toldailytopic: Why did Jesus need to die?

[naatmi]

Sins(plural) can be forgiven. Sin(singular) cannot be forgiven-it must be judged. A forgiven thief, liar, murderer, adulterer, "luster,".....................................is still a thief, liar, murderer, adulterer, "luster"..............................................

The Holy Bible Ro. 8:3
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin(singular-my note), condemned sin(singular-my note) in the flesh:"

Sin is transgression of the law. Sins are transgressions of the law. It is the same thing. It is like saying Affection vs affections. The singular is the abstract set of the plural, or the sum of the plural. Sin is selfishness, or the collected sum of all selfish choices. Transgression of love God and neighbor.

The law cannot forgive sin or sins. Neither can repentance forgive sins. The law can never justify people who have chosen to serve their flesh. It can only condemn. It did not condemn Jesus because He never chose to serve His flesh - therefore the law was not weak through His flesh regarding His own legal justification.

 

[IXOYE]

Blood loss then heart failure . . . duh.

That' show he died, not why he needed to die. DUH.

For one of the "brights" you aren't very..., are you.

 

[IXOYE]

Sin is transgression of the law. Sins are transgressions of the law. It is the same thing. It is like saying Affection vs affections. The singular is the abstract set of the plural, or the sum of the plural. Sin is selfishness, or the collected sum of all selfish choices. Transgression of love God and neighbor.

The law cannot forgive sin or sins. Neither can repentance forgive sins. The law can never justify people who have chosen to serve their flesh. It can only condemn. It did not condemn Jesus because He never chose to serve His flesh - therefore the law was not weak through His flesh regarding His own legal justification.

It's written there were sins before the law. So sin is not ONLY a transgression of the law.

 

[IXOYE]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 21st, 2011 07:56 AM

toldailytopic: Why did Jesus need to die?

For one reason only.

That's how God decreed it would have been.

God sent His son for OUR benefit to know we could come home, like the prodigal son, where He will heal us of our issues. He made us so we would cherish our children, so we would cherish life, and sent His son so that when He died the impact would have meaning.

He could have made it find the purple diamond, and then we'd be a different humanity with some something we did for Purple Diamonds.

God forgave sins before Christ. If He didn't, then He's a liar and why trust anything He says.





Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Krsto]

There is s difference between being sacrificed and being punished. Punishment is when the transgressor is afflicted to uphold the law by the letter. An atoning sacrifice is when someone else (not the transgressor) is afflicted (not punished) to uphold the underlying purpose or spirit of the law, bypassing the letter.

An innocent person can't be punished because they are not the transgressor. The penalty of the law is the affliction of the transgressor. The penalty of the law was not executed upon Jesus because Jesus was not a transgressor. Jesus' affliction is a substitute for the execution of the penalty upon transgressors. He was not punished. He was sacrificed to uphold the spirit of the law.

Where do you see in the underlying spirit or purpose of the Law that someone must be afflicted as opposed to forgiven without someone being afflicted. That makes the underlying purpose of the law be to afflict someone. I don't think that was the purpose of the law.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That' show he died, not why he needed to die. DUH.

For one of the "brights" you aren't very..., are you.

Sarcasm . . . ZOOM . . . way over your head . . . :sigh:.

 

[elected4ever]

Where do you see in the underlying spirit or purpose of the Law that someone must be afflicted as opposed to forgiven without someone being afflicted. That makes the underlying purpose of the law be to afflict someone. I don't think that was the purpose of the law.

I scratched my head a little too.

There is no reprieve from sin. Ever person born of Adam is a sinner so all have sinned, acted according to the inherited nature of man. Because of this spiritual death it is an appointment man has to keep. That death appointment has been kept for you by the Only Begotten Son of God in the Flesh. If you chose Him not then you will keep it yourself.

Every man has been judged already. Every man is dead; separated from God. That is God's judgment upon all mankind. It is the fulfillment of that judgment that Jesus had to fulfill.

We all do not do the same thing Adam did but we all acted according to our human nature that is perverted from God's original intent. This does not make you bad, just a sinner and sinners cannot stand in the presents of God.

Our choice is, Do we take advantage of God's remedy or continue with out God? This choice only exist while our human life continues.

God has been gracious enough to tell us what the eternal conditions of our spiritual eternal lives will be as an incentive for the choice we make.

No man can act any different than the sum of his knowledge. He always acts according to his self best interest. All ways! You do. I do and so does everyone else. Knowing this, how can anyone know unless they be told and how can they be told without someone to tell them? So I tell people about the wonderful works of God and of the the works of Jesus on the behalf of all man.

How does one know who is telling the truth? Many think that they win souls for Christ. But they do not. It is not my belief or the elegance of my presentation. Nor is it my willingness to abstain from certain perceived bad practices that will rule the day but the Holy Spirit of God that will speak to any person who ask of Him. The Spirit will validate His word and the individual will know the truth and the choice will be the individual's.

 

[naatmi]

It's written there were sins before the law. So sin is not ONLY a transgression of the law.

