[ordinaryguy]

Magprob is saying that Jesus did both. He set an example for us and made salvation possible for us. You are already familiar with these concepts and remain unconvinced. Correct?

Well, again, my question was how and why Jesus' death "made salvation possible for us". What I am unconvinced of is that a loving Father would insist on the cruel death of an innocent person in order to forgive and be reconciled to his children. If you believe that Jesus' death was a requirement of our forgiveness, I'd like to know why you think God required it, and how you reconcile that belief with the doctrine of God as a loving Father.

[magprob]

Obviously you put no value on human life. You put no value on truth and just mock people for your own intertainment. And people wonder what's wrong with this world! There is no respect for anything sacred. Now you can unerstand my first post in which I told you the dark powers have you believing everything they want you to. But thank you. You have opened my eyes to that reality even more. We really have to take things more seriously instead of looking at it from a jokesters point of view. Now I can see how foolish I sometimes am! Thank you. With the things that are happening in this world today, I am taking it much more seriously.

[Starman]

Well, again, my question was how and why Jesus' death "made salvation possible for us". What I am unconvinced of is that a loving Father would insist on the cruel death of an innocent person in order to forgive and be reconciled to his children. If you believe that Jesus' death was a requirement of our forgiveness, I'd like to know why you think God required it, and how you reconcile that belief with the doctrine of God as a loving Father.

I would appreciate if you briefly tell which explanations you have you ALREADY heard in reference to these two objections? Thank you.


BTW

I also would appreciate that if we get into a discussion of these issues you read what I write carefully. Otherwise you might imagine contradictions [as happened with Magprob] which I will then have to explain and we will both waste time on unecessaries. : )

[ordinaryguy]

Obviously you put no value on human life. You put no value on truth and just mock people for your own intertainment.

On the contrary, I value truth and human life very highly, which is why I asked the question. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. No need to make false accusations.

Now you can unerstand my first post in which I told you the dark powers have you beleiving everything they want you to.

No, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by accusing me of being under the spell of the "dark powers" for asking a straightforward doctrinal question. All I can suppose is that it must frighten or threaten you in some very profound way. Believe me, that wasn't my intention. As I said, if you don't want to answer the question, just ignore it. No need to make bizarre allegations or impute evil motives.

[ordinaryguy]

I would appreciate if you briefly tell which explanations you have you ALREADY heard in reference to these two objections? Thank you.

They aren't objections, they're questions. Here they are again, just to make it easy:

How, exactly, did the death of Jesus bring about salvation for anyone? Did it change God's mind, or convince Him to do something He couldn't otherwise be persuaded to do? Did it satisfy a legal requirement that God had decreed, but couldn't change or satisfy any other way? How is it possible to reconcile a requirement for the gruesome death of an innocent person with the idea of a loving heavenly Father?

If you have answers that you're willing to share, I'd like to hear them. If not, that's OK too. I can't actually recall the particulars of other people's answers that I may have heard in the past, probably because I didn't find them persuasive.

[Starman]

They aren't objections, they're questions. Here they are again, just to make it easy:

How, exactly, did the death of Jesus bring about salvation for anyone?

1.
Mankind inherited the tendency to sin from Adam. Mankind needed to be extricated from that situation. Otherwise eternal life was impossible. The penalty for sin is death. So mankind had no hope for eternal life unless someone paid that penalty for mankind.

That someone had to be the exact equivalent of a sinless Adam--not more--not less.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


Death of a sinner would have no value since a sinner's death could only cover his own sins and not those of others. Jesus, was offered the assignment, accepted it gladly.
Jesus paid that penalty and saved us from condemnation to death.


Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Those who accept that payment are attributed sinlessness in Jesus' name and can approach God with a clear conscience based on it. God can also now view them as sinless and give them the eternal life which a sinless condition deserves.

Did it change God's mind, or convince Him to do something He couldn't otherwise be persuaded to do? Did it satisfy a legal requirement that God had decreed, but couldn't change or satisfy any other way?

