Did Jesus have to die for us to be saved?

The orthodox Christian answer is yes, he had to do so in order to atone for humanity's sins. But this is very mysterious. How does Jesus' death affect our sins? There are various answers, so pick one, and I'll try to show that it doesn't work.

I believe Splendour provided a good link on this subject a while back. Not sure what thread it was in though.

I did?...jog my memory with details...

For instance, the most popular Protestant view is the substitution theory. That is, humans deserved punishment because of their sins, and reason for Jesus death was that he took this punishment on himself by sacrificing his life on the cross.

My objection to this view is that if humans must be punished for their sins in order for the universe to be just, I don't see how an innocent person (Jesus) being punished in their place makes the universe any more just--if anything it seems less just. Obviously, it is a more merciful place, but if mercy was possible, then why did the punishment need to be substituted for in the first place?

I'm going to try to read all 3 of them but why does everyone always get hung up on the theory and the explanation? Why does there have to be one correct one...maybe its a prism and all get a piece of the light right and reflect back that one prism....

Sometimes I just see the cross as God's big sign post to the world...saying I know you did wrong but here I am to make all things right again for you and you know I am the only one that can do it...

Because of our commitment to human reason.

I have not claimed that there is only one reason--there might be many. My claim is that none of them work.

Well you do know don't you that God is the only unifying force in the world right?

People keep pushing their dogmatism like they are the ones in charge but they're not...they never were but they constantly forget it....

Oh to amplify on this...there are limits to reason...people assume there isn't thereby trying to negate God and make more of themselves and him of little force...but God is greater than reason and that's most likely why people find God after a fall and why pride goeth before a fall....Reason is a gift from God it is not God and was never designed by God to replace him.

Yeah, i can't find the link, but basically it talked about how before Christ, the Devil used sin to control man. But when Satan killed Christ, an innocent, blameless man, on the cross, Satan lost the power he had with sin, to Christ. Handing Satan's power over to Christ. So now anyone who comes to Christ, is now freed from their sins. That is one of the reasons why having faith in Christ is so important.

Of course there were other reasons Christ had to suffer as he did, but i don't think you can count this out of being the main one.

I can't recall which writer that was because I read a lot of writers. William Law and Dr. Stephen E. Jones are some recent ones I have been reading. I would say Law is more allegorical whereas if you need strict by the scripture interpretation Jones is very good. I think a lot of the modern theologians work from modern back to ancient whereas Jones works from ancient towards modern. Jones explains the Law of Redemption from the book of Leviticus as a main factor.

http://www.dimensionsoftruth.org/Ste...s/jones13.html

I subscribe to the Christus Victor view of atonement. If anyone is interested here is a short essay on the biblical support for this view

http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essay...the-atonement/

I would be curious OrP what you have to say about this view.

Adam, a perfect man, corrupted God's handiwork, namely himself and his descendants, so the price of another perfect man was necessary to settle accounts and restore our fellowship with God. Only the Son of God become a man Himself could accomplish the task.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

So why was Jesus' death necessary to settle the account? And who is the account with? And how is it that the death of another perfect person makes humans uncorrupted?

So let me see if I correctly understand your view. There are various ways in which human life was held in "bondage" to the bad things of the world. These includes, sickness, death, hate, cruelty, pain, etc. Jesus' time on earth was primarily one of spiritual warfare, where he triumphed over these things so that God can now offer to humans a life free of sickness, death, hate, etc.

Thus, Jesus' miraculous healings was his battle and triumph over sickness, his feeding of the multitudes was his battle and triumph over hunger, and his death and resurrection was his battle and triumph over death.

I'm not sure how anthropomorphic you want to go here...did Jesus literally fight with some kind of personification of these evils? Or is it that Satan is the prince of this world, and caused these evils, so Jesus' battle was with him? How is it that Jesus triumphed over Satan? Or do you hold with the older view that Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan?

God in those days accepted payment in the form of ritual sacrifice. Since humanity, as Adam, had caused willful damage to God's property, namely His perfect man Adam himself, we owed God compensation in kind to balance the books. Jesus, the second perfect man, paid this price for us with His life. Had this debt gone unpaid, God would have continued to disallow us admission into His heaven, where our perfect state is restored.

