Why Jesus deserved to die

[Eris]

The common view of Jesus's death is that it's purpose was to save us from the sin which man brought into this world.

But if this universe was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, supreme being, then all that exists was caused by that being. An omniscient, omnipotent being (and we'll stray from logic here and pretend that an omniscient and omnipotent being can be animate instead of inert) has the foresight to see and the power to prevent sin. Yet it created us, and therefore sin, anyway. Sin is thus god's fault.

"In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d. Through him all things were made; and without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1
This verse is interpreted to be referring to Jesus. It states that Jesus himself was responsible for sin. And according to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. So the death of Jesus, the son of god, is not best explained as an act of mercy, but an act of penitence.

Christians really don't like this idea.

[Will]

It was about creating a situation that was powerful in relation to his audience. God's son dying? That's must-see-TV. At least that's how I see it.

BTW, you don't mind when others spell "G-d" as God or god, right?

[tacoma_kyle]

Haha excellent point.

Althout it isnt exactly on my to-do list----I am interesting in reading some parts of the old testiment.

[Eris]

It was about creating a situation that was powerful in relation to his audience. God's son dying? That's must-see-TV. At least that's how I see it.

BTW, you don't mind when others spell "G-d" as God or god, right?

No, I don't mind. I dont' know why I tend to switch back and forth myself, depending on my mood. Weird, I know.

I'm not sure what you mean about creating a situation that was powerful in relation to his audience. Could you expand on that please?

[Will]

No, I don't mind. I dont' know why I tend to switch back and forth myself, depending on my mood. Weird, I know.

How about Ap-llo? Too much?

I'm not sure what you mean about creating a situation that was powerful in relation to his audience. Could you expand on that please?

There are certain motifs that are incredibly common in oral tradition especially when it comes to mythology. One of those is the value of sacrifice/martyrdom. If you believe as I do, that Jesus is in fact an amalgam of previous myths, it's probable that when his story was written his character was made to be worthy of being called god or the son of god or the prophet of god (depending on whom you ask) not simply by being born of a virgin or performing miracles... but the sacrifice endears the character to the reader/believer. I'll give you an example in non-mythological fiction: Darth Vader. While this character was originally introduced as the perfect villain, slowly we're then led to understand that he's a sympathetic character (as Jesus was when he was in the desert) and eventually Vader sacrificed himself to save his son from evil. This endeared his character to the audience in a very big way. As the end of the movie, he has gone from the ultimate evil to a great protagonist and is beloved (just as Jesus was, allowing himself to be tortured and killed).

So instead of seeing it as god killing his son, it's all symbolic metaphors and ancient motifs that are well established in fiction to evoke an emotional attachment to the character.

[Eris]

That's an interesting way to look at it, Willravel. It makes sense.

[LARA]

I don't believe that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being, so Jesus, if he actually existed, did not deserve to die.  

Jesus was simply a man, a carpenter, who got some big ideas about the religion of the time and began teaching them to others.  Ideas like Yaweh wasn't really an asshole who punished us to keep us in line, instead He cared about us and wanted us to succeed, even if we weren't top notch material.  Jesus was a bit touched in the head, yes, but his big mistake was to compete with the powers that be for an audience, and tell all the misfit types they were okay, too.  Since that didn't go over particularly well with the established authoritarian order, they nailed him up with a couple of thieves to remind everyone who was in control of the mass insanity and, therefore, the tithe and the law.  

Real intended lesson of the crucifixion:  Don't try to compete with the ruling classes bread and butter scam, especially if you're a little loopy.

[Whitney]

"In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d. Through him all things were made; and without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1
This verse is interpreted to be referring to Jesus. It states that Jesus himself was responsible for sin. And according to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. So the death of Jesus, the son of god, is not best explained as an act of mercy, but an act of penitence.

Christians really don't like this idea.

The Bible never does really account for how an all loving being could be right in creating anything that is evil.  Yet, it also does not always shy away from the idea that god created evil....there is a verse in the OT that says basically "I created darkness and light, good and bad...I the lord your God do all these things" (I don't have the verses memorized and don't feel like spending 30 minutes trying to find the verse I'm thinking of, but it's there).  Then there are other parts, mainly through interpretation, that try to pin the creation of evil and sin on Satan (who's original job was to do God's dirty work, so to speak) even though he was working for God when the 'original' sin occurred.

