Why did Jesus suffer for sinners and not victims

[Drich]

Jesus supposedly suffered for our sins. Victims of sinners suffer from the same sins that Jesus already suffered for. The sinner is often unrepentant, feels no guilt and doesn't suffer. So what's the point of Jesus' suffering if the victim also suffers but not the sinner?

Why wasn't someone sent to take on the suffering of the victims? That would be nice. It seems though that the victims have to suffer for sins that Jesus already suffered for. It's like the sin is double dipping.

I remember reading about Polly Klass years ago. She was a 12 year old girl who was kidnapped from her house while she was having a slumber party. Richard Allen Davis, who had been in and out of jail several times, broke into her house at night and kidnapped, abused and murdered her. Polly and her family suffered greatly for what he did. He is still alive and unrepentant in jail.

If Jesus already suffered for what Davis did, why did poor Poly also have to suffer? Why didn't Jesus suffer for Polly? The only person who didn't suffer was Davis. He probably regrets being in jail but not what he did to Polly. If he has a chance to repent in the next life, why did Poly and her family have to pay the price when Jesus already took care of it. Makes no sense.

A hero will throw him/herself in front of a bullet for a friend. The hero suffers a bullet wound but the friend is saved. Only one person is hurt.

Jesus took a bullet for us all but we are still shot and suffer from the same bullet. Jesus suffered and we suffer. What's the point of all the suffering? So the shooter can go to heaven? What about the victims? Who suffers for them?

So he who has suffered and is without sin... cast the first stone. The Pharisees basically asked this same question when they caught a woman in the act of adultery and was trying to trick him into stoning her/condemn her to death.

Then he began to write out different sins on the ground, presumably the sins of the spiritual leaders who are acting as if where being traumatized by this woman's sins. 

So jesus said, you without sin throw the first stone.

the same is true here. one none are without sin. two remember we put 'moral value' on sin. having one sin greater than another.  Meaning what ever sin someone sins against you, is nothing compared to the sum total of sin you in a life time have sinned against god. IE the greater debt here is between you and god and not someone against us even if they murder us. as a life times of what we would consider minor sin are millions of examples of times you have shat on god, verse the one big duce you got from this guy who...

this is also explain in the parable of the unmerciful servant.. 

[Jehanne]

Jesus was executed for sedition against the Roman Empire for incitement of an altercation in the Jewish temple and his open belief in the demise of the Empire by an apocalyptic being from Heaven. Jesus suffered, not for sinners, but solely due to his own criminal misconduct.

[Drich]

Jesus was executed for sedition against the Roman Empire for incitement of an altercation in the Jewish temple and his open belief in the demise of the Empire by an apocalyptic being from Heaven.  Jesus suffered, not for sinners, but solely due to his own criminal misconduct.

actually he wasn't. the washing of the hands of pilate showed that pilate nor the roman government had anything to do with Christ's death. Jesus was turned over to the will of the crowd.

[Crossless2.0]

Jesus was executed for sedition against the Roman Empire for incitement of an altercation in the Jewish temple and his open belief in the demise of the Empire by an apocalyptic being from Heaven.  Jesus suffered, not for sinners, but solely due to his own criminal misconduct.

actually he wasn't. the washing of the hands of pilate showed that pilate nor the roman government had anything to do with Christ's death. Jesus was turned over to the will of the crowd.

Right, because Pilate's concerns for Jewish sensibilities are so well established in the other sources we have about him. Of course he caved in to the mob. 

Tell me something, Drich. If you were writing a "Gospel" shortly after Rome ruthlessly had put down a violent Jewish rebellion, and your 'good news' was about an apocalyptic Jewish movement led by a Jewish charismatic figure who may or may not have made public pronouncements identifying himself a Messiah/king and that movement had been largely co-opted by Roman gentiles by the time of your writing . . . how would you have portrayed Pilate? The bad guy? 

Bad marketing.

Assuming there's a kernel of truth to any of the narratives surrounding the alleged crucifixion, I think it's not inconceivable that the Temple authorities may well have turned over this  troublemaker to the Romans. It was high festival, the city was packed, and the Temple authorities were on the hook for any signs of rebellion and civil unrest. Better the hick from Nazareth be made an example than let him run amok and cause even more trouble. As for Pilate, all he would have needed to hear was that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah (or that enough people believed it of him), and the decision would have been quite easy to make. For all the hand-wringing and hand washing in the narrative, I doubt Pilate took longer than it would take to eat a sandwich to seal Jesus's fate.

I suppose you also think the two men said to have been crucified alongside Jesus were thieves. 

[The Grand Nudger]

The Church of Rome claims that Rome had nothing to do with the murder of it's jewish god, it was those damned jews - news at 10.

[Drich]

actually he wasn't. the washing of the hands of pilate showed that pilate nor the roman government had anything to do with Christ's death. Jesus was turned over to the will of the crowd.

Right, because Pilate's concerns for Jewish sensibilities are so well established in the other sources we have about him. Of course he caved in to the mob. 

up until recently pilate was thought to be a made up figure as the bible seems to be the only detailed source we had till recently.
Meaning, IF the bible is good enough of a source for you to say Jesus was turned over to the government for execution... Even though the source you use does not say that.. then it is a good enough source for you to accept me telling you what the source does say!

