Whats the purpose behind Jesus being crucified?

Danye

Hi hows it going?

I just have a question that I have been thinking about..what was the purpose of Jesus being crucified? Would of it not been better If he had of stayed alive and changed the world?

wolfsbane

Danye wrote: »

Hi hows it going?

I just have a question that I have been thinking about..what was the purpose of Jesus being crucified? Would of it not been better If he had of stayed alive and changed the world?

Hi, Danye

He could have changed the world alright, but not saved it. Without becoming the atoning sacrifice for His people's sins, they could have lived a prosperous life here, but certainly ended up in hell. They needed One to save them from their sins, by the offering of Himself.

Christ's crucifixion was God dealing with the penalty due for all those who will trust Him. It was God's means of justifying guilty sinners while remaining just Himself. To simply have ignored their sins would have made Him an accomplice. To have punished their sins would have displayed His justice. To have Christ pay for their sins displays both His justice and mercy.

smurgen

yes but god is the ultimate judge in the first place so why was there a need for jesus at all?if god wanted to save us from our sins how was the logical way to do this the sending down of his son/himself to be murdered by the people he was trying to show not to be sinners?do christain not see this as a ridiculous/retarded solution?

wolfsbane

smurgen wrote: »

yes but god is the ultimate judge in the first place so why was there a need for jesus at all?if god wanted to save us from our sins how was the logical way to do this the sending down of his son/himself to be murdered by the people he was trying to show not to be sinners?do christain not see this as a ridiculous/retarded solution?

He wasn't trying to show not to be sinners. He was saving them from their sins.

They could not of themselves stop being sinners, nor cleanse themselves from the sins they had already committed. Someone had to be their substitute, pay for their sins instead of they themselves. That one had to be sinless himself, or he would have been punished for his own sins. So God sent His Son to take on Himself human nature and be the substitute for His people.

Even their murder of Him was atoned for by Him.

Damo123

wolfsbane wrote: »

That one had to be sinless himself, or he would have been punished for his own sins.

So your saying that Jesus was without sin...??

PDN

Damo123 wrote: »

So your saying that Jesus was without sin...??

Yes, that would be the Christian position.

wolfsbane

Damo123 wrote: »

So your saying that Jesus was without sin...??

Absolutely. That is the teaching of the NT. It is also a fundamental of the Christian faith - i.e, anyone who denies it is not a Christian.

Damo123

PDN wrote: »

Yes, that would be the Christian position.

I always thought he was supposed to be a man, like any other man (as much as he could be giving the circumstances of his birth and father)... but yet all men are sinners....?? How does that work...???

Blueboyd

wolfsbane wrote: »

Absolutely. That is the teaching of the NT. It is also a fundamental of the Christian faith - i.e, anyone who denies it is not a Christian.

Really? Who gave you the right to decide who is Christian who is not?

Some statistics

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcsi1.htm

antiskeptic

Danye wrote: »

Hi hows it going?

I just have a question that I have been thinking about..what was the purpose of Jesus being crucified? Would of it not been better If he had of stayed alive and changed the world?

1. Sin can be defined as an offence against God

2. God is a person

3. Offences against a person can be dealt with in one of two ways;

a) the due penalty for the offence can be extracted from the offender
b) the offended can be forgiven the offence. In this case the offended party must pay the penalty for the offence against them, themselves*.

4. God offers that our sin be dealt with in either of the above ways. We pay for the offence against him or he pays for the offence against him.

5. Hell is the way a) is accomplished

6. The Cross is the way b) is accomplished: God himself pays for the price of the offence against him.


* Consider anytime you've forgiven someone. You're the one who has to pay the price for the offence against you.

gimme5minutes

wolfsbane wrote: »

He wasn't trying to show not to be sinners. He was saving them from their sins.

They could not of themselves stop being sinners, nor cleanse themselves from the sins they had already committed. Someone had to be their substitute, pay for their sins instead of they themselves. That one had to be sinless himself, or he would have been punished for his own sins.