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

So I'm trying to understand the logic here. Let's see if this is correct. God created some humans. Since God created them, he owned them. However, Adam and Eve damaged them. That is, Adam and Eve damaged God's property (themselves). In order to make up for this damage, they have to, as it were, pay restitution--which I guess is to give God another perfect human.

Of course, since humans cannot create new perfect humans, they are unable to pay restitution on their own. However, their friend, Jesus, decides to help them out by creating a new perfect human (himself through the Incarnation) and giving it to God, thus making restitution for the property damage caused by Adam and Eve.

Here are a few of my concerns:

1) This is a funny view of humans and property rights. Mostly I think it is wrong to think that humans are "owned" by God. Sure, God created humans. But this is more like the creation of birth than the building of a car. I build a car, it's mine. I birth a child, and it is not "mine," at least not in the sense of ownership. Rather, the child owns herself--I am only a steward for her interests until she is mature enough to care for herself. It seems like it would be immoral for God to assert ownership over conscious sentient beings like humans.

2) Let's say I am owned by God. Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for my actions? I can't be held liable for doing anything if I do not own myself. In that case, it would be incorrect for God to say that the humans he owns are responsible for their property damage.

3) What about wear and tear? You buy a nice new computer. Over time, it breaks down. This doesn't mean that you are owed a nice new computer by your old computer. Similarly, if God owns a human, and purely through internal processes (choosing to sin) it breaks down, then that seems like just bad luck, not a blameable offense.

This goes back to point (2). Humans are only blamable for their actions if they are responsible for their actions. And they can only be responsible for their actions if they are independent moral agents--that is, they are not owned by God.

4) Why did Jesus go through the whole Incarnation and crucifixion thing then? If the point of atonement was merely to pay restitution, why didn't Jesus instead just create a couple of perfect humans and give them to God as payment? Since that would pay off the debt, that seems to be all that is needed.

5) Since Jesus is God, why is God going through this rigmarole to pay a debt to himself? Why not just tell the humans, hey guys, I know you owe big-time, but that's cool, I'll let it go. After all, that is essentially what the Crucifixion is, plus some torture.

6) Finally, why is it that after Jesus created a new perfect human (himself) to give to God, why is it that it was necessary to have this perfect human violently and maliciously tortured to death? That seems weird. Isn't all that is required a replacement of property? All the other stuff just seems medieval.

So why did he have to die on the cross, instead of say old age, or disease? Was it entirely necesssary for Him to die at the hands of man? (please answer without taking into consideration the prophesies, since that doesnt really answer the question)

It's even funnier that you would choose for comparison an illustration that makes my point. God created man by designing and building him from the ground up (literally). He even created the materials out of which He made us. On the other hand, gestation, which even approximately non-sentient animals do, is a largely unconscious biological process, not a creative act.

Aside from the fact that "self-ownership" makes no sense since it implies you own your owner and are owned by something you own, under the general principle that creation confers ownership, God owns the entire universe.

As always, liability does not transfer through a free will act, e.g. Adam's sin.

Apparently, God is willing to write that off.

The sacrifice had to be made by a descendant of the original man and woman who incurred the debt in the first place.

Jesus is not God. He is the Son of God.

Jesus did not create Himself.

I don't know why God required that Jesus be sacrificed in the manner He was, and I don't expect anyone else in the world knows either since the Bible does not explain it.

See my previous comment.

I don't see how this makes your point. My claim is that sentience is the dividing line--that you cannot (or that it is immoral to) own another sentient person. Whether you also create the materials out of which that person is made is not obviously relevant to me. Anyway, the woman does "own" the food and water that goes to the growing fetus, so...

My claim is that creation doesn't confer ownership. It confers ownership of some things--objects which have no inherent value, such as cars and computers, but not of objects which do, such as human beings. This is why slavery is immoral. To own another person is to say that you have the right to do as you wish to that person without concern for his own desires.