Yes, God could now view former sinners as sinless and offer them eternal life based on the Ransom Sacrifice.

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How is it possible to reconcile a requirement for the gruesome death of an innocent person with the idea of a loving heavenly Father?

Please keep well in mind that God did not force this upon Jesus. It was done joyfully and of his own free will because of the love he had for mankind. He knew it was not going to be easy. But he knew that it involved the lives of millions.

Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. He also knew that if there had been another less painful way it would have been chosen. Sometimes a loving father must do painful things in order express love though it might grieve him to do it.

Hebrews 12:7
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?


The reason Jesus had to die in the manner he did was to remove the curse of the law from those who had promised to abide by it.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

BTW
The events in Eden raised a very important issue which needed to be answered and was answered powerfully by Jesus keeping his integrity under pressure from Satan. Adam in his perfection disobeyed thus casting doubt on mankind's willingness to serve God when tempted.

Job 2:4-6 (King James Version)

4And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

5But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Jesus in his perfection remained faithful and proved Satan's accusation false once and for all time.

[valinors_sorrow]

Basically you have to buy the notion that God made a flawed world somehow, discovered the flaw with Adam and Eve and waited xx years later to correct it with Jesus. Ordinary Guy, maybe you could ask Starman about this since he probably has me on ignore and can't see my posts? Just a thought.

[magprob]

The flaw you speak of is not a flaw of GOD. It was the gift of free will. Mans wrong choices are flawed.

[Starman]

The flaw you speak of is not a flaw of GOD. It was the gift of free will. Mans wrong choices are flawed.

I was about to answer Valinor'sSorrow but your answer is right on target. It's like the hand. The hand can be used to create or to destroy. That some use it for the latter doesn't indicate that the hand itself is flawed.

[valinors_sorrow]

Oh, I beg your pardon Starman, I thought... well, never mind that. But you have only answered half the question I proposed -- what about the time lag then? Did it have to build up to some critical mass or something?

[ordinaryguy]

The penalty for sin is death. So mankind had no hope for eternal life unless someone paid that penalty for mankind. That someone had to be the exact equivalent of a sinless Adam--not more--not less. Jesus paid that penalty and saved us from condemnation to death.

Wasn't it God who made death the penalty for sin? If so, He could surely forgive the sin and waive the death penalty for each person individually if He was satisfied that their repentance was genuine. Ultimately that is what happens, so where does this necessity for the death of a sinless person come from? Not from a loving Father who is eager and willing to forgive us our foolishness and be reconciled as soon as we turn to Him in repentance.

Those who accept that payment are attributed sinlessness in Jesus' name and can approach God with a clear conscience based on it. God can also now view them as sinless and give them the eternal life which a sinless condition deserves.

Yes, God could now view former sinners as sinless and offer them eternal life based on the Ransom Sacrifice.

I don't have a problem with accepting sinlessness in Jesus' name, I just don't think he had to die a cruel death to impart it to me. His life accomplished that. And I'm sure God is able to view me that way, without having to be paid off by some kind of ransom of death.

I think this doctrine of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb got introduced into the early Christian church because they were very much at pains to represent Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and his death fit nicely with the animal sacrifice rituals that the ancient Jews practiced, and the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that relied on that metaphor.

My own belief is that he was not the Messiah, he was a far more universal teacher than that role allowed for. He tried his level best to introduce the idea of the universal oneness of all humankind, without any national, tribal, sectarian, denominational, racial, language, or religious divisions to fight over or feel superior about. This was a completely radical notion, and needless to say, he was only partially successful in this attempt. Most of his immediate followers didn't really get it. The church they founded appropriated the "Chosen People" concept directly from the Jewish culture they were immersed in, and never really got beyond it. Nevertheless, the seed has survived, and I trust will eventually become a mighty tree that fills the whole earth. How soon? Well, if it takes 5,000 more years, I'd say that's pretty fast. These things take time.