Tell me something, Drich. If you were writing a "Gospel" shortly after Rome ruthlessly had put down a violent Jewish rebellion, and your 'good news' was about an apocalyptic Jewish movement led by a Jewish charismatic figure who may or may not have made public pronouncements identifying himself a Messiah/king and that movement had been largely co-opted by Roman gentiles by the time of your writing . . . how would you have portrayed Pilate? The bad guy? 

sweetheart, hate to break it to you but pilate is the bad guy as he executed an innocent man by his own admission. think about it. you know the man standing before you is not guilty of anything, yet you have him beaten to an inch of death and the crusify him. why? because you didn't want to have a race riot on your hands which would give you a political stain. anyone who condemns an innocent man and admits he is doing so is not only evil, but a coward to boot.

Bad marketing.

Assuming there's a kernel of truth to any of the narratives surrounding the alleged crucifixion, I think it's not inconceivable that the Temple authorities may well have turned over this  troublemaker to the Romans.

here's the thing while what jesus did was very upsetting he broke no temple laws. in fact the priests were the one's breaking temple laws in their little money/sacrifice scam. Jesus exposed their little money making scheme.

It was high festival, the city was packed, and the Temple authorities were on the hook for any signs of rebellion and civil unrest. Better the hick from Nazareth be made an example than let him run amok and cause even more trouble.

which is why the released barabas a known revolutionary instead?!?! no. Something much larger was going on here. Jesus took and spoke with the authority of God robbing the preists of position and power. while the money changers explusion was the final straw Jesus for month had been undermining and showing up the priests every chance he got. look at mat 23 the whole chapter Jesus flat our curses (real meaning of the word) the temple preists and makers of the law out he was so harsh and hard on them and did so with such authority and conviction using not only scripture but his authority as being sent from the father to obliterate any respect the people would ever have for the priests and makers of the law ever again. my point was the damage was done, and when confronted about a rebellion Christ said he was not here to lead a physical rebellion rather to surrender ourselves to the roman authority because it was the father who put the romans in charge. So there was no political threat from anything christ said or taught rather he had already destroyed the old way of worship.

As for Pilate, all he would have needed to hear was that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah (or that enough people believed it of him), and the decision would have been quite easy to make. For all the hand-wringing and hand washing in the narrative, I doubt Pilate took longer than it would take to eat a sandwich to seal Jesus's fate.

if you read the gospels Pilate asks Jesus he heard jesus called himself "the King of the Jews" he Asked him if this was true to which jesus said his kingdom was not of this earth. and pilated did sweat over his decision as his wife was given a dream about who Jesus really was and gave pilate grief over this fact.

I suppose you also think the two men said to have been crucified alongside Jesus were thieves. 

seeings how the bible is the only way you know about those two men... then the bible would also be a good enough resource to determine why they were on the cross. do you not think what you say through? You only have this one source but you choose to create a new narrative based on what this one source says and pretend your new narrative has any weight to it. I've called your bluff sport. you are in the same boat i am.. there is not secrete autobiography of pilate that gives you special insite. we have the bible and your stuck to what the bible says if you are going to use it as a source to establish the characters in it.

---

The Church of Rome claims that Rome had nothing to do with the murder of it's jewish god, it was those damned jews - news at 10.

the church at rome openly does not follow the teachings of the God of the bible as it has rewritten the bible several times.

[Angrboda]

Blah blah, blah blah....

[The Grand Nudger]

---

The Church of Rome claims that Rome had nothing to do with the murder of it's jewish god, it was those damned jews - news at 10.

the church at rome openly does not follow the teachings of the God of the bible as it has rewritten the bible several times.

-and yet you believe the fairy tales they created and promoted.  Good for you.

[Drich]

---

the church at rome openly does not follow the teachings of the God of the bible as it has rewritten the bible several times.

-and yet you believe the fairy tales they created and promoted.  Good for you.

sorry sport no. we have the much earlier works/written record of the greeks.  most secular/atheist believe that the roman church is the primary source of everything christian.. it's not. it's the primary source for everything roman catholic. there was a movement stated about 800ish years ago where a german monk and some other scholars split from the Rc church, and came across the original greek writing of the 1st and second century church. which spawn a whole new completely different version of christianity. one completely divorced from anything roman or orthodox catholic. A system of belief built on the koine greek and not the latin vulgate.

So no we do not believe in any rc specific doctrine.. we celebrate 12-25 because we like decorating trees, and opening presents. we celebrate easter with eggs and rabbits because we like cadbury cream eggs and easter egg hunts.. we don't believe in the power the pope assumes, we do not believe in the papal changes they have made/contributed to the vulgate, we do not even accept all the books they do as some can not be sourced outside of the church.

[HappySkeptic]

we do not even accept all the books they do as some can not be sourced outside of the church.

Your own books are by anonymous writers.  Why would they be any more authoritative than those of the RC church?

I just don't understand why people believe that an all-powerful God would put the only chronicle of His actions on Earth in the hands of unknown writers, who write with the same style and mythological background as other writers of the time.  And then, some future group of people "decide" which are the "real" chronicles of God, and which aren't, and then expect everyone else to worship the cobbled together bible.