Also, I don't see what is wrong with saying that you own your owner or vice versa. Is this contradictory in some way that I'm not seeing?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

But why not the rest? What distinguishes liable damage and non-liable damage?

Why? Do you believe in general that debt passes through blood-lines?

Not wanting to put assume too much here. Are you saying that you don't accept the Trinity doctrine?

So you're saying that God created Jesus, and thus God owns Jesus. In that case, Jesus couldn't pay back humanity's damages because Jesus is already owned by God.

So you have no theology on this issue. Fair enough--my comments are only directed to those who have theological views on this issue.

Okay, that is your claim.

Another claim. Fine, you are free to make them. We obviously differ.

It is contradictory for property to own its owner. This derives from the definitions of the terms themselves. It is off-topic here though. If you want to start a thread in SMP, I'll be glad to discuss it.

It is another principle of law that liability does not transfer through a free will act.

I don't know why God makes that distinction.

No. This debt was inherited by the human race only indirectly through bloodline descent.

We acquired the debt incurred by the first parents in our capacity as heirs to the gifts they received from God.

I'm not even sure what that is.

Not so. God gave humanity the gifts of life and free will. Then we abused those gifts and corrupted God's original perfect man, thus incurring a debt repayable only through our sacrifice of another perfect man, Jesus.

I can only repeat myself--I see no contradiction here. It is true that my computer cannot own me. But that is just because computers are not the kind of things that can own anything. People, on the other hand, are. So, if you can own a person, I don't see how it is incoherent for that person to own you.

So you'll have to define the terms and show how a contradiction follows in order for me to accept your claim.
I think you are just repeating yourself here, so I still don't understand.

But this is absolutely central to your view. In some way humans that are owned by another person are liable for damages. What makes them liable? It can't be just that God says they are.

This is incorrect. You claimed that humans and their capacities are owned by God. Hence, God did not give the first humans, or us, any gifts (or we would own them and thus not be liable for damaging them). So it would seem that all that is left is a debt passed through bloodline descent. Again, I'm still not clear how a person completely owned by God can actually have any debts. Wouldn't God be responsible for the debt in that case?

Again, according to you, these weren't gifts, as they are still owned by God. Of course, God could create free beings (beings he doesn't own), and give those beings gifts. But then you'd have to develop a different story. Furthermore, as a gift is a transfer of ownership, and you can do as you wish with what you own, your entire story here is incoherent.

If I give you a $100 and you burn it, I might be upset, but you don't then owe me $100.

The free will choice to do wrong. This does not apply to Eve, at least not to the same extent, since she was deceived. Adam knew full well what he was doing.

No, I did not. The capacity for free will choice, for example, is something God gave us.

We receive it as an inheritance from our first parents. In this capacity as heirs we also take on the debts they acquired.

Better: Someone took one of the gold coins from the sack they were given and scratched a line into the paint of the car owned by the person who was so generous to them.

Unless it was never really a gift in the first place.

Ah. I thought you were saying that free will is not relevant to responsibility for liability. I'll just note that this is typically not the case in law. We can be liable for unintended damages.

You began by saying, "[H]umanity, as Adam, caused willful damage to God's property, namely His perfect man Adam himself." I thought this meant that you believed that Adam was owned by God. Since Adam is constituted by these capacities (such as free-will), that means that these capacities are also owned by God. But now you seem to be saying that God doesn't own humans or their capacities. Which is it?

Again, here is the dilemma. If humans own themselves, then they don't owe God a debt for damaging themselves. If humans are owned by God, then they can't be liable for damages they cause.

Except that, according to you, the thing being damaged is the gift itself.

I'm not sure what you are saying, is God is just loaning us to ourselves? This just doesn't make sense. Instead, we should say that God created us free--that means, not owned by anyone else, including God.

That is not applicable because Adam did it intentionally. This free will choice was sufficient for liability.

God owns everything as He creates it. Some of these things He gives away, others He keeps. The corruption done by Adam was to an aspect of himself over which God reserved claim: Adam's perfect nature. The sin of Adam was his own corruption through the alienation of himself (and Eve) from God, which is something he had a duty not to do with the blessings of life and liberty he had been given.