Do you mind telling me who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell? Like, who made up a rule that God had to follow...surely the being that created the universe doesn't have to follow rules.

Damo123

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Do you mind telling me who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell? Like, who made up a rule that God had to follow...surely the being that created the universe doesn't have to follow rules.

Maybe he just didnt want to bend his own rules... if he breaks the rule for one person then hes seen to have favourites... So he makes a backdoor to his own rules.... hence jesus

(Just letting ya know thats just something I thought up there now, I doubt thats the real reason )

wolfsbane

Blueboyd wrote: »

Really? Who gave you the right to decide who is Christian who is not?

Some statistics

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcsi1.htm

The Bible gives me that right. Any honest observer, Christian or not, would agree that it teaches a sinless Christ, and that it teaches that not holding this is to believe in another Christ - and so not be a Christian in the Biblical sense.

wolfsbane

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Do you mind telling me who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell? Like, who made up a rule that God had to follow...surely the being that created the universe doesn't have to follow rules.

God's character meant He could not just ignore sin. God cannot go against His own holy nature. He is not free to be other than the perfectly holy Person He is.

gimme5minutes

wolfsbane wrote: »

God's character meant He could not just ignore sin. God cannot go against His own holy nature. He is not free to be other than the perfectly holy Person He is.

That didn't answer my question. Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?

santing

gimme5minutes wrote: »

That didn't answer my question. Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?

It's a logical conclusion. If sin is against God's character, so much so that sin cannot be in the presence of God, than anyway who has committed even one sin can no longer stand the presence of God and has to choose for the only place where God is not: Hell.

mehfesto

santing wrote: »

It's a logical conclusion. If sin is against God's character, so much so that sin cannot be in the presence of God, than anyway who has committed even one sin can no longer stand the presence of God and has to choose for the only place where God is not: Hell.

Does that answer the question? I'm genuinely confuse here.
I think the OP was asking who decided that someone had to die for our sins - presumably looking for an answer the likes of 'God', so I don't understand your answer.

Im not being snotty (I'm aware how tone of voice doesn't translate online too well!) but your answer seems to explain the rationale for the existence of he'll? I'm willin to be corrected!

santing

mehfesto wrote: »

Does that answer the question? I'm genuinely confuse here.
I think the OP was asking who decided that someone had to die for our sins - presumably looking for an answer the likes of 'God', so I don't understand your answer.

Im not being snotty (I'm aware how tone of voice doesn't translate online too well!) but your answer seems to explain the rationale for the existence of he'll? I'm willin to be corrected!

OK, a few verses:

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Danye

mehfesto wrote: »

Does that answer the question? I'm genuinely confuse here.
I think the OP was asking who decided that someone had to die for our sins - presumably looking for an answer the likes of 'God', so I don't understand your answer.

Im not being snotty (I'm aware how tone of voice doesn't translate online too well!) but your answer seems to explain the rationale for the existence of he'll? I'm willin to be corrected!

Thanks to everyone for the replies but I was actually asking why didnt Jesus just keep on living? Why didnt he carry on and show us the way to live and fix all the wrongs in the world? Why did he have to be crucified??

gimme5minutes

santing wrote: »

It's a logical conclusion. If sin is against God's character, so much so that sin cannot be in the presence of God, than anyway who has committed even one sin can no longer stand the presence of God and has to choose for the only place where God is not: Hell.

That's twice now that someone has quoted my post in reply but answered a question I didn't even ask.

I asked "Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?"

Fanny Cradock

Danye wrote: »

Thanks to everyone for the replies but I was actually asking why didnt Jesus just keep on living? Why didnt he carry on and show us the way to live and fix all the wrongs in the world? Why did he have to be crucified??

Christians believe that Jesus does show them the way (through the NT and a personal relationship with him). However, I don't think you can show people how to fix all the wrongs in the world. Frankly, people have always done terrible things to each other, and I think they always will. And this is one of the teachings of Christianity - we are in a hole and we cant get out.