[valinors_sorrow]

My own belief is that he was not the Messiah, he was a far more universal teacher than that role allowed for. He tried his level best to introduce the idea of the universal oneness of all humankind, without any national, tribal, sectarian, denominational, racial, language, or religious divisions to fight over or feel superior about. This was a completely radical notion, and needless to say, he was only partially successful in this attempt. Most of his immediate followers didn't really get it. The church they founded appropriated the "Chosen People" concept directly from the Jewish culture they were immersed in, and never really got beyond it. Nevertheless, the seed has survived, and I trust will eventually become a mighty tree that fills the whole earth. How soon? Well, if it takes 5,000 more years, I'd say that's pretty fast. These things take time.

Wow, are you ever talking my language here Ordinary Guy! Metaphysically speaking, it takes an enlightened one to introduce the message but it takes an equally enlightened one to pass it on without diluting or altering it in some personal and therefore not universal way.

[ordinaryguy]

Wow, are you ever talking my language here Ordinary Guy! Metaphysically speaking, it takes an enlightened one to introduce the message but it takes an equally enlightened one to pass it on without diluting or altering it in some personal and therefore not universal way.

Well, thanks, but I don't claim to be enlightened, I just try to keep walking toward the light.

[Starman]

Wasn't it God who made death the penalty for sin? If so, He could surely forgive the sin and waive the death penalty for each person individually if He was satisfied that their repentance was genuine. Ultimately that is what happens, so where does this necessity for the death of a sinless person come from? Not from a loving Father who is eager and willing to forgive us our foolishness and be reconciled as soon as we turn to Him in repentance.

God, as described in the Bible didn't choose to do things the way you prefer them to have been done. The necessity for the death of a sinless one on behalf of those who are sinful comes from the exigencies of God's view of justice. Setting aside his law in from of the universe sets a very bad example and encourages sin. Satan said You will not die!"

And he said to the woman, 'Has God indeed said, "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden"?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."' Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'" (Genesis 3:1-4)

You are saying that God should have gone along with Satan. Instead God didn't go along with Satan and remained true to his requirements.

I don't have a problem with accepting sinlessness in Jesus' name, I just don't think he had to die a cruel death to impart it to me. His life accomplished that. And I'm sure God is able to view me that way, without having to be paid off by some kind of ransom of death.

The manner of his death was not for you.
It was for those who were under law.
It's not death that is being ransomed, it's mankind.

I think this doctrine of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb got introduced into the early Christian church because they were very much at pains to represent Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and his death fit nicely with the animal sacrifice rituals that the ancient Jews practiced, and the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that relied on that metaphor.

The Messianic prophecies were not understood by the Hebrews to mean what they meant to the Christians. The FULL revelation of God's plan was made via Jesus and his Apostles and is referred to in the Bible as a sacred mystery finally explained at that time.

“And he said unto them, 'These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.'

Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ [the Messiah] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name [in the name of the Messiah] among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things.”

Luke 24:44–48

My own belief is that he was not the Messiah, he was a far more universal teacher than that role allowed for. He tried his level best to introduce the idea of the universal oneness of all humankind, without any national, tribal, sectarian, denominational, racial, language, or religious divisions to fight over or feel superior about.

“Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ [the Messiah]? He is [the] antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father”

1 John 2:22

Jesus himself admitted to being the Messiah.


“The woman says unto him, 'I know that Messias comes, which is called Christ [Messiah]: when he is come, he will tell us all things.' Jesus says unto her, 'I that speak unto you am he.'”

John 4:25–26

“Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, 'How long do you make us to doubt? If you be the Christ [the Messiah], tell us plainly.'

Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me [as Messiah]. But you believe not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.'”

John 10:23–26


“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, 'Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?' And they said, 'Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.'

He says unto them, 'But whom say you that I am?' And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God.'

And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.'... Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ [the Messiah].

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

Matthew 16:13–17, 20–21

“... Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Are you the *Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven...

Mark 14:61–63


“And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ [Messiah] a King.'”

Luke 23:

The oness or unity that Jesus spoke of was a oneness attained only via true worship and NOT via an amalgamation of all religions or the toleration of all sin of by his heavenly Father.


"Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).

