Why did Jesus have to die to save mankind?

gimme5minutes

Can anyone tell me why exactly? And who made up that rule?

PDN

It wasn't a 'rule' as such.

God had declared that the wages of sin would be death. All men have chosen to sin, therefore we all deserve death.

It seems reasonable to many of us that God, who is a God of love and mercy as well as of truth and justice, would not just simply wink at our sin and pretend it never happened. Therefore, in order to save us, God Himself came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ. He was uniquely able to obtain our salvation for two main reasons.

1. As the only man to live a perfectly sinless life, He was the only one qualified to die on anyone else's behalf.

2. Being divine as well as human, He was the only man who had the capacity to experience infinite pain, and so could endure the suffering of hell, multiplied billions of times over, within a finite period of time. The theologicial term for this is 'penal substitution' - ie taking our place and bearing our punishment.

Turtwig

If you want to discuss the 'rule' side of things, then I doubt that would be appropiate in the Christianity Forum (Maybe A&A:)).

It was an act of Salvation for others.

pts

God could change the "rule" if he wanted to right? He is omnipotent after all.
Also remember that in this forum its is generally agreed that God doesn't have to explain himself to us, and that he works in mysterious ways, so I can't help wondering why he wouldn't just wave his hand and forgive our sins. Why the whole crucify himself bit?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

God had declared that the wages of sin would be death.[...] taking our place and bearing our punishment.

If a problem that a deity created is going to cause the same deity a lot of trouble to fix, then why should the deity bother to declare the problem in the first place?

Or in simpler terms, god had himself killed in order to fulfill the terms of an agreement that he made with himself, to resolve a problem that he created.

It does not make sense, since he could have declared any other reality as he wished.

And to deal with the most obvious religious response before it comes, I don't think that getting oneself killed in accordance with a deal in which one is judge, jury and victim demonstrates commitment or love.

.

PDN

pts wrote: »

God could change the "rule" if he wanted to right? He is omnipotent after all.
Also remember that in this forum its is generally agreed that God doesn't have to explain himself to us, and that he works in mysterious ways, so I can't help wondering why he wouldn't just wave his hand and forgive our sins. Why the whole crucify himself bit?

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

I think thats a very important point. It was a choice to save us, not a rule. He could have wiped us out, and if he fancied it, started again. However, thats obviously not what he wanted. Why did he choose to do what he did rather than just start again? I suppose it's a question that alot of folk ask. I would have idea's on why, but none conclusive. Would be an interesting discussion though.

pts

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

I realise that, so he decided that he wanted to save us. The question remains why did he do it that way? He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

There wasn't a 'rule' to change.

God didn't have to save anyone at all. He freely chose to out of His loving nature.

He didn't have to save us in a way that was just. He freely chose to do so out of His just nature.

Nor did he have to declare "that the wages of sin would be death."

PDN

pts wrote: »

He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

How do you know He didn't?

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

There's lots of things that finite beings like us don't understand about an infinite God. (a cop out, I know, but true nonetheless)

JimiTime

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

A valid question, which would make for an interesting discussion.

pts wrote: »

He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

This however would be deception and dishonesty, not characteristics that we relate to God. I agree though, that we can speculate that 'He could have done this that or the other.' If we establish though, that he created us in the first place, and created us with the ability to Love etc. Then he placed us in a beautiful Garden and gave us dominion over the earth. I imagine he Loves us. So, I imagine what he did was make the right dscision, whatever we 'think' may have been better. The problem occurs I feel, when someone who doesn't believe in God, starts telling us that he could have done X, Y or Z. Their reasoning does not take God into account, so it fails immediately. If God exists, then whatever you say about 'It would have been better to do this that or the other' is simply barmy, for you are assuming you are wiser, more loving etc than God. If we limit it to human reasoning, with all its shortcomings, we would surely convince ourselves of a way that 'seemed' better. It becomes meaningless and quite idiotic though, if we apply this as a believer.

Fanny Cradock

The following might turn out to be a rambling stream of conciousness on my part, so apologies if that what transpires.

