WHY was Jesus cricified?

[Minimalist]

It makes as much sense as 1+1+1=1

[Mr.wizard]

The thing that has always bothered me about this story is the fact that jesus gets credit for making the "ultimate sacrifice". If you look at what jesus gave up, what did he really sacrifice. He was a 30 year old carpenter in the middle east during a time of disease, poverty, and war, and he gave all that up to be god? If he really wanted to help people he could of stayed and taught people, fed people, healed people, but no, he decided to head for paradise where he is the ruler of the universe, seems like he got the better end of the deal.

[The Valkyrie]

Because if the Romans had sodomised him to death the Christian symbol might be quite embarrassing.

[Crossless2.0]

Because if the Romans had sodomised him to death the Christian symbol might be quite embarrassing.

However, the three-in-one dogma would make a bit more sense.

[StealthySkeptic]

In keeping with notion of why fictional characters do anything I have never accepted that Luke turned off his computer while bombing the Death Star.

Wut you say, lyin' little fucker?

The Force will torture you always, nonbeliever.

[John S]

So, why was it necessary for God to have Jesus sacrificed for our sins? Now, I know that this whole notion of Jesus' death being "a sacrifice" is stupid, and I've already covered that elsewhere, but for sake of this thread, lets assume it counts. Why did it have to happen? By what mechanism does the death of one innocent person atone for the sins of others? I was thinking about this and realized that this was something that God either chose to do, or somehow had to do, and either way, it has weird consequences most Christians don't like to consider.

God had to go through with it:
So, for whatever reason, this bizarre self-sacrifice was vital to God forgiving our sins, and he couldn't simply just... forgive us. It's something to which God was beholden, and something he has no control over. It makes me wonder: from where did this rule come?

Conclusion: God is not omnipotent.


God chose to go through with it:
God could have forgiven us, but he instead opted to have one third of himself be sacrificed to another third of himself for reasons. Now, this seems stupid (and it is), but I guess I can't complain too much. All parties involved were consenting, even if it does look like some really freaky S&M. Still, the whole charade was unnecessary and overly theatric.

Conclusion: God's bloodlust exceeds his compassion, and he goes out of his way to cause suffering when "solving" problems.


Now, I think the second point is closest to the standard Christian stance, although they don't like to think about it much. It is actually very similar to flood apologetics and original sin apologetics, so, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Any part of this that looks creepy at first glance (all of it) will be washed over with a veneer of [mysterious ways] to hide the blemishes.

Secularly speaking, Jesus was crucified because when people, who weren't Roman citizens were found guilty of a serious crime, THAT was their punishment. MANY thousands of people met this fate. Roman citizens had their head chopped off.

[ShaMan]

The Force will torture you always, nonbeliever.

[StealthySkeptic]

The Force will torture you always, nonbeliever.

You must unlearn what you have learned.

[frasierc]

Godly sacrifice as a substitute for human sacrifice was prevalent in and around Israel (Prometheus, Ra, Isis, Persephone). The gods of course are resurrected. These myths often had to with the change of seasons. But in many cases they morphed into sacrifices by which a god shares the blessing of eternal life with mortal man. Often this sharing is in opposition to the wishes of the other gods.

The Jesus myth is not so very different. God sacrifices himself to bring us the secret of eternal life. The necessity of the sacrifice is never really very clear. Christian apologetics are just an attempt to explain what appeared to have made sense to bronze age cultures but no longer makes sense to modern man.


Yes its true that the concept of sacrifice is not unique to Christianity. But as the question is on the concept of Jesus sacrifice I think it makes more sense to try and understand it from its natural context of the Bible rather than trying to impose a view of Bronze age sacrifice.

According to the Bible, humanity had one representative - Adam. He had the choice of relationship with God for eternity or to go his own way without God experiencing physical death and eternal separation from God for all humanity. Adam's choice to go his own way without God as representative was the choice for all humanity and therefore all people experience physical death and separation from God.

Jesus sacrifice is really about God's compassion in starting a new humanity. Jesus is a second Adam who represents humanity but at the same time fully God. He chooses relationship with the Father for all eternity on our behalf and dies the physical and spiritual death that the first Adam's choices required.

So humanity then has the option to remain united to the first Adam as we are born and receive the consequences of his actions (death and separation from God) or we can be united to this second Adam and receive the consequences of his actions (relationship with God for all eternity).

[ShaMan]

You must unlearn what you have learned.

Wrong thread, but still.....