This was a completely radical notion, and needless to say, he was only partially successful in this attempt. Most of his immediate followers didn't really get it. The church they founded appropriated the "Chosen People" concept directly from the Jewish culture they were immersed in, and never really got beyond it.

The Jewish culture, as you choose to describe it was based on what they directly receioved from God at Sinai. So the concepts of a special people separated from all others via true worship originates with God.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKC...c/chaptr12.htm

[ordinaryguy]

God, as described in the Bible...

Aye, and there's the rub. I know full well that the Bible describes God as being either unable or unwilling to forgive our sin without the death of an innocent person. I just don't accept that view of God, and I don't believe that the Bible is the final word on God. You are very adept at quoting the Bible, and I'm sure it's convincing to people who share your belief that it is the inerrant Word of God and the only true scripture. But to those of us who don't share that belief, it seems all you have to say is that we are under the spell of Satan. This pretty well ends the discussion because there's not much left to say beyond "Am not!" "Are too!"...

The necessity for the death of a sinless one on behalf of those who are sinful comes from the exigencies of God's view of justice. Setting aside his law in from of the universe sets a very bad example and encourages sin.

So, forgiving sin directly sets a bad example, whereas killing an innocent person first and then forgiving sin sets a good example? Sorry, I just don't get it.

[Starman]

.

Aye, and there's the rub. I know full well that the Bible describes God as being either unable or unwilling to forgive our sin without the death of an innocent person.

In matters of morals there is what is known as the consequentialist approach in resolving difficult moral choices. That is the approach God used in this particular case and the approach your government leaders use but which doesn't ruffle your feathers at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

I just don't accept that view of God, and I don't believe that the Bible is the final word on God.

I considered that possibility when you stated that you had your own version concerning who Jesus is but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Instead I assumed you would have said so in order to prevent anyone from quoting scripture to you in vain. In any case, it's not necessary to quote scripture in order to continue the discussion. The logical approach employed by the branch of philosophy called ethics is sufficient for that purpose.

You are very adept at quoting the Bible, and I'm sure it's convincing to people who share your belief that it is the inerrant Word of God and the only true scripture. But to those of us who don't share that belief, it seems all you have to say is that we are under the spell of Satan.

That's why it is very important to state one's position clearly from the outset.

This pretty well ends the discussion because there's not much left to say beyond "Am not!" "Are too!"...

Agreed! But you do seem to ask a question below.
.

So, forgiving sin directly sets a bad example, whereas killing an innocent person first and then forgiving sin sets a good example? Sorry, I just don't get it.

Winking at lawlessness by foregoing its punishment isn't practiced by human governments. If a government adopted that policy the citizens would demand that it do its job well by punishing lawlessness to prevent all hell from breaking loose.

Neither is it recommended in child-rearing. Permissive parenting is the cause of many a ruined life. If indeed we condemn permissive parenting because the method is flawed, why demand that God use it?

[Starman]

Oh, I beg your pardon Starman, I thought....... well, nevermind that. But you have only answered half the question I proposed -- what about the time lag then? Did it have to build up to some critical mass or something?

No critical mass involved. The time was used to prepare the conditions for the arrival of the Messiah, the seed of God's woman mentioned in Genesis three after Adam and Eve had sinned.

There were some events that God felt had to take place before the arrival of Jesus as prophesied in Genesis chapter three. The creation of a nation to be placed under law in order to illustrate the futility of human effort and the need for a savior from sin and death and by means of whom God's plan for salvation would be recorded. The creation of such a nation was accomplished via the descendabts of Seth, which included among others: Noah, Shem-Terah-Abraham,

God specifically told Abraham that the promised seed of God's woman mentioned at Genesis three would come through him.

Gen 24: 3... by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves,'

Then through his son Isaac, who begat Jacob and whose sons provided the foundation for the nation of Israel which was to be placed under the law covenant at Mount Sinai.
Israel at his deathbed was inspired to say that the seed would come through the tribe of Judah. The prophecies continue until we come to king David.