I'm not sure that the applying the word "rule" brings us to a helpful understanding of the issue raised in your latter question, gimme5minutes. I wonder if your question could be better understood by an analogy to our conscience.

I'm going to postulate the following: no one violates the rule of their conscience without some form of trade-off or payment. I'm specifically referring to the rule of conscience because if you break a rule there are resultant consequences. So, for example, the consequence arising after a child steals money from her mother's purse - and err against the rule of conscience in the process - might take the form of guilt.

Now to tie this in with your question. If one accepts the premise that God is perfect, and we are imperfect, there must be some sort of restitution for that imperfection. After all, our imperfection (sin) means we broke and continue to break the rules. In other words, the whole point of sin is that it is something - an act, deed, or thought - against the will of a perfect being. So, for obvious reasons, any forgiveness must come from God.

If God desires to forgive us, but is also to remain "true to himself" - and by this I mean remain true to the principles of logic - he can't simply click his fingers and say that all is forgiven toddle off now. That would make as much sense as saying that you have decided you wont feel guilty before you knowingly do something that violates your rule of conscience. There is a price to be paid and he, through grace, decided to pay it for us.

To leave you with a thought, can you think of any act of forgiveness for a terrible crime that didn't involve some form of payment from the victim

===

Also, by way of afterthought, and for deeper theological reasons, if God simply decided to forgive our sins, I would question if anything had been achieved. Surely such an act could be considered sin redefined, rather than forgiven? Sort of like removing the "do not play on the grass" sign. Jesus' resurrection would not have occurred and I couldn't imagine what that would mean for the promise of a "new heavens and a new earth".

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

2. Being divine as well as human, He was the only man who had the capacity to experience infinite pain, and so could endure the suffering of hell, multiplied billions of times over, within a finite period of time. The theologicial term for this is 'penal substitution' - ie taking our place and bearing our punishment.

Firstly I'd love to see your biblical quote about the 72 hours spent in hell by Jesus being multiplied a billion times over.

If Jesus did suffer on the cross for all of our sins - whether we want them forgiven or not - then he did not do much suffering.

If every sin of every person born after His death until such a time as He comes again (Jesus was at best a failed doomsday prophet) was placed on Jesus in the form of pain then a few hours on a cross (stubbing your toe is probably more painful - not that I've tried it) and 72 hours in hell can in no way act as sufficient 'penal substitution'. If Christianity were true I would expect Jesus to be suffering for our sins, not metaphorically in ancient history, but now and for all to see.

Christopher Hitchens in 'God is not Great' makes a great case for the immorality of scapegoating ones sins onto another. That being said, I just can not see the metaphysical links of how suffering by one leads to forgiveness of another. Perhaps a Christian could explain this as well. To me, 'penal substitution' seems a rather whimsical after-thought to fix a botched plan by an inept God.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Firstly I'd love to see your biblical quote about the 72 hours spent in hell by Jesus being multiplied a billion times over.

I'd love to see a biblical quote that says he spent 72 hours in hell - then I might actually believe that particular assertion.

My understanding of the atonement is based on an overall reading of many passages of Scripture and is one shared by many theologians and biblical scholars.

Those who go for proof texts ("Show me one single verse that says this") usually tend to be pretty narrow-minded fundamentalists or atheist trolls. If you want to understand more I would advise you to try reading a book on the atonement - Jurgen Moltmann is pretty good.

If every sin of every person born after His death until such a time as He comes again (Jesus was at best a failed doomsday prophet) was placed on Jesus in the form of pain then a few hours on a cross (stubbing your toe is probably more painful - not that I've tried it) and 72 hours in hell can in no way act as sufficient 'penal substitution'. If Christianity were true I would expect Jesus to be suffering for our sins, not metaphorically in ancient history, but now and for all to see.

What you expect is neither here nor there. Again, you seem to be getting some unbiblical notion about 72 hours in hell from somewhere.

