Exactly Why Did Jesus Suffer?

[Guest Doubting John]

Here then, are some questions revolving around Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ.” The major atonement theory among Christians is that Jesus died in my place and bore the punishment I deserve so that I may be forgiven and go to heaven rather than hell. I’ve posted this before and it’s from my book: From Minister To Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind, available at amazon.com.

If Jesus suffered in my place so that I can go to heaven rather than hell, then apart from Jesus’ suffering I should be punished for my sins by being sent to hell when I die. But what has any one of us ever done to deserve the kind of punishment Jesus suffered, much less to deserve hell itself? All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never. Never. Never. To say that my sins are an infinite wrong because they are committed against an infinite God, and thus demand an infinite punishment, seems mistaken for several reasons.

 

In the first place, does justice really demand this much punishment?

 

Secondly, if God became incarnate to relate to us, then why can’t he also see what sin is from our perspective, as a finite offense from partly good and partly bad human beings?

 

Thirdly, did Jesus really suffer an infinite punishment for our sins?

 

In the fourth place, in order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all?

 

 

Any Christian want to discuss these reasons?

[Guest Anathema]

Quote:

"If Jesus suffered in my place so that I can go to heaven rather than hell, then apart from Jesus’ suffering I should be punished for my sins by being sent to hell when I die. But what has any one of us ever done to deserve the kind of punishment Jesus suffered, much less to deserve hell itself? "

 

Better yet, If the price is paid in full for all sins, even future sins, why is it that sin can still send one to hell? Obviously the price has not been paid. Doctrinally speaking, his death achieved next to nothing on a logical level.

 

[Penny1]

And then there is the self-evident conclusion, that two wrongs do not make a right.

 

That, besides the fact that Jesus was an imperfect man, and not a god.

[Libertus]

And my opinion has for a while been that who cares even if the Jesus story were true, who cares? What if he was the son of god, which I infinitely doubt? What if he did die for my sins?

 

If he did this, in dealing with the Topic Title question, why did he do it? In keeping with the biblical story, he did it because he wanted to. If Jesus is god, then he's the one who made the rule that it had to be done to appease himself. Okay, so he is a narcissistic weirdo who felt the need to have himself killed in order to fulfill his own will and desire. To me, this seems like his problem, not mine.

 

And Vixentrox hit the nail on the head. Creating us would not give a deity the right to do whatever the hell he or she wants to do, any more than it gives that right to parents. It's amazing how low a level of ethics that people give to their god.

 

Libertus

[Penny1]

And my opinion has for a while been that who cares even if the Jesus story were true, who cares?  What if he was the son of god, which I infinitely doubt?  What if he did die for my sins?

 

Of course, it's not true. (You knew that)

 

Christianity is a death cult which revolves around human sacrifice, blood drinking and cannibalism. (Too cool)

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I'll play for the other team just little bit.

 

1. A new covenant had to be established, since the old one was faulty. These covenants needed blood from God and humans. Sometimes you see these blood covenants, or blood brothers, on TV or movies, cut you hand to draw blood and shake hands.

 

Jesus blood was for the humans and God both. (Old style business contracts)

 

2. God made it clear he only accepts blood sacrifices. Like Cain and Abel, sacrifice with fruits and vegetables doesn't cut it, it has to be an animal.

 

Jesus was a sacrifice, an appease offering. (Very pagan btw)

 

3. Someone had to die instead of us.

 

Payment paid by someone else.

 

 

Back to criticism…

 

1. A business blood contract, or blood brother, both parties have to agree to the terms. We were never asked if the terms of the contract were acceptable, so the contract is moot, even if it was made in blood. Jesus made the agreement not me or you, so who choose him to be the negotiator for a new covenant?

 

2. Blood sacrifices are a pagan tradition based on the belief that the gods needs to “eat” the soul of living things. Christianity claims that it’s not pagan, but this is definitely a pagan tradition.

 

3. Jesus to be the payment for us, then he has to be in Hell still, because the payment is eternal, and not only 2 ½ days.

[Guest Joseph]

For sake of argument, myanswer to the sacrifice of a human for retributional reasons:

 

Here then, are some questions revolving around Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ.”  The major atonement theory among Christians is that Jesus died in my place and bore the punishment I deserve so that I may be forgiven and go to heaven rather than hell.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 directly outlaws any such action outright from ever taking place:

 

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

(snip)

In the first place, does justice really demand this much punishment? 

