How does Jesus's "sacrifice" make any kind of sens

[rikuoamero]

This is for the theists, of course.

Just how does it make sense? What is the debt? Why is there a debt, and how is it to be repaid?

According to standard Christian theology, there was a tree with some fruit that was forbidden to the first humans. The fruit was eaten anyway, and some punishments were handed out.
Surely that should have been the end of it right? But no, according to Christians, someone just HAD to die. Which is strange, considering that nothing of what Adam and Eve did had anything to do with death; the loss of their supposed immortality was not done by them directly, but as a part of the punishment handed out by their god.
Even so...even if we ignore that...how does Jesus dying 'solve' that, or mitigate that?

Would it have worked if Jesus had lain down in a bathtub and slit his wrists? Or hung himself, entirely of his own volition?
I'm guessing no...I'm guessing that what just HAD to be done was for some corrupt priests (were they corrupt? Apparently they were only obeying their god's laws!) called for his execution and had him nailed to a piece of wood, with Jesus not resisting in any way.
So what does that accomplish? What does that show? From what I can see, it only shows that (some) people can kill, are ready and willing to do so, in the name of their god even if (apparently) this "isn't" what God wants (but it is!)

Now, I'm going to guess I'm going to get answers that ignore most, if not all, of what I said. I will be told that the only acceptable sacrifice was Jesus, since he's a sinless, perfect human. Notice that I didn't comment on that part.

[Divine Insight]

I'm not going to debate Rikuo's points, but I would like to add my support for them.

According to standard Christian theology, there was a tree with some fruit that was forbidden to the first humans. The fruit was eaten anyway, and some punishments were handed out.
Surely that should have been the end of it right? But no, according to Christians, someone just HAD to die. Which is strange, considering that nothing of what Adam and Eve did had anything to do with death; the loss of their supposed immortality was not done by them directly, but as a part of the punishment handed out by their god.
Even so...even if we ignore that...how does Jesus dying 'solve' that, or mitigate that?

I totally agree. The entire story of the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden is itself riddled with extreme absurdities and self-contradictions. Not the least of which is that if having humans murder Jesus by nailing him to a pole or a tree, then why not give Adam and Eve a couple sledge hammers and some spikes and see if they would be willing to nail Jesus to a pole to appease this God?

This religion start off at the very beginning with the most absurd scenario. Then later, we are also told by the Christians that it is actually impossible for any human not to sin or fall short of the glory of this God. If that's the case then this only destroys any hope of claiming that this God's reaction represents "justice". If God created Adam and Eve in such a away that it would be impossible for them to not sin, then Adam and Eve can hardly be held responsible for that.

So this religion seriously never gets off the ground. It's already crashed by Genesis chapter 3.

Would it have worked if Jesus had lain down in a bathtub and slit his wrists? Or hung himself, entirely of his own volition?

Exactly! The idea that sinful evil humans had to murder Jesus in order in order to "pay" for their salvation is utterly absurd. Not only this, but then only the humans who were willing to do that could lay claim to the prize of salvation. Anyone who wasn't willing to crucify Jesus could not be saved.

This religion is truly insane. Beyond belief. It's the epitome of immorality required for salvation.

I'm guessing no...I'm guessing that what just HAD to be done was for some corrupt priests (were they corrupt? Apparently they were only obeying their god's laws!) called for his execution and had him nailed to a piece of wood, with Jesus not resisting in any way.

That's another good point. These priests were supposed to be "God's Priests", why did God ever allow corrupt priests to take over his church and temple in the first place?

Also there's the question of why Jesus couldn't just heal these priests and cast any demons out of them as he was supposedly capable of doing? These stories require that Jesus himself could not cast the evil demons out of the priests, or "heal" their evil nature. Yet he seemed to be running around doing these things for everyone else. The fallacy of these fables should be apparent to everyone.

So what does that accomplish? What does that show? From what I can see, it only shows that (some) people can kill, are ready and willing to do so, in the name of their god even if (apparently) this "isn't" what God wants (but it is!)

That's another good point. If this entire scenario was "God's Plan", then these evil priests who called for the crucifixion of Jesus were doing precisely as God wanted them to do. There's no way that it could be claimed that this was the idea of the Chief Priests. Even if that were true, then that would have thwarted God's original plan for having sent Jesus to earth, and we can't have evil priests thwarting God's original plans. So the whole thing falls apart. God himself would have necessarily had to have planned to have humans crucify Jesus as part of his "Master Plan".

So this just ends up being one seriously sick and demented God at this point.

Now, I'm going to guess I'm going to get answers that ignore most, if not all, of what I said. I will be told that the only acceptable sacrifice was Jesus, since he's a sinless, perfect human. Notice that I didn't comment on that part.

One thing you forgot to mention is that Jesus didn't even die!

Dying for a mere 3 days only to be resurrected again and then given eternal life in heaven is precisely every Christian's dream!

