation by angels. The nativity (is that Luke?) is pretty obvious. The miracles and parables already mentioned... The whole rising from the dead thing.

Do you think the author of Luke, for example, intended his Gospel to be understood as "just a story"? Or do you think the author of Luke intended the Gospel to be understood as factual claims?

I think that is a fascinating question. I honestly think they were engaging in a bit of both. Luke did live what, 100 or so years after Christ? So of course he's fabricating some of this stuff! He's above all trying to convey a philosophy, I think, and using Jesus' life story to do that. Story being a pretty awesome mode of communication. The philosophy is what is important though, not the details of the life story. Thus I would expect no less than that he manipulates it to serve that end as any good writer would.

Also, I would definitely not put it past Paul, for example, to do the same. He was a cunning man, who understood what was important. Not the factual details of someone's life, but getting the world to move in the direction Christ taught, and yes, perhaps overemphasizing certain things as fact in order to make the case more compelling.

Manipulative, yes. But hey, the ends justify the means here. And again, we need to look more at the truth he is conveying, i.e., the philosophy. Not the history. It's not like the "fake news" of today which is pure deception and for no good purpose.

For example, J.K Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series with the intention of having the readers knowingly reading fiction. No one thinks Rowling actually believed any of this happened.

Contrast this to a news article and the author is writing about something that (the author believed) actually happened. The author intends the readers to believe the writing to be literal events.

So is Luke like more like J.K Rowling? Or is Luke more like the author of the news article?

A bit of both. I don't think either quite hold though. It's not history, I don't think, that they are trying to convey (like the news article). Nor a world and story of pure imagination.

What is important for them more than the facts of the story is Jesus' teaching. It's the philosophy. That is what they need to get right, and convey to their readers.

So a better analogy would be:

What if there was a teacher you never met who had some really great ideas that you fully buy into the truth of but that the teacher never wrote down.

Yes, use that teacher's life story to convey the teaching. But the teaching is what matters and what needs to be conveyed. Not the facts of his life (Luke is not a biographer above all). Not a purely imaginative story such as Harry Potter.

I honestly don't think there was an historical Jesus who actually turned water into wine, raised the dead, fed thousands with next to nothing, etc.

Do you believe Jesus was the son of God? Or do you just think that Jesus was a normal human being?

This is a loaded question and I'd need to go into what it means to be the son of God. Do I think some literal God-Being somehow inseminated a woman who gave birth as a virgin to a man-God named Jesus? No. If there was an historical Jesus he was 100% a normal human being. But I do not think this precludes him (or any of us for that matter) from being the son of God...

So yeah, as a true Christian I (should) have no fear of death. Or better, I should have real hope in the resurrection.

By "the resurrection" do you mean an actual resurrection? Or is this just another metaphor of sorts? Do you believe in life after death?

Again, there is the story, which I take as story. And there is the philosophy. I believe in the philosophy, which yes, teaches literal resurrection. That is something to believe in.