Sin is not only a transgression of written law. In fact you could transgress the written law out of obedience to the natural/moral law and be righteous.

Sin is a transgression of the moral law. Only a transgression of the moral law deserves condemnation. The word sin could be symbolically applied to transgressions of symbolic laws but then we are talking about something totally different.

There were sins before the written law because there was law before the written law. Cain did not need the 6th commandment to be wicked. He sinned against the self-evident moral law. God said, "like Us knowing good and evil". Right and wrong is self-evident when one has enough mental capacity. The details are not always clear to us, but the spirit of the moral law is self-evident and many applications are universally obvious: "unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death" (Rom 1:29-32)

When Paul said, "until the [written] law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression [against a verbal law]" (Rom 5:14)

..he was referring back to chapter 2 "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the [moral not symbolic] things contained in the [written] law, these, having not the [written] law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom 2:14-15)

The moral law is to love. The only alternative to love is to live after our own pleasure like animals. Love is obedience, moral perfection. Selfishness is disobedience, sin, moral depravity.

 

[naatmi]

Where do you see in the underlying spirit or purpose of the Law that someone must be afflicted as opposed to forgiven without someone being afflicted. That makes the underlying purpose of the law be to afflict someone. I don't think that was the purpose of the law.

The law is for our good. I meant once someone sins. Once someone tramples on the law, God has an obligation to carry out the penalty of the law. A law without a penalty is not even a law, just advice. While the letter of the law requires the affliction of the transgressor (punishment), the underlying purpose of the law is satisfied by the atonement. The same message is conveyed by the ruler. A counteracting influence to sin is provided. That's not the only benefit of the atonement, but it is why it was necessary.

 

[Charity]

This thread is so interesting.....the subject has been sealed up hard by the priests.

 

[naatmi]

I scratched my head a little too.

I meant once a person sinned the law can only condemn them. If they had not sinned then the law would not have to condemn them.

Ever person born of Adam is a sinner so all have sinned, acted according to the inherited nature of man.
...
we all acted according to our human nature that is perverted from God's original intent.

Your nature can't make you sin. Sin is a choice. There is no such thing as unavoidable sin. Having a sinner for an father, grandfather, ancestor, etc does not make you have to be a sinner also. Ezekiel 18 addresses that idea.

This does not make you bad, just a sinner and sinners cannot stand in the presents of God.

When a person sins they are definitely being bad. Sinners are rebels against God, not victims of their nature. Sinners are criminals not cripples.

He always acts according to his self best interest. All ways! You do. I do and so does everyone else.

What do you mean? It sounds like you are saying we have no choice but to be self-centered.

 

[Krsto]

There is no reprieve from sin. Ever person born of Adam is a sinner so all have sinned, acted according to the inherited nature of man. Because of this spiritual death it is an appointment man has to keep. That death appointment has been kept for you by the Only Begotten Son of God in the Flesh. If you chose Him not then you will keep it yourself.

I don't see that Jesus kept my death appointment or needed to keep my death appointment. I see faith in him and his death and resurrection for me as the condition by which God gives me the gift of eternal life. God could have provided any of a multitude of alternatives for me to have faith in or could have provided something besides faith such as works or knowledge, if he wanted to.

 

[elected4ever]

The law is for our good. I meant once someone sins. Once someone tramples on the law, God has an obligation to carry out the penalty of the law. A law without a penalty is not even a law, just advice. While the letter of the law requires the affliction of the transgressor (punishment), the underlying purpose of the law is satisfied by the atonement. The same message is conveyed by the ruler. A counteracting influence to sin is provided. That's not the only benefit of the atonement, but it is why it was necessary.

What interest does God have in enforcing the law? He enforced the law when Adam sinned. If grace is by law then grace is no more grace. If you judge man by law do you not become a judge of the thoughts actions and intents of the one you are judging? You are not then a doer of the law but a judge. Sense we do not do the law then what right have we to judge our brother by that same law. What right have we to pull the splinter out of the eye of our neighbor and do not pull the log from our own eye. We become the blind leading the blind and we both are in danger of falling into the pit. Those who live by the law are required to keep the whole law. Not just the parts we like. If we violate the law in one place then we are guilty of violating the whole law. We are then in danger of Hell's fire.

The law was given as a demonstration. To demonstrate that man is incapable in his judgments of rights and wrongs. The law demonstrates to man that he is in need of salvation and that salvation could not be achieved by mortal man by attempting to keep the law. Salvation cannot be achieved mortal man.

Man cannot keep the law and weather lost or saved is not subject to it. Why? Because God has already judged ever man to be guilty before Him. Man chose to pass judgment upon himself when God said that He did not pass judgment upon man. God did not say that Adam was necked and needed a covering. Adam did. In direct contradiction to the command of God. The truth is man though he knew better than God.

Today, man stands before God as he did then. passing judgment upon himself. All Christendom stands today and says that the covering of Christ Jesus our Lord is insufficient. If one goes to hell today it is because man has rejected the covering of the blood of the Cross that He (God) has provided for all the transgressions of man. Man still says that he is necked when God says I have provided a garment of righteousness for you.

