Why did Jesus have to die?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The implication of what you are saying is that an omnipotent god cannot make truthful statements about what he will or will not do.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
It is more accurate to say that God WILL NOT forgive sin apart from bloodshed rather than that he CANNOT if we are simply dealing with the divine attribute of omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats it. God didn't have to do it. Jesus didn't have to die for anything.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is more accurate to say that God WILL NOT forgive sin apart from bloodshed rather than that he CANNOT if we are simply dealing with the divine attribute of omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats it. God didn't have to do it. Jesus didn't have to die for anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is more to reality than an omnipotent God. The fact is that man is sinful and that God is righteous. This righteousness of God has as a necessary component the fact that sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness of sin in order that we might be reconciled to God. God's plan of the salvation of sinners required the suffering of Christ.

Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

Jesus himself says:
Luk 24:25 ..."O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation. Scripture says that the wages of sin is death and I accept that as truth about God's creation. I accept it when scripture says that the wrath of God can be satisfied by the sacrifice of his son for those who believe. Why did Jesus have to die? Scripture explains why and I have made an attempt at explaining it myself. To say that God didn't have to sacrifice his son carries with it more implications. Namely that the world would not be the way it is. Given that man is sinful and the wages of his sin is death, and given that God is rightous, it was necessary for him to put forth his son to save those who believe. My answers to the question why did Jesus have to die, is an answer based in the reality of our predicament as sinners in the face of a holy and righteous God. If you guys want to start from some other place than that, then have at it.

-Zapp

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

Anyway we're going round in circles. Hopefully if an omnipotent god exists he won't care that you constrain him anymore than he cares that I don't believe in him at all.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe that what God says about himself is perfectly true and I also believe equally that God is omnipotent.

And yes, it does seem that we are going around in circles.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you do not accept the authority of scripture. I do and I accept that it is accurate in all that it says about God and his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly and you put that before anything including god's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe that what God says about himself is perfectly true and I also believe equally that God is omnipotent.

And yes, it does seem that we are going around in circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. G-d could be omnipotent and require a blood sacrifice. However, one of two situations must be fulfilled for this to be the case:

1. G-d initiated the necessity of a blood sacrifice.
2. G-d did nothing to end the previously extent necessity of a blood sacrifice.

I believe your religious beliefs are getting in the way of you accepting reasonable arguments here. I believe you do not wish to slight your god. You shouldn't of course and I'm glad for your sake that you don't. However, you can't take away His resposibility for making a blood sacrifice necessary for the release from sin.

And while I really appreciate you making the first serious response to the original poster, you haven't accepted the (correct) assumptions in the OP's question.

A simple "I don't know" would have been the most honest and ideal response to his question. You can't slight your god, but at the same time he has placed an importance on making a trade of blood (life) for forgiveness (which is somehow inherited).


I'll tell you what I think.

Humans understand life and death extremely well.
Blood's importance gives it the (somewhat accurate) appearance of life force and it becomes associated with life and death.
Shedding of blood therefore becomes an appropriate metaphor to use in a book by a people in desperate need of something in which to believe to make up for their miserable lives (those people would be the Israelites). Much like the appearance of the Kabalists, religious zealotry gave a people hope and their lives meaning with promises of a less miserable time after their biological lives. The Torah scroll became a convenient means of transporting and proliferating that particular gospel.

Humans have shown a tremendous ability to adapt to a wide variety of situations. I would categorize the advent of religion as such an adaptation. It's a means of creating a fantasy to deal with material reality and it also satisfies the problem humans faced once we could conceptualize the notion that perhaps there is no point to our existence--that of something to believe in, of purpose.

That's what makes a lot of sense to me. I believe as an explanation is possesses internal consistency. I also believe as an explanation it is consistent with human history as it's largely understood.


I also see a problem with judging G-d from a human ethos. Sure, my ethos involves avoiding hurting others and causing them pain and making apparently unrelated sacrifices, but I don't think it's really fair to judge G-d from that perspective.


I will grant that this type of a situation certainly does make G-d appear to be an arbitrary and scary omnipotent entity, no different really than the omnipotent Billy Mumy character in the "It's a Good Life" episode of the Twilight Zone. It's all do what he wants, or else.

Excellent post.

[ QUOTE ]
I will grant that this type of a situation certainly does make G-d appear to be an arbitrary and scary omnipotent entity, no different really than the omnipotent Billy Mumy character in the "It's a Good Life" episode of the Twilight Zone. It's all do what he wants, or else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that. I still eat peanut butter hamburgers to this day -- to make sure Billy doesn't get mad at me and cast me into eternal cartoon hell. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[hashi92]

so your basically saying this is your belief because this is what the bible says. were saying if you sat back and thought about it jesus dying is really unnecessary.

[hashi92]

lets put this another way.
imagine for instance your never read the bible.
you just knew that God was all powerful.
wouldnt it be logical to conclude that God could forgive the sins of man on a whim if he wanted to.

Couldn't God, being all powerful chose to limit Himself to being able to do only that which is good?
I don't think this is what He actually did, I think God is unchanging, he is who he is, whole and perfect, holding everything together. Because of all God is, there are laws that are in place that govern these things, like sin.