Christopher Hitchens in 'God is not Great' makes a great case for the immorality of scapegoating ones sins onto another. That being said, I just can not see the metaphysical links of how suffering by one leads to forgiveness of another. Perhaps a Christian could explain this as well. To me, 'penal substitution' seems a rather whimsical after-thought to fix a botched plan by an inept God.

Which only serves to confirm my opinion about Hitchens. His confused thoughts about theology are no more convincing than his cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

How would God suffer anyway....an immortal timeless being, the creator of everything, has complete control, can do anything he wants. How can being nailed to a cross hurt a being that transcends time, space, energy and matter and is in control of every single aspect of every single thing? It is impossible for such an ALL POWERFUL being to feel pain.

Even if he "went to hell" for 3 days how is that supposed to hurt such a being?


And that is the first I heard of this, whatever about the rest of Christianity, this particular 'belief' of spending three days in hell is complete and utter speculation...we've been told all our lives that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why were we never told he also went to hell for 3 days? What happened at the end of the 3 days that enabled him to get out of hell? You are saying he went to hell, then tell us how he got out of it as I have not heard of anyone anyone getting out of hell before.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

In Cur Deus Homo (= why God became man) St. Anselm argues that, since man has sinned against God's justice, only a form of satisfaction that meets His standards of justice can be made in reparation. Thus man has nothing at all to offer God which can serve as a means of payment for his sin. Man has no means of his own of conquering death. So God chose to save man, which required Him becoming fully man while remaining fully divine, in order to suffer divine justice on behalf of mankind.

How does this guy know that "only a form of satisfaction that meets His standards of justice can be made in reparation"? Was he, dare I say it, speculating?

mark renton

pts wrote: »

I realise that, so he decided that he wanted to save us. The question remains why did he do it that way? He could have done it any way he wanted to, and if he wanted to he could make us think he did it some other way.

I just don't understand why he did it that way.

why not wipe us out and make a better, more improved version? are we not now left with the same issue he solved?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

Crucifixion - a slow, painful death by suffocation - is not much suffering?! :eek: The sloped plinth at the bottom of the cross was not there to look pretty, you know. And the soldiers did not sustain Jesus' life by giving him vinegar for nothing, either.

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

I'd love to see a biblical quote that says he spent 72 hours in hell - then I might actually believe that particular assertion.

After three days He rose again. 3 * 24 = 72 or thereabouts. The actual figure is not important. What is important is that He didn't do enough suffering by many magnitudes.

PDN wrote: »

My understanding of the atonement is based on an overall reading of many passages of Scripture and is one shared by many theologians and biblical scholars.

Those who go for proof texts ("Show me one single verse that says this") usually tend to be pretty narrow-minded fundamentalists or atheist trolls.

Or those requiring proof rather than faith by reading between the lines.

PDN wrote: »

Which only serves to confirm my opinion about Hitchens. His confused thoughts about theology are no more convincing than his cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq.

Such ad hominem attacks serve to deflect the argument. Please deal with the argument. If you read the wiki page for scapegoating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat it is plain to see that Penal substitution is just the manifestation of an ancient superstitious ritual.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

bSlick

Plowman wrote: »

Well see my post above where I said that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. So it was perfectly possible for him to feel pain, just as "normal" humans do.

Was he fully leprachaun too? How can he be fully human and fully divine....that is pure made up fairytales. Your mention of him being fully divine while simultaneously being fully human is pure speculation by that St. Anselm guy you referenced, nothing more. A guy who constructed his speculation to fit his beliefs, well thats proof enough for me!

Whatever way you look at it Jesus = God = all powerful immortal deity who does not feel sensations like hunger, warmth, coldness, pain, sickness, sleepiness, hungover.th

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

How would God suffer anyway....an immortal timeless being, the creator of everything, has complete control, can do anything he wants. How can being nailed to a cross hurt a being that transcends time, space, energy and matter and is in control of every single aspect of every single thing? It is impossible for such an ALL POWERFUL being to feel pain.