Why did he have to be crucified? It's a big question, and not one that is easy to respond with a brief and adequate answer. Given God's nature - amongst other things he is understood to be a God of justice - he couldn't ignore our sin, he has to be consistent to himself. There is always a price to pay. This is true for day-to-day life, and I think it it true for spiritual life. While I don't pretend to know exactly what happened on the cross, Christianity teaches that this is where Jesus payed the price for our sins.

I replied to a poster yesterday that was asking some similar questions. In the post I suggested a number of talks that might answer some of the questions about the basis of Christianity. You might find them of interest.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65129393&postcount=5

homer911

gimme5minutes wrote: »

That's twice now that someone has quoted my post in reply but answered a question I didn't even ask.

I asked "Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?"

I'll do my best to answer - the rule is a logical conclusion of a loving, sinless God - it wasnt a rule he made up when man turned against him, because God is outside of time and knows all things.

If you study the Old Testament, you will see that sacrifices are made by the Jews for a whole variety of reasons - most notably sin offerings. These offerings were only good enough to cleanse them of the sin they had committed, and for which they made the offering. When they sinned again, they had to make another offering, and so on. For the whole of mankind to be saved, God required an amazing, never to be or need to be repeated offering - at it had to be totally perfect, precious and without sin, for how could the sacrifice of a sinful being excuse the sins of others, forever! the only sacrifice that could fit the bill is God himself. What a sacrifice to lay down for your own creation! Even more amazing is the fact that he knew he would have to do this even before he created us - "It was while we were sinners that Christ died for us" - Christians are still sinners, but sinners saved by God's own grace

Danye

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Christians believe that Jesus does show them the way (through the NT and a personal relationship with him). However, I don't think you can show people how to fix all the wrongs in the world. Frankly, people have always done terrible things to each other, and I think they always will. And this is one of the teachings of Christianity - we are in a hole and we cant get out.

Why did he have to be crucified? It's a big question, and not one that is easy to respond with a brief and adequate answer. Given God's nature - amongst other things he is understood to be a God of justice - he couldn't ignore our sin, he has to be consistent to himself. There is always a price to pay. This is true for day-to-day life, and I think it it true for spiritual life. While I don't pretend to know exactly what happened on the cross, Christianity teaches that this is where Jesus payed the price for our sins.

I replied to a poster yesterday that was asking some similar questions. In the post I suggested a number of talks that might answer some of the questions about the basis of Christianity. You might find them of interest.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65129393&postcount=5

Thanks very much for the reply. Im starting to understand it a lot better now I think.... Would I be wrong to say

Jesus was crucified because of our sins and it was a chance for us to start again?

If we are to continue to sin we will end up in the same predicament as Jesus?

gimme5minutes

homer911 wrote: »

I'll do my best to answer - the rule is a logical conclusion of a loving, sinless God - it wasnt a rule he made up when man turned against him, because God is outside of time and knows all things.

So are you saying god made up this rule?

JimiTime

gimme5minutes wrote: »

So are you saying god made up this rule?

Listen, we know the direction you are taking, and some have been gracious enough ?(or foolish enough, depending on your view) to at least try to educate you as to why Justice demands balance. Obviously you want somebody to just set you up for your 'killer conclusion'. So if you've already concluded that God simply made up a rule, then stop pretending to be seeking answers.

Fanny Cradock

Danye wrote: »

Jesus was crucified because of our sins and it was a chance for us to start again?

It is slightly more complicated than that - the ultimate significance is richer by far - but I think you are on the right track.

Danye wrote: »

If we are to continue to sin we will end up in the same predicament as Jesus?

Not quite. At this point people would mention hell, which I happen to think of as eternal separation from God, the source of all things good. This is probably not a doctrine that Christians normally like to talk about (though there are always those who do). It might appear to be a somewhat hackneyed line to some, but I think Christians often prefer to discuss the positives - the difference Jesus has made to their lives. In other words, a God who takes a personal and loving interest in all our lives. The talks might discuss this further.

wolfsbane

Danye wrote: »

Would I be wrong to say

Jesus was crucified because of our sins and it was a chance for us to start again?

