Explain to me the math behind redemption

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the semantics of "He took the punishment I was going to receive" to be misleading, because that is obviously not how it worked.

It worked -some- way....and obviously - no less? I was unaware.

You are right to point out that, on this definition of atonement, the sacrifice seems to be insufficient. Now I'm no theologian, but an argument could be made for the fact that redemption isn't worked out "quantitatively," as it were, but rather "qualitatively,"(for lack of better terms) in that it was the quality of the Jesus Christ, namely His moral perfection, that rendered His substitutionary punishment in any way sufficient for the redemption of the world.

I'm still not seeing it, how does substitution work in the first place, regardless of the quality of the substitute- or the state of the substituted? After that's handled, why would the quality have some effect that quantity couldn't achieve? If we're after some sort of "sufficient parity" than an indeterminate number of decent people would seem to work just as well as one "perfect" person. Or is this magic math time?

Now, one could make an argument that, on this definition, how [or perhaps the quantitative means by which] Jesus was punished seems arbitrary, but that seems as though it would probably be an in-house theological debate rather than any reason to disbelieve the concept of Christalogical redemption.

It's not just that I'm calling horseshit on the whole story- personally - I would refuse such redemption if it were on offer. I think it's disgusting. Human beings refuse this sort of thing all the time, I'm kind of proud of that.

"Just give up your buddies, and we'll let you walk".
-"go fuck yourself"