You don't see the irony of arguing that an all-powerful God (who can do anything) can't feel pain or suffer (in which case you're saying He can't do everything)?

And that is the first I heard of this, whatever about the rest of Christianity, this particular 'belief' of spending three days in hell is complete and utter speculation...we've been told all our lives that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why were we never told he also went to hell for 3 days?

The issue of three days was (wrongly) raised by an atheist, not a Christian. The Bible is clear that Christ paid for our sins on the Cross while He was alive, not anywhere else after His death.

As for "Why were we never told" - who are the 'we' to which you refer. Most posters here were raised in Catholic Ireland and were told this repeatedly every time the Apostles' Creed was recited. It's got nothing to do with paying for our sins, mind you, but that's another matter.

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

Yes, Jesus Christ certainly did get hungry, sleepy, warm & cold. He almost certainly would have experienced feelings of sexual temptation since he was tempted in all points like us.

He was both fully God and fully man. You might find it ridiculous, but not so many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers that ever lived.

Soul Winner

bSlick wrote: »

Was he fully leprachaun too? How can he be fully human and fully divine....that is pure made up fairytales. Your mention of him being fully divine while simultaneously being fully human is pure speculation by that St. Anselm guy you referenced, nothing more. A guy who constructed his speculation to fit his beliefs, well thats proof enough for me!

Whatever way you look at it Jesus = God = all powerful immortal deity who does not feel sensations like hunger, warmth, coldness, pain, sickness, sleepiness, hungover.th

You are obviously here to teach and not to learn. The scripture states clearly that He was hungry during His temptation in the wilderness and that He was thirsty on the cross and that He also wept on one occasion signifying an emotional pain. How was that possible? The writer to the Hebrews says that He was tempted in all manner as we are yet knew no sin. I know what to do, let us all just throw out our Bibles and listen to you shall we? You seem to know everything there is to know about what an all powerful being can and cannot do.

mark renton

Does this mean that the same thing cannot happen again today as if Christ returned and wanted to save us from our sins then the most punishment he could legally suffer (in most countries) is a few months in prison

Stark

My understanding of the Hell thing was that he died a painful and violent death so his soul could descend to Hell after death. Once in Hell, he was able to lead the sinners who had died before his reign on Earth out of Hell and into salvation.

lugha

I have a rather mundane question. It is asserted by Christians that all men chose to be sinners and so Jesus had to suffer for our redemption. My difficulty is with the assertion that all men are sinners. Surely such an unequivocal claim can not be made unless it is the case that man is utterly incapable of refraining from sin? But if this is so, how can man stand indicted for something which he can not (as opposed to does not) control? Surely logic demands that you permit some possibility, however small, that man can be sinless? In which case there may have been others, besides Jesus, who were also sinless.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

I have a rather mundane question. It is asserted by Christians that all men chose to be sinners and so Jesus had to suffer for our redemption. My difficulty is with the assertion that all men are sinners. Surely such an unequivocal claim can not be made unless it is the case that man is utterly incapable of refraining from sin? But if this is so, how can man stand indicted for something which he can not (as opposed to does not) control? Surely logic demands that you permit some possibility, however small, that man can be sinless? In which case there may have been others, besides Jesus, who were also sinless.

That would only be the case if the assertion that all men are sinners was based on some kind of a priori reasoning. However, the Christian belief on this is based on biblical revelation. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

It is not necessary for Christians to believe that all men are incapable of sinlessness in order to believe that all men are sinners. A revealed fact, or an observed fact, is not contingent upon any other outcome being conceivable.

Maybe an illustration will help if that last paragraph was couched in the wrong kind of language? I believe that no mountain in the world reaches to a height of 50,000 feet above sea level. That is not to say that it was physically impossible for such a mountain to have been formed, simply that those who observe such things have observed that no such mountain exists and the sources that reveal this to me (text books etc) are considered by me to be trustworthy enough for their revelation to be accepted by me.

We may quibble over the reliability of the source providing the revelation, but a revealed fact is not contingent on that fact being the only possible logical outcome.