Jesus being resurrected and granted eternal life in heaven would not have paid the "wages of sin" which would have been death (like in permanently dead).

So in the end, Jesus couldn't possibly have paid the wages of sin for anyone. If he didn't did permanently then he didn't even pay the wages of sin for so much as one person, much less having paid the wages of sin for all of mankind.

This religion seriously makes no sense at all. It is an extremely poorly thought out superstitious cultural tale. Sure, there may have actually existed some guy who preached religious virtues and was eventually crucified for apostasy by angry authorities. But that hardly makes this religion true.

So, as far as I can see, even if the Christians could prove that Jesus actually existed and had historical records of his crucifixion and could prove that many of the claims made in the Bible were true save for the resurrection itself, I still wouldn't believe in the claims of this religion. So pointing to the idea that some guy named Jesus might have actually lived and was crucified wouldn't do anything to resolve the extreme problems with this religion.

What if a "resurrection" could be shown to be true?

Even that would be highly questionable. For one thing it would be impossible to prove for certain. At best what might be shown is that people actually did see a wounded living Jesus after the crucifixion as the Gospels claim. But that would hardly prove a resurrection. All that would suggest is that the man survived a botched execution.

Keep in mind, we still have the myriad of absurdities and contradictions mentioned earlier. So the idea that some God was behind this would still make no sense.

So even if we could find historical evidence that people actually saw a wounded Jesus after his crucifixion that wouldn't not suggest anything other than Jesus survived the crucifixion, NOT that he had actually died and was risen from the dead (thus violating the payment for the wages of sin anyway).

So no matter how we look at it, it doesn't add up.

Not only this, but if we're talking about such a GRAND God here, why would this God resurrect a wounded battered Jesus? If this God is going to resurrect a body why not return the body to pristine health at the same time?

In fact, the whole story of the doubting Thomas was a quite revealing story for me. Thomas wouldn't believe it was truly Jesus until he saw his wounds. How utterly stupid is that? :-K

To the contrary, Thomas should have been expecting precisely the opposite. He should have demanded that if God rose Jesus from the dead, then Jesus should be totally healed of all his wounds. That would have been far more impressive than to see a crucified man surviving a crucifixion but retaining his wounds.

The story of Thomas, actually suggests to me that perhaps Jesus did survive the crucifixion and that fact was what sparked these tales.

But keep in mind that a resurrected Jesus who was granted eternal life in heaven as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords would NOT constitute having paid the wages of sin for anyone.

Since when is the payment for the wages of sin being granted eternal life in heaven as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

If that were the case then heaven must be filled with countless Kings of Kings and Lords of Lords, because that would then need to be the reward for all sinners. (i.e. that would need to be the payment for the wages of sin, because that's what Jesus paid).

It's a religion that seriously makes no sense at all.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Actually 'The Fall,' 'The Flood," "Cain and Able,' and so on, make perfect sense, if you, for the sake of argument, allow that they were initially written as fables, provided to gently, allegorically, provide life lessons.

The Garden of Eden is an obvious analogy for growing up. Nakedness gently refers to sexual development, being cast out of Eden, parental protection usually for an act of rebellion, or independence.
Adam and Eve, because there are two sexes, God plays the part of the father, they refer to themselves in plural, because it was changed to remove the female authority.
And so on.

Now why all these fables were bound together in one place, and then declared true, or how folks were able to accept them as true, is way beyond the scope of this poor brain.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Actually 'The Fall,' 'The Flood," "Cain and Able,' and so on, make perfect sense, if you, for the sake of argument, allow that they were initially written as fables, provided to gently, allegorically, provide life lessons.

The Garden of Eden is an obvious analogy for growing up. Nakedness gently refers to sexual development, being cast out of Eden, parental protection usually for an act of rebellion, or independence.
Adam and Eve, because there are two sexes, God plays the part of the father, they refer to themselves in plural, because it was changed to remove the female authority.
And so on.

I totally agree. The Bible does make "perfect sense" when recognized to be nothing more than stories told by humans to try to convey various ideas to their children. Just like the story of Santa Claus makes perfect sense as a story that parents would tell small children in an effort to get them to be "good" rather than "naughty".

Now why all these fables were bound together in one place, and then declared true, or how folks were able to accept them as true, is way beyond the scope of this poor brain.

And that's more to the point. As stories that parents used to tell their children, the Bible makes "perfect sense". But when put together as a religion that is supposed to convince adults that these stories are about some actual God, it becomes quite absurd.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

Jesus' wording explained it best, he paid a "ransom" - a ransom is a price paid to free some. Jesus death "paid" for the sins we inherited from our first parents Adam and Eve.

Surely that should have been the end of it right? But no, according to Christians, someone just HAD to die.

WHY DID ADAM AND EVES DEATH NOT END THE MATTER?

• ♦ ANSWER Because issues were raised that needed to be settled for the well being of the entire universe. And because Adam and Eve had children, and their children would suffer the consequences of their actions unless someone intervened to remedy the situation.