If we are to continue to sin we will end up in the same predicament as Jesus?

Christ's atonement indeed provides the way back to God, the opportunity of new life, and of an eternal new life at that. The old man is, so to speak, crucified with Christ, the new man is risen with Him.

Christ's atonement doesn't make anyone righteous until they repent and trust in Him. Those who don't are still in their condemned state, on the way to hell. Those who do are pardoned and will never perish. If they sin, pardon will come again, when they repent again.

wolfsbane

gimme5minutes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God's character meant He could not just ignore sin. God cannot go against His own holy nature. He is not free to be other than the perfectly holy Person He is.
That didn't answer my question. Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?

Sorry if I was not clear enough. God's character 'made up the rule', determined that justice must be met either in the sinner or in his Substitute. One or the other. So Christ's substitutionary sacrifice was essential for the salvation of sinners.

Linus67

Jesus died for OUR sins. It's as simple as that.

Danye

Linus67 wrote: »

Jesus died for OUR sins. It's as simple as that.

Could you expand on that? Why did he die for our sins?

santing

Danye wrote: »

Could you expand on that? Why did he die for our sins?

that he might bring us to God

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God,

antiskeptic

Danye wrote: »

Could you expand on that? Why did he die for our sins?

As you might be gathering, there are numerous ways to address such a general question:

- he loves us
- to open way to God for us (as santing says)
- to enable forgiveness to be issued to us by God, by paying the due penalty for sin himself
- because it was necessary, if we were to be redeemed from the captive hold sin has on man

I'd just note that he died that this might take place for each and every person ever born - in that sense he died for our sins. When all is told, he'll have died for the sins of those who actually availed of his sacrifice.

Those who don't avail of his offer to pay for their sin will pay the just price for their sin themselves.

neuro-praxis

Danye wrote: »

Thanks very much for the reply. Im starting to understand it a lot better now I think.... Would I be wrong to say

Jesus was crucified because of our sins and it was a chance for us to start again?

If we are to continue to sin we will end up in the same predicament as Jesus?

That is the theological explanation, which is the most important one.

But there is a historical reason too- Jesus was convicted of sedition by the Roman Empire- the conspiracy to overthrow the rulers Rome had put in place in Palestine at the time. He was innocent of that charge of course! But it can be helpful to remember the very real historical details of the event.

krudler

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hi, Danye

He could have changed the world alright, but not saved it. Without becoming the atoning sacrifice for His people's sins, they could have lived a prosperous life here, but certainly ended up in hell. They needed One to save them from their sins, by the offering of Himself.

Christ's crucifixion was God dealing with the penalty due for all those who will trust Him. It was God's means of justifying guilty sinners while remaining just Himself. To simply have ignored their sins would have made Him an accomplice. To have punished their sins would have displayed His justice. To have Christ pay for their sins displays both His justice and mercy.

Isnt it god who determines what a sin is? so by that logic he sent himself to die for us, who he created with sin to begin with, in order to save us from something he invented? isnt that a bafflingly complicated way of doing things?

Fanny Cradock

Because of love. I believe that there is something buried deep inside inside of us that festers away. So while we undoubtedly have a remarkable ability to create beauty which, in some wonderful sense, elevates us above and beyond the limitations of our flesh, we also have the potential to plumb the depths of morality and inflict incalculable damage to the people and things that surround us. Call it what you want - wickedness, evil, selfishness, sin, whatever - but oceans wouldn't be able to hold all the tears from those who have suffered.

If one accepts that there is something wrong in the world - even if it is a feeling that there is much that goes on should not be going on - and one is willing to call this something "sin" or "evil" or whatever, then given the nature of God - a being that is sinless and just - he isn't going to sit back and tolerate this sin or evil, or whatever you call it. The whole point of the cross is that God did something about it. Why crucifixion and not the rack or firing squad? I've speculated in the past. But the truth is I don't know, nor do I expect to find the answer this side of life. What I do believe is that there is a God and he cares enough about each one of us (even in our worst moments) to have done something, through Jesus, that he wasn't required to do.

