Could God have removed original sin without Jesus?

[Justin108]

Considering the variety of denominations and interpretations on this site, there is obviously a diversity of opinion regarding Jesus' role and purpose. With that in mind, I will try to phrase my questions to be as inclusive as possible and to welcome the perspective of various different denominations, whether you believe in original sin or not.

1. What was Jesus' purpose on earth?

2. Could God have achieved Jesus' purpose without Jesus?
- if you believe in original sin, was Jesus absolutely necessary in defeating/removing original sin? Could God have defeated/removed original sin without Jesus' life/death?

3. If your answer to 2 is "God could not have defeated sin without Jesus", would this not suggest a lack of omnipotence?

4. Expecting some to answer 3 with "God chose to sacrifice Jesus as a means to uphold justice", can you perhaps demonstrate how sacrificing an innocent man in order to pay for the sins of a guilty man can ever be considered "justice"?

5. Expecting some to answer 4 with "Jesus paid the ransom/debt wit his life", can you perhaps explain why a good God would demand death as a ransom? Is this any different from a corrupt ruler demanding the head of his enemy? Is it not worse considering the fact that God seems content with the death of an innocent man to pay this ransom? Worst of all, the death of his own son? If a man broke a law and his king responded by stating that "I will forgive you your crime if my son hangs himself", would you not think this king is mad?

[ttruscott]

2. Could God have achieved Jesus' purpose without Jesus?

The Christian answer is that GOD runs HIS methodology at the highest game level of loving righteousness available...therefore even if HE might have achieved HIS purpose some other unproven way, by giving this way HIS stamp of approval, He was declaring it is the best way possible.

[rikuoamero]

2. Could God have achieved Jesus' purpose without Jesus?

The Christian answer is that GOD runs HIS methodology at the highest game level of loving righteousness available...therefore even if HE might have achieved HIS purpose some other unproven way, by giving this way HIS stamp of approval, He was declaring it is the best way possible.

So it's the 'best' way not because it actually is the best, but merely because it's declared as the best by the guy with the big stick.
Gotcha.

[bluethread]

1. What was Jesus' purpose on earth?

I hope you don't mind me quoting the Apostolic Writings. After all, that is where we get most of the information regarding Yeshua.

Phil. 2:6-8 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

It is my belief that this was His purpose, to provide us with a living example of how Adonai's people should live.

2. Could God have achieved Jesus' purpose without Jesus?
- if you believe in original sin, was Jesus absolutely necessary in defeating/removing original sin? Could God have defeated/removed original sin without Jesus' life/death?

Well, the removal of sin is by grace through faith in Adonai. Various means of communicating and effecting that were employed, direct communication, the establishment of a nation to provide an example both literally and figuratively, social interaction within that framework, a federal system within that framework, the challenge of maintaining that framework under adverse conditions and, finally, by taking the likeness of a man.

3. If your answer to 2 is "God could not have defeated sin without Jesus", would this not suggest a lack of omnipotence?

Well, one can decide a football game by the simple flip of a coin, but where is the fun in that?

4. Expecting some to answer 3 with "God chose to sacrifice Jesus as a means to uphold justice", can you perhaps demonstrate how sacrificing an innocent man in order to pay for the sins of a guilty man can ever be considered "justice"?

This is an interesting argument. The problem is that it presumes "justice" to be an absolute. However, it is really the balancing of one principle against another. That is why lady Justice holds a set of scales. This requires a system that establishes the value(or weight) of things. In the Scriptures HaTorah is that system. So, even though many might find Yeshua living a sacrificial life unto death unjust based on their value system, it is just when weighted on the scales of HaTorah.

5. Expecting some to answer 4 with "Jesus paid the ransom/debt wit his life", can you perhaps explain why a good God would demand death as a ransom? Is this any different from a corrupt ruler demanding the head of his enemy? Is it not worse considering the fact that God seems content with the death of an innocent man to pay this ransom? Worst of all, the death of his own son? If a man broke a law and his king responded by stating that "I will forgive you your crime if my son hangs himself", would you not think this king is mad?

Well, you are making several presumptions here, primarily based on modern western egalitarian humanist philosophy. A proper explanation requires the use of an eastern symbiotic humanitarian philosophy. The differences in these two world views are many and varied, so one can not just simply explain the one using the terms of the other. One must set aside the one view and go back to basic principles and work out from there.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

JUSTICE

The justice of the ransom is not in the ransom but in what it achieved. Justice means that which is right and fair. Adam brought about an unfair situation, that of his children being condemned to die through no fault of her own. God's justice then would be to repair that situation, restore the balance God intended.

LOVE

The issue involved in dying for someone else is an issue of love not justice. Anyone that is a parent knows that in a heartbeat they would lay down their own lives to protect the life of their child; is that "justice" as if the parent (or the child) deserved to die? No, it is what absolute love compels a person to do.

So the situation, the problem came about because of Adam's selfish act creating innocent victims; justice demanded that that situation be rectified. The sacrifice to save those victims was motivated by love, the justice would be rendered by the result of that sacrifice (see John 3:16).