So, now Christians are left with a God who, for reasons beyond normal understanding, thought it right to sacrifice himself to himself (doesn't make sense, but if they want to claim monotheism that's how it is) for the sins of humans which he set up to fail shortly after creating them.

^Christians don't like when you refer to the crucifixion as sacrificing himself to himself either...and they have excuses; some much better than others.

 One deals with how sin is like a debt to be paid off and sometimes it may be acceptable to ask someone else to pay the debt for you and in doing so your will is aligned with theirs.  An interesting and complicated idea, by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aqu ... sus_Christ.  I might have the essay about it saved somewhere on this computer.  I don't find it very compelling just better than others I've heard, but with the absence of Christians on this forum I figured I'd throw in a bit of argument from their side.

found the essay, if interested see attachment:

[Will]

I've never seen any proof that Jesus ever existed, divine or not. I'm certain that the only evidence of his existence is biblical, and as such is highly suspect.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

[imachristian]

So I'm a Christian who's decided to explore an atheist forum to sharpen my thinking and to hopefully offer some counterarguments. I'm not looking to cause a big ruckus, but just to have some interesting discussions. Now, I haven't really read the responses to the topic, so I'm basing my response just on the first post.

The common view of Jesus's death is that it's purpose was to save us from the sin which man brought into this world.

But if this universe was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, supreme being, then all that exists was caused by that being. An omniscient, omnipotent being (and we'll stray from logic here and pretend that an omniscient and omnipotent being can be animate instead of inert) has the foresight to see and the power to prevent sin. Yet it created us, and therefore sin, anyway. Sin is thus god's fault.

I would agree that God is ultimately the "author" of sin. The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, even over sin; Christians who try to argue otherwise end up being biblically unfaithful.

But I do have a problem with saying that sin is God's "fault." Sin is not necessarily a bad thing, if God has a good purpose for it, namely, his glory. Now, I know most of you will probably have a problem with this statement, but I won't defend it in depth here, since this is not the primary topic of this post. All I'm pointing out here is that just because God authors sin does not mean that God is at "fault."

"In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d. Through him all things were made; and without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1
This verse is interpreted to be referring to Jesus. It states that Jesus himself was responsible for sin.

I've already pointed out that God is indeed ultimately the cause of sin. Another important point is that according to the Bible, even though God is the cause of sin, he is not responsible for sin - man is still responsible for his sin. A helpful (though not perfect) model is the author-storybook model. Say God is the author of a book in which characters sin. Now, God wrote the book, but can we really say that God sinned? No, the characters sinned, not God, and the characters will experience the consequences of their sin. Now, there's a lot more I could say about this issue, but again, that's probably beyond the scope of this post.

And according to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. So the death of Jesus, the son of god, is not best explained as an act of mercy, but an act of penitence.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but here's a guess, and my answer. Are you saying that Jesus died because he sinned, so he needed to undergo penitence, and therefore his death was not an act of mercy? If so, I would answer that the Bible teaches that Jesus did not sin, but that the sins of everyone who would ever believe in him were imputed to him on the cross, so that he could suffer for them in their place. So in this sense, Jesus did suffer the penalty of "death" and the "wages of sin," but only as a substitute. He did not suffer because of his own sin. So since he suffered for others and not himself, I would consider his death an act of mercy. Jesus did not himself deserve to die, but when sin was imputed to him, God needed to punish Jesus with death.

If I misunderstood, just let me know.

Christians really don't like this idea.

Yeah, a lot of Christians wouldn't like the idea that God is sovereign over sin, but that's because they are ignorant of what the Bible really teaches.

But... a lot of Christians (like me), have no problem with any of these ideas, because they are biblical, and glorifying to God. I love the fact that God is sovereign, even over sin, and the fact that there is no logical problem with this. I know I haven't covered everything here, so if you want me to develop any of my points, just let me know.