JW

RELATED POSTS


Why was there a need for a ransom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p852214

Why did Jesus have to die? [with video]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 75#p846775

Why did God not just ignore the original sin?[*]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p848933




It's to commemorate this event, Jehovah's Witnesses hold a memorial of Christ's death each year, we believe it to be the single most important event in human history.

[JehovahsWitness]

What is the debt?

♦ The debt amounts to the sin each descendent of Adam will inevitably commit.

how is it to be repaid?.

♦ It is paid (not repaid because it is only paid once), by means of one perfect human life.

Adam and Eve [died] as a part of the punishment handed out by their god...how does Jesus dying 'solve' that, or mitigate that?

♦ It doesn't. Jesus death was not for Adam and Eve, they rightfully died because the broke a law that carried the death penalty. There is no sacrifice that covers the deliberate sin of a perfect being. Jesus death was to cover for the sins of Adam's children.



RELATED POSTS

Why are Adam's children suffering for the "sins of the father"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 280#381280

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

I think that the idea of human sacrifice to appease gods in relation to christian belief systems are a spill-over from more ancient religious thinking, as is animal sacrifice.

This type of belief - I think - is a natural enough development of ideas from a meat-eating species.

Have you ever killed, skinned, gutted and eaten an animal? I think therein some cultures considered the sacrifice of an animal as something to be respected rather than simply done for the sake of eating to survive. Thought was put into the nature of the act and in relation to ideas of GOD, thanksgiving was applied.

Human sacrifice is an extension of this thinking warped to suit political agendas created in the name of gods.

Of course, some cultures did eat the humans they sacrificed...

[1213]

How does Jesus's "sacrifice" make any kind of sens

First of all, I want to say, Jesus could forgive sins before his death, so his death was not necessary for forgiveness of sins:

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Actually, that is why people taught Jesus is claiming to be God, which was then used as reason to kill him. Interesting thing is also that Jesus gave the same right for his disciples:

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

However, the idea of sacrifice is not wrong, the meaning is only wrong. Jesus used his life for us, that can be seen as sacrifice. And by preaching, we got the message from God that could save us and cause change in our heart so that we become righteous and can get eternal life. That is why Jesus can be called the perfect sacrifice, he used his life for us and because of that, we have chance to live.

[JehovahsWitness]

Would it have worked if Jesus had lain down in a bathtub and slit his wrists? Or hung himself, entirely of his own volition?

WOULD THE RANSOM HAVE BEEN PAID IF JESUS HAD TAKEN HIS OWN LIFE?

• ♦ ANSWER No, firstly because Jesus ransom had to be in obedience to God, since God had not asked for a suicide then suicide would have been an act of disobedience. The Ransom was to be the opposite equivalent to what Adam had done, his act was the ultimate act of willful disobedience, so the ransom would be the ultimate act of obedience. Indeed Satan himself tried to twist Jesus' mission in this very way, asking Jesus to throw himself off of the Temple battlement, something that save a miracle, would surely have resulted in self-inflicted death. Jesus rightly refused.

God did not ask for "a suicide" he asked for a sacrifice. He asked Jesus to remain faithful even if it lead to his (Jesus') death.

So what does that accomplish? What does that show?

• There were other issues that were raised by Adam's disobedience, questions that had to be settled, notably could a human remain perfectly obedient to God despite anything that Satan subjected him to. Adam failed his test, it could be contested then that perfect integrity was impossible, Jesus' mission included proving that perfect integrity was possible, and that a human could and would remain faithful no matter what Satan did to him. That is what was accomplished/shown by Jesus suffering and death

CONCLUSION While one can feel nothing but compassion for those who because of mental illness or a sense of helplessness take their own lives, for Jesus suicide would have been the easy way out compared to the torture Satan put Jesus through, it would have been an act of disobedience and would failed to have provided an example of perfect integrity, his life would therefor not have been a valid ransom and Jesus would have failed in his mission.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus commit "suicide"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 62#p357162

Would Jesus' death be classified as what would today be called "victim precipitated homicide"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p357213

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

Jesus' wording explained it best, he paid a "ransom" - a ransom is a price paid to free some. Jesus death "paid" for the sins we inherited from our first parents Adam and Eve.

Freed from who?

And why did it take the death to do that?

In your link you say that the ransom had to be equal to the sin. But why? And what makes the death of an innocent being equal? Someone could put up a ransom that was far less than what was equal but it would still be ransom paid.

If God is God, surely he can forgive or free someone without the need for the death of an innocent being? Without this ransom? Surely he could have found a less barbaric way where the ransom would have been equal. A less immoral way where no innocent being has to be brutally slain?

And tell me JW, HOW does the death of Jesus actually pay the ransom? Is God impotent up until that point?

The bible talks a lot about the blood of Jesus and how it was necessary for the forgiveness of sin, but what is so magical about the blood of Jesus that magically enables God to forgive and to redeem?