How did Jesus die for our sins?

[Horatio Parker]

By sharing in his divine power. That quality that enables you to examine yourself and make judgements about your actions is the divine power. By recognizing error, or sin, we are able to improve ourselves.

At least that's how I understand the theology. YMMV.

That doesn't of course mean that to do this Jesus has to die for our sins. There are easier less harmful ways in which we can self examine.

Considering that Jesus is a myth, at least in the theological sense, no one is or was hurt. If by that you mean the violence of the story lends it a morbid tinge, I agree. Other approaches seem to handle the problem of suffering better.

Yes; there are many ways to self examine. There's nothing special in that regard to Jesus. Once again, however, the OP was about Jesus.

 

[James Brown]

 Scapegoat

A scapegoat is a person or animal which takes on the sins of others, or is unfairly blamed for problems. The concept comes originally from Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert with the sins of the community. Other ancient societies had similar practices. In psychology and sociology, the practice of selecting someone as a scapegoat has led to the concept of scapegoating....

In Christianity, especially in Protestantism, this process prefigures the sacrifice of Christ on the cross through which God has been propitiated and sins can be expiated....

 

[Thomas II]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

But also WHY would Jesus have to die for our sins?

Why would his death atone for other people's sins?

Who demanded a blood sacrifice to be performed?

Why would a blood sacrifice atone for anything?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would a blood sacrifice atone for anything?

Should be fairly obvious, especially in this litigation-happy society.
SOMEONE must pay.

Pay for my suffering, pay for my inconvenience, pay for my disappointment...

The whole point of a blood sacrifice is giving something up. The bigger and more costly the sacrifice, the better the god you sacrificed it to will love you.
We angered Skybuddy, so we are giving Skybuddy this big old ox that will no longer be available to pull the plow.

But whoever came up with the idea of Jesus being the blood sacrifice was a genius. They still have that whole concept. someone paid the price for your sins, but it's a sacrifice that EVERYONE can use, and reuse! You don't have to buy doves or rabbits or an ox, there's this sacrifice coupon that's available so even the poorest worshiper can take advantage of the ULTIMATE sacrifice!

It's like if Donald Trump bribes the DA to let him off the hook for fraud, you can say "I'm with him," and get your measly little parking ticket fixed FOR THE SAME BRIBE!

Brilliant...

 

[Bronzeage]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

But also WHY would Jesus have to die for our sins?

Why would his death atone for other people's sins?

Who demanded a blood sacrifice to be performed?

Why would a blood sacrifice atone for anything?

You would need to actually study the theology behind it all and even then, you might not understand. It is the result of a belief system which is very foreign to modern minds. It's easy to dismiss it all as something silly or idiotic. It makes great stand up comic material, in the vein of, "Died for my sins? What's up with that?"

In a thumbnail, this is how it works:

God says, "Love me, obey me, and you will live forever with me. Disobey and you will die, forever alone to atone for your sins."

Humans say, "This is just too hard. How about if we kill someone before they were expecting it, and we call it even?"

God says, "Stop killing each other. I'll reassign your sins to an animal instead and we'll call it even."

Humans say, "Cool. We fill a few sheep and everything is copacetic."

God says, "This animal sacrifice thing is not working. You're still killing each other and doing horrible things."

Humans say, "WTF? We killed the animals like you said. We had deal."

God says, "Look it's more than just killing animals. You don't get it at all. There will be one more sacrifice, which will clear the books of all your sins. After that, no more sacrifices. You alone are responsible for your behavior. If you want to talk about it, you have to come to me directly, not whack some sheep or goat."

Humans say,"Okay, I think. What's this last sacrifice?"


God says, "You'll know it when you see it."

 

[Sarpedon]

I was always told that Christ, being divine, suffered extra, more than a person can suffer. Presumably, suffering as much in his time as all people would have to in purgatory. Or whatever.

Also, our sins today retroactively make Christ suffer more.

Of course, these are not things they said verbatim, but the logical conclusion to what they did say.

 

[Bronzeage]

I was always told that Christ, being divine, suffered extra, more than a person can suffer. Presumably, suffering as much in his time as all people would have to in purgatory. Or whatever.

Also, our sins today retroactively make Christ suffer more.

Of course, these are not things they said verbatim, but the logical conclusion to what they did say.

He was suffering for all sins from the beginning of time, until the end of time, which is a lot of pressure.

At that point in time, no one knew anything about purgatory, which is not a Biblical concept. Neither is limbo, for that matter. Both are a kind of theological housekeeping.

 

[blastula]

By sharing in his divine power. That quality that enables you to examine yourself and make judgements about your actions is the divine power. By recognizing error, or sin, we are able to improve ourselves.

At least that's how I understand the theology. YMMV.

You think that's what the writers of the crucifixion stories intended?

 

[Horatio Parker]

By sharing in his divine power. That quality that enables you to examine yourself and make judgements about your actions is the divine power. By recognizing error, or sin, we are able to improve ourselves.

At least that's how I understand the theology. YMMV.

You think that's what the writers of the crucifixion stories intended?

We don't know who the authors were, let alone what their intentions were. Presumably some of them, especially those of a Gnostic inclination, would agree.

 

[blastula]

You think that's what the writers of the crucifixion stories intended?

We don't know who the authors were, let alone what their intentions were. Presumably some of them, especially those of a Gnostic inclination, would agree.

OK, so you were just describing a possible theology, not the theology.

 

[Horatio Parker]

We don't know who the authors were, let alone what their intentions were. Presumably some of them, especially those of a Gnostic inclination, would agree.

OK, so you were just describing a possible theology, not the theology.

AFAICT, there's no such thing.

