Explain to me the math behind redemption

[Zarith]

If any 1 person's sins are grievous enough to warrant an eternity in hell, how does someone else 'pay for' the sins of everybody without themselves spending an eternity in hell?

[Savannahw]

If any 1 person's sins are grievous enough to warrant an eternity in hell, how does someone else 'pay for' the sins of everybody without themselves spending an eternity in hell?

I need you to be more specific.

[Minimalist]

If any 1 person's sins are grievous enough to warrant an eternity in hell, how does someone else 'pay for' the sins of everybody without themselves spending an eternity in hell?

Via hocus pocus.

[The Grand Nudger]

Check the ledger of the church offering said service if you want to see the math involved in vicarious redemption.

[ReasonableRuben]

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. 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. 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.

[Minimalist]

One can make a better argument that it never happened at all.

[Zarith]

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. 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. 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.

I see. Can I at least get my sentence reduced by some small epsilon value if I sacrifice someone else? They may not be perfect, but surely it's worth something?

[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"

[Zarith]

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?

Well, if the value of a sacrifice is 1 / [quantity of sin], then ...

OK, I'll stop, some of our other posters might get ideas

[ReasonableRuben]

I see. Can I at least get my sentence reduced by some small epsilon value if I sacrifice someone else? They may not be perfect, but surely it's worth something?

I think you mean "if they sacrificed themselves for me," and no, according to the doctrine of sin, you couldn't.

This is basic Christian doctrine. By that I do not mean to commend it to you as true. I mean rather to say that some simple research into Christian doctrine would probably answer your question better than what I have to offer.

---

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

Like I said, the semantics of "He took the punishment I was going to receive" seem to me to be misleading. Perhaps you have been mislead by them. It's pretty obvious that "the plan" was not for Jesus to suffer eternally, and yet, it seems to me that Christians speak as though it was when they proffer such explanations of the redemption.

I did not commend a specific theory of the redemption and claim that it obviously "worked this way." I criticized a specific theory of the redemption and claimed that it obviously "did not work this way."

I tentatively put forward an alternative way of thinking about the redemption, but I certainly didn't claim that it was obviously correct.

Like I said, I'm no theologian. I haven't thought about the redemption much.