The Hebrew Scriptures were finished with the writing of the prophet Malachi. Not long after, from God's standpoint of course, the promised seed through which all nations were to bless themselves was born of a virgin woman descended from David as prophecied. All this was what God accomplished during the interval you mentioned.


BTW

It's good to keep in mind that God's perception of time isn't ours. What might seem like ages to us are like a day to him. The Apostle Peter expressed it in the following way:


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


King David compared it to even a shorter period-- a watch in the night.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

An example of this viewpoint is Adam. Adam was told that the would die on the very day he sinned. Adam died after nine-hundred and plus human years. But from God's standpoint he didn't live a full day.

[ordinaryguy]

I just don't accept that view of God, and I don't believe that the Bible is the final word on God.

I considered that possibility when you stated that you had your own version concerning who Jesus is but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Instead I assumed you would have said so in order to prevent anyone from quoting scripture to you in vain.

You are very adept at quoting the Bible, and I'm sure it's convincing to people who share your belief that it is the inerrant Word of God and the only true scripture. But to those of us who don't share that belief, it seems all you have to say is that we are under the spell of Satan.

That's why it is very important to state one's position clearly from the outset.

This sentence from my original post would have made it clear if you had read it:

Now I believe that the Bible is a book of spiritual wisdom similar to many other such books in the world, but not the directly inspired word of God or the only true scripture.

Here's a quote from your own previous post (#23) that it may be helpful for you to recall.

I also would appreciate that if we get into a discussion of these issues you read what I write carefully. Otherwise you might imagine contradictions [as happened with Magprob] which I will then have to explain and we will both waste time on unecessaries. : )

This pretty well ends the discussion because there's not much left to say beyond "Am not!" "Are too!"....

Agreed! But you do seem to ask a question below.

So, forgiving sin directly sets a bad example, whereas killing an innocent person first and then forgiving sin sets a good example? Sorry, I just don't get it.

The question is rhetorical.

Winking at lawlessness by foregoing its punishment isn't practiced by human governments. If a government adopted that policy the citizens would demand that it do its job well by punishing lawlessness to prevent all hell from breaking loose.

Neither is it recommended in child-rearing. Permissive parenting is the cause of many a ruined life. If indeed we condemn permissive parenting because the method is flawed, why demand that God use it?

You're changing the subject and implying that I said what I didn't say. The topic here is sin and forgiveness, not criminal justice or child rearing. And I didn't say that sin should go unpunished if not forgiven, I said that God is able and willing to forgive us our sins without inflicting undeserved suffering and death on an innocent person.

[Starman]

This sentence from my original post would have made it clear if you had read it:


Here's a quote from your own previous post (#23) that it may be helpful for you to recall.

Then I guess I am a victim of my own negligence. My apologies.

The question is rhetorical.

Nevertheless it raises issues that beg a response.

You're changing the subject and implying that I said what I didn't say. The topic here is sin and forgiveness, not criminal justice or child rearing. And I didn't say that sin should go unpunished if not forgiven, I said that God is able and willing to forgive us our sins without inflicting undeserved suffering and death on an innocent person.

When we speak of God and mankind we are speaking of a parent child relationship since he is our heavenly father by virtue o having given us life. As a person who is familiar with the Bible this father/child relationship should not seem at all weird.

As for justice, yes, we are dealing with criminality and justice here. If a law deserving death is broken, then a crime has been committed. If a sentence is passed then justice has been served. Remember, the judge of the universe is God himself--a higher court of law-as it were. So my analogies are not at all out of place within the context of the subject. In any case, if indeed you wish to terminate the discussion simply just ignore this post and the discussion will be viewed as officially terminated.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this with you and for keeping the conversation decent.


BTW

My intentions were not to create a strawman argument in order to evade logical thinking. So please keep in mind that at no time was I trying to obscure the issue. I also stated that God used consequentialist reasoning in respect to his decision and that such a method is used by governments, including the USA all the time with the full enthusiastic approval and support of the citizens.

In any case, the discussion is now officially over.