RE: Why was the crucifixion necessary ?
August 20, 2012 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2012 at 9:48 am by Drich.)
(August 20, 2012 at 9:13 am)pgrimes15 Wrote:(August 19, 2012 at 11:41 am)Drich Wrote: Yes Jesus HAD to die. Why? Because we are told God established the standard that any and all sin deserves Death. Righteousness demands that someone die for the sins committed against God. Jesus was that death for those who accept the offering made on their behalf.
It is still not clear to me why the death of anything compensates or counteracts any crimes/sins.
Wrongs/sins committed by A against B.
C is killed thus compensating for the sins/wrong committed against B.
How? I don't see the link.
Regards
Grimesy
I think I see the problem. Allow me to amend your equasion, maybe this will help.
A=Sinner
B=God
C=Christ.
All sins are commited against God. Therefore God sets the standard in which attonement/compensation must be satasified. God's standard (Righteousness) Demands a Death/Blood shed for any sin. why? Because He says so. (That is the only explaination given.)
God is willing to accept the death of His Son on the behalf of all who would accept it.
So: Wrongs/sins committed by A against B.
C is killed thus compensating for the sins/wrong committed against B.
(August 20, 2012 at 12:40 am)Faith No More Wrote:Drich Wrote:Actually it does completely. If you are still confused then may i suggest rephrasing the question, for the question you asked has been answered.
Well, excuse me. I guess I don't speak crazy idiot.
Then rephrase your question. I answer the one you asked. If you do not understand the answer then it is obvious you do not fully understand the depth of your own question. Unless you make an effort to rephrase I do not know where to amend my explaination to make it easier to understand.
(August 20, 2012 at 12:23 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Righteousness is the perfect Standard of God
Time to remind you once again, Drippy, that you have yet to provide evidence that your 'god' is anything more than a figment of your imagination.
Then in turn, I must ask again what would 'evidence' look like to you? What would you consider to be evidence? What tanagible object can one provide that you can not explain away?