And in regards to the title and (I think) main point of this post... can you really argue that Jesus deserved to die? I think you just misunderstood biblical teaching, but if I misunderstood you, then please let me know.

[Will]

Welcome, imachristian.

God is passively responsible for sin assuming that he is omnipotent. He is responsible for sin in the same way that congress is responsible for the Iraq war. Ultimately it is god who would have the power to rescue mankind from sin. Being omniscient, he was clearly aware before the creation of man that man would fall, and that he took no steps to create a more innocent or less curious man or took no steps to make the test more difficult would suggest that he is, again, passively responsible.

According to what my father, a pastor, teaches, as the wages of the sin of all mankind should result in death, we should all go to hell. Jesus' death was about him paying for our sin, accepting himself our penitence. So, by my understanding, your explanation is biblically correct according to at least several protestant denominations, and catholicism.


From the perspective of an atheist, Jesus' death was about evoking an emotional response from the reader/believer. From a theist's perspective, Jesus didn't deserve to die, but rather all sinners deserve death and damnation due to the rule of god.

[imachristian]

The Bible never does really account for how an all loving being could be right in creating anything that is evil.

I think you need to define what you mean by "all loving" before you use the term. What does the Bible teach about God's love? I think it's different than what you're thinking.

The Bible does explain that God is right in creating evil because it results in his glory (Ephesians 1). Apparently God thought sin and salvation through Christ would be more glorifying to him than no sin and no salvation. Does God pursuing his own glory mean he is self-centered? Absolutely. But unlike humans, if God is indeed the creator and sole God of the universe, he has the right to do anything he wants.

Yet, it also does not always shy away from the idea that god created evil....there is a verse in the OT that says basically "I created darkness and light, good and bad...I the lord your God do all these things" (I don't have the verses memorized and don't feel like spending 30 minutes trying to find the verse I'm thinking of, but it's there).[/quote]

Agreed. Actually, using biblegateway.com to search for the verse would probably only take like less than five minutes. It's Isaiah 45:7.

Then there are other parts, mainly through interpretation, that try to pin the creation of evil and sin on Satan (who's original job was to do God's dirty work, so to speak) even though he was working for God when the 'original' sin occurred.

Yeah, trying to distance God from evil and sin doesn't work, although God does often work through means. Nevertheless, he is still sovereign over the means he uses.

So, now Christians are left with a God who, for reasons beyond normal understanding, thought it right to sacrifice himself to himself (doesn't make sense, but if they want to claim monotheism that's how it is) for the sins of humans which he set up to fail shortly after creating them.

We claim monotheism, but we also claim the Trinity, which a lot of people view as contradictory, even though it is not. The Trinity teaches that God is three in one sense, and one in another sense, which is not contradictory--three in person, one in being or essence. So Jesus and the Father being separate persons within the Godhead would explain how one person within the Godhead could sacrifice himself to another person in the Godhead.

The reason God set humans up to fall was so that he would be glorified through Jesus' atoning work, and through saving them. Jesus was not plan B, but was plan A from the very beginning. According to the Bible, God does what will maximize his own glory.

^Christians don't like when you refer to the crucifixion as sacrificing himself to himself either...and they have excuses; some much better than others.

 One deals with how sin is like a debt to be paid off and sometimes it may be acceptable to ask someone else to pay the debt for you and in doing so your will is aligned with theirs.  

Clarification to this view: Yes, the crucifixion is about Jesus paying the penalty of sin in the place of those who would believe in him, as their substitute. However, sinners do not "ask" God for Jesus to pay their debt; Jesus chose to sacrifice himself in spite of humanity's rebellion. So humans do not align their will with God; rather, Jesus' sacrifice provides the means through which humans' will can be aligned with God (through faith).

An interesting and complicated idea, by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aqu ... sus_Christ.  I might have the essay about it saved somewhere on this computer.  I don't find it very compelling just better than others I've heard, but with the absence of Christians on this forum I figured I'd throw in a bit of argument from their side.

found the essay, if interested see attachment:

It's not that complicated of an idea, that Jesus is a substitute sacrifice for sinners, who pays the penalty they were supposed to suffer in their place, so that through faith they can be innocent before God.