JW

[Justin108]

2. Could God have achieved Jesus' purpose without Jesus?

The Christian answer is that GOD runs HIS methodology at the highest game level of loving righteousness available...therefore even if HE might have achieved HIS purpose some other unproven way, by giving this way HIS stamp of approval, He was declaring it is the best way possible.

So you can't actually demonstrate why it's the best, you just assume it is? Is that why you chose to ignore my other 4 questions? Because you can't answer them?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

JUSTICE

The justice of the ransom is not in the ransom but in what it achieved.

As already asked in my OP, is it possible to have achieved this without paying the ransom? If all that matters is what is achieved and if God is omnipotent then surely he can achieve it without the ransom?

Justice means that which is right and fair.

How is an innocent man dying for the sins of guilty men right and fair?

Adam brought about an unfair situation

And then God responded with an unfair solution. Do two wrongs make a right to God?

that of his children being condemned to die through no fault of her own.

Aside from the fact that God could surely have designed a system of inheritance that excluded inheriting sin, why is Jesus' death a solution to this? Could God not solve the problem without Jesus? There is a reason I specified 5 questions separately. I was hoping to avoid the kind of indirect answers you're giving me. Can you perhaps answer the 5 questions individually?

God's justice then would be to repair that situation, restore the balance God intended.

Earlier you defined justice as "right and fair". Can you please explain how Jesus' death is right and fair?

LOVE

The issue involved in dying for someone else is an issue of love not justice.

The only time dying for someone is an indication of love is when dying is necessary. If I died in a fire after rescuing someone from a burning building, then I died for love. However, if I just killed myself, then I died for no reason. It is not for love. I see no reason why God could not have solved the problem of original sin without Jesus needing to die. Jesus is not like the man running into a burning building and dying as a result because God, being omnipotent, could have rescued the person from the burning building without anyone dying in the process. Similarly, God can end original sin without anyone dying in the process.

Anyone that is a parent knows that in a heartbeat they would lay down their own lives to protect the life of their child; is that "justice" as if the parent (or the child) deserved to die?

A parent would lay down their own lives to save the child only if it was necessary. If you had a way to save your child without sacrificing your own life, then obviously you would do that.

For example:
Suppose you were on a ship with your child. The ship is sinking. There is a lifeboat. Both you and the child can comfortably fit in the lifeboat. What do you do?
a) Put the child in the lifeboat and sacrifice yourself by drowning?
b) Put the child in the lifeboat and then get into the lifeboat as well?

If someone chose a), it would not be out of love, it would be out of stupidity.

So with that in mind, how is Jesus' sacrifice a sign of love when the same thing could be achieved without Jesus dying?

So the situation, the problem came about because of Adam's selfish act creating innocent victims; justice demanded that that situation be rectified. The sacrifice to save those victims was motivated by love, the justice would be rendered by the result of that sacrifice (see John 3:16).

I'm not asking what motivated it, I'm asking why the solution was necessary?

For example:
Suppose you're in the woods with your child. Your child is getting cold. There is a pile of wood lying around. Instead of starting a fire with the wood, you decide to set yourself on fire and lie on the floor so that your child can get warmer.

So the situation looks like this...
Problem: child is cold
Solution: set yourself on fire

The question here is not what motivated the parent to set himself on fire. The motivation was the child getting cold. The question here is why the parent chose to set himself on fire rather than just use the wood that was available.

Problem: child is cold
Solution 1: set yourself on fire
Solution 2: set the wood on fire

The obvious solution is Solution 2. Similarly

Problem: original sin
Solution 1: sacrifice Jesus to end original sin
Solution 2: just end original sin because God is omnipotent and does not need to sacrifice Jesus

Please explain why God chose Solution 1?

[Willum]

Scenario:
God sends the flood to Earth after Adam and Eve take the bite of the apple.
He starts over, and doesn't screw it up this time.
We all live happily ever after.

The Beginning.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm not asking what motivated it, I'm asking why the solution was necessary?

Possibly but the point I was addressing is...

... how sacrificing an innocent man in order to pay for the sins of a guilty man can ever be considered "justice"?

My point was that the premise of the question was bibically faulty because it is the rectificaton that brings about justice. The sacrifice was not for the guilty it was to save the innocent and that sacrifice would be a demonstration of LOVE.

Love in action creates justice.


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

The sacrifice was not for the guilty it was to save the innocent and that sacrifice would be a demonstration of LOVE.

To answer for Justin, this does not solve the dilemma he posed earlier

I'm not asking what motivated it, I'm asking why the solution was necessary?

For example:
Suppose you're in the woods with your child. Your child is getting cold. There is a pile of wood lying around. Instead of starting a fire with the wood, you decide to set yourself on fire and lie on the floor so that your child can get warmer.

So the situation looks like this...
Problem: child is cold
Solution: set yourself on fire

In Justin's example, it is an act of love for the parent to set himself on fire so that the child can be warm. However, he and I would be in agreement in describing such an action as incredibly stupid and wasteful, seeing as how there is another method to achieve the same goal.

Love in action creates justice.

Be very careful with this line of thought. To take a pop culture example, Anakin Skywalker, out of love for his wife, joined Darth Sidious and helped usher in the Empire by killing innocents.
I'm pretty sure you would not call that justice.