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

Isnt it god who determines what a sin is? so by that logic he sent himself to die for us, who he created with sin to begin with, in order to save us from something he invented? isnt that a bafflingly complicated way of doing things?

Nonsense. Right and wrong is a function of God's nature. This is just a rather twisted variation on the old canard that God sacrificed himself to save us from himself. Such chat is better suited to the A&A forum. *HINT HINT*

If you happen to think that a you don't believe in God "invented" sin, I guess you can simply choose to ignore the concepts of good and bad altogether.

the_dark_side

in my opinion, Christianity and the Jesus story was carried across Europe by the Roman empire, and crucifixion was method of torture used by the Romans... so its no coincidence that the Jesus story ended with him being crucified... here is the list of 16 crucified saviors, (including Jesus)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap16.html

Fanny Cradock

Have you actually looked at any of those claims? For example, Krishna was not crucified, he was killed by an arrow that a hunter accidentally shot into his heal. There was no resurrection, he died and then ascended. Of course, like the spurious claims often repeated about Horus or Mithra, it is never suggested that another religion would have borrowed from Christianity. Confirmation bias at some of its worst.

Next time you try to smuggle something in the back door, dark_side, at least do some homework. In the mean time, don't steer this thread off topic.

homer911

the_dark_side wrote: »

in my opinion, Christianity and the Jesus story was carried across Europe by the Roman empire, and crucifixion was method of torture used by the Romans... so its no coincidence that the Jesus story ended with him being crucified... here is the list of 16 crucified saviors, (including Jesus)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap16.html

I love the disclaimers..!

both at the start and end of this page!
What a load of crock..

the_dark_side

Mrs. Craddock, I am merely pointing out that crucifixion was around long before the time of Jesus, and it was a form of torture/execution preferred by the Romans... Homer, just because the Bible doesn't have disclaimers at the start and the end, does it mean that we are to take the entire book (which has been revised many times even as late as the 1950's) as legit... end of my contributions to the Christianity forums, goodbye

Zombrex

Danye wrote: »

Could you expand on that? Why did he die for our sins?

I think the reason non-Christians (and some Christians I imagine) have trouble understanding the crucifixion is because the concepts that under lie it are so alien to a lot of us in modern times (this isn't a criticism, just a fact)

The sense of justice going on here goes all the way back to the ancient peoples (and if God is real back further still ) and their notions of justice.

In these systems it was not uncommon to find the concept that a substitute can "pay" for the insult or harm caused between people. Reconciliation between two parties can be brought about by the suffering of a third party, who may be an animal or object (such as in Korban), or in other cultures could even have been a human. It would not have been uncommon in some cultures for wealth people to get their slaves to serve jail time for them for example.

This concept, while popular in ancient times, is abandoned in most modern systems of justice, so we never encounter it any more in our day to day lives.

So when we encounter something like the crucifixion as common response is how the heck does that work. But you can't think of it in terms of modern justice systems, it only makes sense in the context of ancient justice systems.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

So when we encounter something like the crucifixion as common response is how the heck does that work. But you can't think of it in terms of modern justice systems, it only makes sense in the context of ancient justice systems.

Not really. It only makes sense when you have a clear definition of objective Godly justice, and not the subjective meandering systems man has concocted over the centuries.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really. It only makes sense when you have a clear definition of objective Godly justice, and not the subjective meandering systems man has concocted over the centuries.

Same difference. No modern justice system uses a system like this, so it can be confusing and alien to someone coming to it and trying to figure it out. It was a common justice system in ancient times, and as such you don't actually have to go near "Godly justice" to understand it (ie an atheist), simply look at how ancient justice systems worked and it becomes a lot easier to understand.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Same difference. No modern justice system uses a system like this, so it can be confusing and alien to someone coming to it and trying to figure it out. It was a common justice system in ancient times, and as such you don't actually have to go near "Godly justice" to understand it (ie an atheist), simply look at how ancient justice systems worked and it becomes a lot easier to understand.