This is really the only legitimate answer to why Jesus sacrificed himself to God =P. It's the one the Bible clearly teaches.

You probably just don't find this answer compelling because you don't believe the Bible. There is no other logical way to explain Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If you don't think this answer is logical, what don't you find logical about it?

[imachristian]

Welcome, imachristian.

This response was really quick... =P

God is passively responsible for sin assuming that he is omnipotent. He is responsible for sin in the same way that congress is responsible for the Iraq war. Ultimately it is god who would have the power to rescue mankind from sin. Being omniscient, he was clearly aware before the creation of man that man would fall, and that he took no steps to create a more innocent or less curious man or took no steps to make the test more difficult would suggest that he is, again, passively responsible.

I disagree with the "passively" responsible view. It contradicts with the biblical teaching that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. I think saying that God took no steps to do those things sort of begs the question. If God is indeed completely sovereign, then he is actively responsible for how Adam and Eve responded to his command not to eat from the tree.

According to what my father, a pastor, teaches, as the wages of the sin of all mankind should result in death, we should all go to hell. Jesus' death was about him paying for our sin, accepting himself our penitence. So, by my understanding, your explanation is biblically correct according to at least several protestant denominations, and catholicism.

Ah, I understand what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.

From the perspective of an atheist, Jesus' death was about evoking an emotional response from the reader/believer. From a theist's perspective, Jesus didn't deserve to die, but rather all sinners deserve death and damnation due to the rule of god.

Hmm, are you saying that Jesus himself did not know why he died? Jesus claimed to die to actually save his people, and not merely to evoke an emotional response from people.

Do you know about that C.S. Lewis passage? The one that says we must either view Jesus as a lunatic or as the Son of God? Since you think Jesus had no idea what he was talking about, would you view Jesus as a lunatic, and thus ultimately worthless to modern day thinking?

[Will]

This response was really quick... =P

Bond: One rises to the occasion.

I disagree with the "passively" responsible view. It contradicts with the biblical teaching that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. I think saying that God took no steps to do those things sort of begs the question. If God is indeed completely sovereign, then he is actively responsible for how Adam and Eve responded to his command not to eat from the tree.

Well if he were actively responsible then he would have caused the fall, which contradicts the idea of free will, which was kinda the whole point of the parable/retelling. Man's free will lead to an understanding of good and evil: and a choice. That choice is out of god's hands because he chooses for it to be. So, by allowing free will but also setting the chess board for man to lose, he's passively responsible.

Hmm, are you saying that Jesus himself did not know why he died? Jesus claimed to die to actually save his people, and not merely to evoke an emotional response from people.

No, according to the bible Jesus knew what was coming and had a good idea of why. The emotional response thing is from my perspective, the perspective of an atheist. My view of the bible is that it's comparable to an ancient book of myths no offense intended). As such, myths are stories based either in fiction or real life. Jesus giving his life in order to rescue mankind from itself is a classic example of the heroic sacrifice in literature. I kinda explained it above, in post #5. I can elaborate if you have any questions.

Do you know about that C.S. Lewis passage? The one that says we must either view Jesus as a lunatic or as the Son of God? Since you think Jesus had no idea what he was talking about, would you view Jesus as a lunatic, and thus ultimately worthless to modern day thinking?

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote. It was made after C.S. Lewis had a time in his life when he was agnostic. The problem, though, is that his quote assumes that Jesus was real. All extra-bilblical evidence of Jesus Christ is shaky at best, and usually roots right back into the Bible. So when I hear the story of Jesus, I liken it to stories of Hercules. There may have been a historical figure upon which Hercules was based, but there may not have been. That level of uncertainty, and the probable exaggeration through time make it impossible to determine exactly what Jesus was or wasn't thinking, assuming he was real. Again, I'll try to clarify if this isn't clear. I normally have this conversation with agnostics or atheists, so I might need to adapt the language more you your perspective. I dunno.

[Tom62]

If you are lookin for historical evidence of the existance of Jesus then this link privides some very interesting reading: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html