Do we I believe in the sufficiency of Jesus to cover all our sin and the acts that flow (sins) from that sin? Is Jesus sufficient for us? If Jesus is not sufficient for us then what pray tell are we going to do to improve Jesus' finished work on the cross?

 

[Krsto]

I doubt that to be true.

My information is that God is bound to his own righteousness.

If there was another way or a better way, then God would have done it that way.

LA.

I find it hard to imagine that if GOD could have come up with another way, that He would have allowed His Son to die the awful death of the cross.
I've seen you say this before and it always strikes me as demeaning to Christ's perfect work on the cross. When I see this, I actually have a sickening feeling come over me.

The plan of man's redemption was designed before the world was.
How could a perfect GOD put forth less than a perfect plan as is 'the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world'?

These are the best reasons presented on this thread. Everyone else has been taking it from the angle of satisfaction of justice or retributive justice but without scriptural support. Unless someone can come up with a scripture for it I don't see any reason to believe Jesus had to die because we sinned.

As to Lazy and steko's proposal that a perfect God picked the perfect means of salvation and could do no less that assumes there weren't other options equally good or perfect. We don't really know if there were or not so at this point we are speculating. What we do know is that God had reason to do it the way he did: "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:22-24)

I think it's possible a creative God had other options that would have satisfied his aim expressed in this verse but I am not as creative as God so can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

These are the best reasons presented on this thread. Everyone else has been taking it from the angle of satisfaction of justice or retributive justice but without scriptural support. Unless someone can come up with a scripture for it I don't see any reason to believe Jesus had to die because we sinned.

As to Lazy and steko's proposal that a perfect God picked the perfect means of salvation and could do no less that assumes there weren't other options equally good or perfect. We don't really know if there were or not so at this point we are speculating. What we do know is that God had reason to do it the way he did: "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:22-24)

I think it's possible a creative God had other options that would have satisfied his aim expressed in this verse but I am not as creative as God so can't think of any off the top of my head.

There can not have been another way for God to make mankind in His image (eternally)

You are speculation by suggesting that there was other ways if he so chose.

Any other way would not arrive at the same result.

LA.

 

[naatmi]

I don't see that Jesus kept my death appointment or needed to keep my death appointment. I see faith in him and his death and resurrection for me as the condition by which God gives me the gift of eternal life. God could have provided any of a multitude of alternatives for me to have faith in or could have provided something besides faith such as works or knowledge, if he wanted to.

he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matt 26:39)

 

[IXOYE]

There can not have been another way for God to make mankind in His image (eternally)

You are speculation by suggesting that there was other ways if he so chose.

Any other way would not arrive at the same result.

LA.

How many more things do you know of that GOD CAN NOT DO?

I find that patently disqualifying of your intellectual prowess to participate in this conversation when you start saying God can't do something.

 

[IXOYE]

There is no greater love than that one man lay down his life for another.

Had Adam not partaken of the fruit, we wouldn't understand the Love that God has for us.

God built us to care for our children. He built the world with that as an integral part of our make up. He built us so we would recognize this sacrifice when it occured.

Then he taught us about death, and wrongful death with Cain and Abel. Then he introduced right from wrong with Noah.

Then he perpetuated the relationship that Noah had with God, through the teachings of Melchizedek. That taught us what a priesthood was for.

Then he created a priesthood that would keep the laws of cleanliness before God so the Messiah could be identified when He arrived.

Then he sent the Messiah, who was ritually clean, and spiritually clean for His life.

Then that Messiah, being the son of Man, spoken of such because as a Son of God, being also a son of Man was the contrast to us showing His holiness.

The Messiah, healed us, loved us, taught us to love, and prepared the Priesthood that is formed in the order of Melchizedek which existed before Jew and Gentile.

The Messiah died, the son of God was sacrificed, showing both HIS love for us as well as God's.

Knowing we sin, and that is "dirty" to God, we flee sin. See Adam who fled God forcing Him to seek him and find him and cure that sin issue.

We are now welcome home to God, and should, as Paul said, know we have a clear conscience before God.

He just wants us to come HOME! Like the prodigal son.

The blood of Christ has no mystical magical quality over GOD. It's merely the covenant He made with us, so He kept it.

He could have won us back any way HE CHOSE, HE IS GOD. But this is how He chose and built the world for us to recognize things. Him forgiving our sins, is His choice, based on His promise to us. Not some magical blood.

So, in the end, the death of Christ wasn't necessary for God. It was a tool to get us to come home.

 

[Krsto]

he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matt 26:39)

That shows he kept his death appointment, not my death appointment.

Keep searching.

 

[Krsto]

There can not have been another way for God to make mankind in His image (eternally)

You are speculation by suggesting that there was other ways if he so chose.

Any other way would not arrive at the same result.

LA.

I can admit I was speculating, can you admit that you are as well?