It may aid an atheist in being able to concieve of a certain notion, but the understanding gained would be built on a poor foundation and not explain what justice actually is. It 'would' however serve an atheists worldview of 'man invented god', and these are simply idea's taken from an ancient world.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It may aid an atheist in being able to concieve of a certain notion, but the understanding gained would be built on a poor foundation and not explain what justice actually is.

I'm not really following your point in relation to this thread. You don't need to know or accept that God is justice, or what ever, unless you are trying to argue the correctness of the concept, rather than simply explain it.

You are moving from what was the purpose to the question of if it was justified, which is some what off topic.

Whether you believe that the concept of substitution comes from God or simply something ancient man invented is irrelevant to understanding the internal logic of the resurrection, in the same way that believing God created evolution or it is just a natural occurrence is irrelevant to understanding what evolution is.

Getting into the question of whether God exists and is the source of justice is some what putting the cart before the horse.

Fanny Cradock

the_dark_side wrote: »

Mrs. Craddock, I am merely pointing out that crucifixion was around long before the time of Jesus, and it was a form of torture/execution preferred by the Romans... Homer, just because the Bible doesn't have disclaimers at the start and the end, does it mean that we are to take the entire book (which has been revised many times even as late as the 1950's) as legit... end of my contributions to the Christianity forums, goodbye

Pull the other one. No one here suggested that the crucifixion began with the Romans. Your motives were clear, so it would be nice if you didn't pretend that you linked to a Christ-myth site for motives beyond what is blatantly transparent.

As for translations (revised or otherwise), yes, people have been producing them, and long before the 1950's, which seems to be a figure you picked out of the air. Unlike some religious texts - the Koran springs to mind - Christians readily believe that the bible can and should be translated, and that's why bibles are available in almost every language, which was probably instrumental in the spread of Christianity. This is hardly a revelation because, frankly, is it unreasonable to expect most people would ever be interested or have the opportunity to learn Koine Greek. As more manuscripts are discovered and analysed, it is only appropriate to reflect our better understanding with translations that more accurately represent the meaning of the originals.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not really following your point in relation to this thread. You don't need to know or accept that God is justice, or what ever, unless you are trying to argue the correctness of the concept, rather than simply explain it.

You are moving from what was the purpose to the question of if it was justified, which is some what off topic.

You made an attempt to explain a certain concept by relating it to 'ancient times', which is a poor explaination of the subject matter as it does not lead to a proper understanding. It may explain what the concept of 'substitution' is, but the question posed is a big one, and thus requires an explaination of the cause rather than the symptom. So on the contrary, it was ver much on-topic.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It may explain what the concept of 'substitution' is

Which was the point.

The resurrection doesn't make sense without this concept, and this seems to be the main stumbling block for people trying to understand how the Crucifixion pays for anything, given that there is no modern frame of reference in our justice system for such a concept.

Without understanding this there will be no proper understanding, as you like to say, of what the crucification is supposed to have done, which makes it all the more odd that Christians don't start at this concept and work from there.

No one has trouble understand the basic concepts such as God punishing those who sin against him. The issue is how the heck did the crucification have any effect on this, which makes no sense without the concept of substitution

By Dawkins beard ....

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Which was the point.

The resurrection doesn't make sense without this concept, and this seems to be the main stumbling block for people trying to understand how the Crucifixion pays for anything, given that there is no modern frame of reference in our justice system for such a concept.

Without understanding this there will be no proper understanding, as you like to say, of what the crucification is supposed to have done, which makes it all the more odd that Christians don't start at this concept and work from there.

No one has trouble understand the basic concepts such as God punishing those who sin against him. The issue is how the heck did the crucification have any effect on this, which makes no sense without the concept of substitution

By Dawkins beard ....

