WHY was Jesus cricified?

[RobbyPants]

[John V]

[orangebox21]

@ no one in particular:

Is it that you don't understand what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement, or is it that you reject what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement?

[Minimalist]

According to the Bible, humanity had one representative - Adam.

No, no. You don't get to prove one part of the story by quoting from another part.

That's just bullshitting to the nth degree.

[RobbyPants]

Hardly. The servant is told that he should have forgave because he had been forgiven.

In respect to God, we'd be forgiving each other because we were forgiven by him, but with respect to each other, we are to forgive without expecting any compensation or punishment.

So, why couldn't God simply do that with us? Why does there need to be some sort of atonement to seed the whole process?

And before you say something about God's nature or forgiveness without atonement isn't "just": how does one person's atonement pay for the sins of other? What did God gain from it? Jesus didn't really atone for anything anyway, because he's sitting in heaven. There was no sacrifice; there was no atonement.

[Tonus]

So, why was it necessary for God to have Jesus sacrificed for our sins?

The JWs explain that when Adam and Eve sinned, they introduced imperfection into the human race. Since there were no other humans, that meant all humans were now imperfect and cursed to be sinful, therefore unable to keep from acting against god's will and thus doomed to death. In order to reverse this, a perfect human life would need to be sacrificed while still unblemished by sin. The idea is that dying without sinning meant that god "owed" Jesus a human life, and Jesus offers that unblemished life in place of those of humanity.

That does imply that god was obligated to act, but the JWs explain that by saying that god's sense of justice is so perfect and so pure that he thus felt obliged to follow through with this plan instead of simply changing the rules on the fly. I think it's that sort of viewpoint that makes me reject the idea that god can be considered on a separate moral level to mankind. If god has decided to place himself under the same moral framework that he built for mankind, then he has allowed himself to be judged by it as well.

[John V]

In respect to God, we'd be forgiving each other because we were forgiven by him, but with respect to each other, we are to forgive without expecting any compensation or punishment.

So, why couldn't God simply do that with us? Why does there need to be some sort of atonement to seed the whole process?

Because God's sense of justice requires it.

And before you say something about God's nature or forgiveness without atonement isn't "just": how does one person's atonement pay for the sins of other? What did God gain from it? Jesus didn't really atone for anything anyway, because he's sitting in heaven. There was no sacrifice; there was no atonement.

How does saying "I'm sorry" atone for your wrongs to one person, but not to another? How does paying a fine to the state atone for going through a stop sign? How does prison time atone for anything anyway - former convicts are now free people?

ETA: How does one atone for murder?

If my child A hits child B and I tell child B to simply forgive A, does that mean that I must likewise do so, and cannot punish A? If I do punish A, does that mean that B must also punish A in the same manner?

If a president pardons one criminal, why doesn't he simply pardon them all?

[frasierc]

So, you're saying God could have chosen to simply forgive, yet didn't want to?

Yeah as I said he could have chosen to go back on his promise - and therefore compromise his integrity. I'm not sure how that would be considered a better (more moral?) response to Adam.

The Bible's solution keeps the integrity of God's promise. If humanity wants to abandon relationship with God they are given that choice. But God offers a way out by bearing that abandonment - so that humanity has a choice to come back to God.



...just like God chose to make that promise to Adam.

This still fits squarely within my original assertion of God setting up an arbitrary paradigm of unnecessary punishments. This system exists because he wants it to exist.

I don't think this is an arbitrary paradigm. This is the natural way that relationships work. You offer relationship with someone and they can choose to take up that offer or keep out your way and go in another direction.

Wouldn't we just be robots if God programmed us to unconditionally want relationship with him.

But even though we choose to turn away from him, he comes looking for us offering us a way back (see prodigal son parable). A way that is most costly to him.

---

According to the Bible, humanity had one representative - Adam.

No, no. You don't get to prove one part of the story by quoting from another part.

That's just bullshitting to the nth degree.

I wasn't trying to prove the story is true. That wasn't Robbypants' question. His question was about the meaning of Jesus death.
I was just saying how the Bible explained it - not sure how that's bullshitting to the nth degree. Feel free to suggest alternative explanations by all means.

---

And before you say something about God's nature or forgiveness without atonement isn't "just": how does one person's atonement pay for the sins of other? What did God gain from it? Jesus didn't really atone for anything anyway, because he's sitting in heaven. There was no sacrifice; there was no atonement.
[/quote]

Jesus isn't just one person paying for another person's sin. Though he remains divine he becomes a human to represent the whole of humanity in bearing their physical death (dying on the cross) and spiritual death (experiencing abandonment from the Father when he says ' Father why have you forsaken me'). Which should have been borne by humanity because of the choices of Adam (the first human representative).

Jesus is a sacrifice - because he died. But if he dies only our slate is wiped clean but we're not at one with God. In his resurrection he was a 'first fruits' of a new humanity so that we may share in his new humanity which is everlasting relationship with God i.e. atonement - we become one with God. So atonement requires Jesus death, resurrection and ascension.

[orangebox21]

In respect to God, we'd be forgiving each other because we were forgiven by him, but with respect to each other, we are to forgive without expecting any compensation or punishment.

I would agree.

So, why couldn't God simply do that with us? Why does there need to be some sort of atonement to seed the whole process?

And before you say something about God's nature or forgiveness without atonement isn't "just": how does one person's atonement pay for the sins of other?

This is really two separate questions: Is God's forgiveness without atonement unjust? And: How does one person's atonement pay for the sins of another?

To the first question: by the very definition of justice. If someone is guilty of a crime and they are not punished that is unjust.

To the second question: it wouldn't. One person's atonement wouldn't pay for the sins of another. But Christ is not just a person. He is fully man and fully God.

What did God gain from it?

God was able to simultaneously reveal the glory of His wrath/justice and the glory of His mercy.

Jesus didn't really atone for anything anyway, because he's sitting in heaven. There was no sacrifice; there was no atonement.

(Speaking of Christ) 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Looks like other's have answered in the time I'm taking to write the response, but I will post anyway.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

First of all, there is no god, so we can rule out that resurrection nonsense. Remember, it was the Romans who killed Jesus, NOT Jews (many Anti-Semites like blaming the Jews for Christ's death, gives them another reason to be bigoted assholes).

Assuming he actually existed, it's said that Jesus posed some sort of threat to the Empire. The Romans executed lots of prophets, activists and enemies of the Empire during the first century, so Jesus' death sentence shouldn't have been a surprise. The Jews saw him as a threat to their religion, the Rabbis and other Jewish leaders felt threatened by his supposed influence, as if he was essentially taking away their followers. If the Romans didn't kill him the Jews probably would've done it themselves.

The Bible says that the Jews killed Jesus as well as their other prophets.

In the Babylonian Talmud the Jews boast about using five methods to kill Jesus. They wanted him dead.