 

[credoconsolans]

The 'dying for' idea dates back to an unpleasant tribal religion, where an unpleasant tribal god liked to have animals killed and given to him to appease his unpleasant anger - this being extended, at a push, to human sacrifice - and as an explanation for anything it is clearly ridiculous. When it comes to the Resurrection story, clearly the Roman's did their traditional bully-boy public torturing-to-death of any popular leader who didn't worship their successful politicians and mass-murderers, and some people had the hugely powerful experience of Jesus's apparently coming back to life and walking away from the Great Dictators. What actually happened is something we can't know, but something evidently did. From our current position we must suppose he was still alive, as I take it.

What's evident about it?

 

[Learner]

I suppose some Christians see it as; God always 'keeps' his word,despite the wrongs man does in Gods eyes. What was said from the beginning must be followed through. He promised no more great flood but would still eventually end the evil world and man (evil doers) along with it. However, understanding that God does not back out on his word, (and that he still loves us) there is this "gracious clause" that hapens to appear for all our sakes, before Gods wrath is unleashed. And that is Jesus. A negotiator if you will between God and mankind that we are still worth it.

 

[sdelsolray]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

It was a bad weekend.

 

[sdelsolray]

We don't know who the authors were, let alone what their intentions were. Presumably some of them, especially those of a Gnostic inclination, would agree.

OK, so you were just describing a possible theology, not the theology.

The theology changes depending on the age of the writings. The earlier Pauline writings said one thing. Mark another. In Luke and Matthew it shifted somewhat again. In John it develops into the Jesus = God thing.

 

[iolo]

The 'dying for' idea dates back to an unpleasant tribal religion, where an unpleasant tribal god liked to have animals killed and given to him to appease his unpleasant anger - this being extended, at a push, to human sacrifice - and as an explanation for anything it is clearly ridiculous. When it comes to the Resurrection story, clearly the Roman's did their traditional bully-boy public torturing-to-death of any popular leader who didn't worship their successful politicians and mass-murderers, and some people had the hugely powerful experience of Jesus's apparently coming back to life and walking away from the Great Dictators. What actually happened is something we can't know, but something evidently did. From our current position we must suppose he was still alive, as I take it.

What's evident about it?

The fact that immediately following a public-execution-by-torture of its leader the movement started to grow, and had overturned the bully-boys' religion entirely in less than four hundred years. Or perhaps the Roman Empire was a myth, like so many things on here.

 

[Thomas II]

But also WHY would Jesus have to die for our sins?

Why would his death atone for other people's sins?

Who demanded a blood sacrifice to be performed?

Why would a blood sacrifice atone for anything?

You would need to actually study the theology behind it all and even then, you might not understand. It is the result of a belief system which is very foreign to modern minds. It's easy to dismiss it all as something silly or idiotic. It makes great stand up comic material, in the vein of, "Died for my sins? What's up with that?"

In a thumbnail, this is how it works:

God says, "Love me, obey me, and you will live forever with me. Disobey and you will die, forever alone to atone for your sins."

Humans say, "This is just too hard. How about if we kill someone before they were expecting it, and we call it even?"

God says, "Stop killing each other. I'll reassign your sins to an animal instead and we'll call it even."

Humans say, "Cool. We fill a few sheep and everything is copacetic."

God says, "This animal sacrifice thing is not working. You're still killing each other and doing horrible things."

Humans say, "WTF? We killed the animals like you said. We had deal."

God says, "Look it's more than just killing animals. You don't get it at all. There will be one more sacrifice, which will clear the books of all your sins. After that, no more sacrifices. You alone are responsible for your behavior. If you want to talk about it, you have to come to me directly, not whack some sheep or goat."

Humans say,"Okay, I think. What's this last sacrifice?"


God says, "You'll know it when you see it."

(And Keith&Co.)

But who demanded a blood sacrifice to be performed? God or man? Man! Why? Because god is an imaginary person!

The emperor has no clothes!! It's a conceptual figure around which we have created an imaginary character, along with the whole play, just like we

can create Santa Claus.

As for why did Jesus die for our sins, it's just magical thinking, that stems from the days when people used to say "The volcano is rumbling like my

tummy, it must be hungry and needs to be satiated", therefore, here, have a McVirgin...Jesus is another McVirgin!

I mean, imagine, let's kill the best, most pure, innocent and moral, in order for all the sinners to go on undisturbed...

Srsly?

That is some fuzzy ass logic!

 

[Atheos]

The writer of Hebrews used the same sort of fuzzy logic along with the fallacy of "appeal to authority" in an attempt to answer this question:

Hebrews 9:22

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The "law" in this context would be the Law of Moses. It doesn't explain why blood has to be shed for there to be remission; it simply appeals to an authority the intended recipients of the message (Hebrews) would probably accept.

My opinion about how all this got started is that the Levitical priesthood wanted access to meat without having to go to the trouble of tending herds themselves. That's why "God had respect to Abel's offering" (the meat offering) and didn't have respect for a fruit and vegetable offering. Beef. It's what's for dinner. Right after we get through with the ritual sacrifice of course.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sacrifice and suffering are closely related.

Buddhism manages to place suffering front and center without all the bloody imagery.

Anyway, without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

 

[Thomas II]

Sacrifice and suffering are closely related.

Buddhism manages to place suffering front and center without all the bloody imagery.

Anyway, without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

It's not the suffering itself, but the attitude we have while facing suffering. One thief gets it, the other doesn't. Both are suffering, but they have different attitudes. In one case the ego takes over, in the other the ego is released and surrendered to "the will of god"...When this happens suffering stops and we become aware that we are one with all.