'tis a limited explaination you give, thats all. The natural follow up to the explaination you give is, 'how can that work'? Or, 'Why is that the case'? By explaining it properly, i.e. by defining Godly justice etc, it gives a more complete picture. Your explaination just says, 'There existed in ancient times a thing called substitution'. If that was the point you wanted to make, then fine. In the context of whats been asked in this thread though, and as I pointed out, its a very limited explaination. I would go so far as to say, a pretty useless explaination unless one is concieving that it was a justice invented by man.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

'tis a limited explaination you give, thats all. The natural follow up to the explaination you give is, 'how can that work'? Or, 'Why is that the case'? By explaining it properly, i.e. by defining Godly justice etc, it gives a more complete picture. Your explaination just says, 'There existed in ancient times a thing called substitution'. If that was the point you wanted to make, then fine.

That was the point I wanted to make. So often Christians explain the Crucifixion by starting with the idea that God is just and holy and requires justice etc etc which is all well and good but doesn't explain the actual point of the Crucifixion because the substitution doesn't fit any model of justice we would be familiar with unless we were familiar with ancient times.

So the Christian goes on and on about that God must be just and the non-Christian bangs his head against the fall saying they accept that but that the heck does that have to do with the crucifixion.

You can see this happening already in this thread

gimme5minutes wrote:

That didn't answer my question. Who made up the rule that someone had to die for people's sins so that they wouldn't go to hell?

santing wrote:

If sin is against God's character, so much so that sin cannot be in the presence of God, than anyway who has committed even one sin can no longer stand the presence of God and has to choose for the only place where God is not: Hell.

mehfesto wrote:

Does that answer the question? I'm genuinely confuse here.

gimme5minutes wrote:

That's twice now that someone has quoted my post in reply but answered a question I didn't even ask.

What people are asking is where the heck did this idea that Jesus could pay for our sins come from (which is understandable since it is an alien concept in modern times that a 3rd party would pay for a crime) and they keep being answered with more and more about how just God is, which is great and all but it is not the issue at hand.

People got frustrated that their question wasn't answered and you guys got frustrated and assumed they were trouble makes when in fact you simply weren't answering their question

The answer of course is that there is this concept of justice, not found any more in modern justice systems but common in ancient ones and if you believe in the Bible, a system that is divinely inspired, where a 3rd party can substitute himself for the crime of another person.

Trust me, I've been there, going back and forth trying to figure out how this is "justice" and simple being given blanket statements about how God is just, which isn't the question.

gimme5minutes wrote:

In the context of whats been asked in this thread though, and as I pointed out, its a very limited explaination.

That may be so, but until it is clarified further discussion is pointless, because you guys go off talking about how God must be true to his sense of justice etc etc without first explaining how Jesus paying our debt is in fact justice in the first place.

Which leads to confusion an a string of people saying "That didn't answer my question ... ", which was already happening on this thread.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That was the point I wanted to make. So often Christians explain the Crucifixion by starting with the idea that God is just and holy and requires justice etc etc

Which is the best way to start.

which is all well and good but doesn't explain the actual point of the Crucifixion because the substitution doesn't fit any model of justice we would be familiar with

Thats fine, so the best thing is to explain Godly justice, and then expand on it. I think we kind of agree. I would say that Godly justice needs to be explained first, as a root. From there, the concept of substitution explained. Maybe some Christians have only given the first part. I still don't see any purpose in the introduction of ancient cultures though, but we can agree to disagree on that.

What people are asking is where the heck did this idea that Jesus could pay for our sins come from (which is understandable since it is an alien concept in modern times that a 3rd party would pay for a crime) and they keep being answered with more and more about how just God is, which is great and all but it is not the issue at hand.

Actually, the OP asked 'What was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice'? Not how it worked.

People got frustrated that their question wasn't answered

I disagree, someone got frustrated that someone didn't say, 'God made up a rule'.