 

It is a confusion between the terms punishment and justice that causes Christianity to work in the first place. To brainwash into mankind that some type of retributional act must take place so that justice be done. The fact remains that this is not the case, because outright forgiveness and grace could take place without any retribution needed, grace could be the path to justice just as much (perhaps even more-so) as retribution.

 

Secondly, if God became incarnate to relate to us, then why can’t he also see what sin is from our perspective, as a finite offense from partly good and partly bad human beings? 

 

One of the fundamental flaws in christian argumentation is to base "sin" upon who sin is against (God) and thus label it as "infinite." When truly to be just the punishment must fit the criminal first and foremost. We do not sentence the retarded man as much as the normal man, we make the sentence fit the crime and the criminal. Thus if a finite has done an action the only just sentence is a finite one at most. Which goes in line with the punishments given in Genesis which is a mortal death...not eternal by any degree.

 

Thirdly, did Jesus really suffer an infinite punishment for our sins? 

 

Nope.

 

In the fourth place, in order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all? 

Any Christian want to discuss these reasons?

 

Worse even is attempting to fit this pagan idea of atonement under the levitical law of offering and the prophetic voice of the jewish scripture. It can't be done without absolute cognitive dissonance and / or pious fraud. Let me quote some jewish text here-in to make my point:

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html

 

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. (KJV)

 

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams. (KJV)

 

continued...

 

Given how often this theme is given (such as in the Psalm quoted above) the Christian position of there being no atonement without blood becomes a little puzzling. Hosea also gave a startling message that prayer can take the place of sacrifices:

 

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (KJV)

 

Now, given the language that KJV used in its translation, this is likely rather confusing. For that reason, let us use the American Standard Version's translation:

 

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto J---vah thy G-d; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and return unto J---vah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render [as] bullocks [the offering of] our lips. (ASV)

 

So, the prophet is telling us that prayer can substitute for sacrifice. Surely, this creates a dilemma for Christian theology, so let's see how they deal with this:

 

Hosea 14:1 Return, O Israel, to the Lord your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. [2] Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity And receive us graciously, That we may present the fruit of our lips. (NAS)

 

This pious fraud is but one example that was done in the KJV in order to hide the truthful path of atonement which in actuality does not require a blood offering as denoted under the law itself...

 

Exodus 30:16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. (KJV)

 

So YHVH was suppose to have forgotten that He allowed mankind to use simple prayer, flour, and/or atonement money in order to find total atonement and decided to go against the levitical code in every way and violate all principles of it in order that a mangod could be atoning.

 

It is truly such tripe that only those that can't read would accept it (christian idea of atonement). Period. This is detailed very clearing in the above website addie.

 

How could anyone believe or trust in a religion which directly the root source of it is in stark contrast and offers a better idea of justice outright, which was corrupted into a false fabrication of false justice by men who did not know the law or prophets enough to write a testament that stands to critical evaluation?

[BuddhistCommunist]

Jesus did not really suffer any more than the other jews, christians, pagans, and other roman criminals. Many people were crucified in Roman days before and after Jesus. Jesus was a Martyr to his faith just as any other person who has died for their faith. If anyone thinks jesus suffered ultimate punishment then we forget the tower of London, All the worst Chinese tortures, And the kgb and the stasi. If Jesus encountered any of these I believe he would have revoked his beliefs. "Why have you forsaken me" shows he was already losing faith after only a few days of Torture. Think If Jesus had been captured by the KGB for many months. With the crap they did to people, do you think he would have stayed firm?

[Ouroboros]

Jesus did not really suffer any more than the other jews, christians, pagans, and other roman criminals. Many people were crucified in Roman days before and after Jesus. Jesus was a Martyr to his faith just as any other person who has died for their faith. If anyone thinks jesus suffered ultimate punishment then we forget the tower of London, All the worst Chinese tortures, And the kgb and the stasi. If Jesus encountered any of these I believe he would have revoked his beliefs. "Why have you forsaken me" shows he was already losing faith after only a few days of Torture. Think If Jesus had been captured by the KGB for many months. With the crap they did to people, do you think he would have stayed firm?

 

So very true, and Welcome BC btw!

[Sokudo Ningyou]

It always goes back to the same thing: Jesus was God in human flesh. So God was sacrificing Him/Her/Itself to appease Him/Her/Itself while claiming to be suffering when He/She/It is omnipotent, and would hardly lose anything being human, knowing, once he died, he'd just go back. It's like the melting of ice; water returning to water. It may change, but no matter what, it remains the same.

[thomas]

It always goes back to the same thing: Jesus was God in human flesh.  So God was sacrificing Him/Her/Itself to appease Him/Her/Itself while claiming to be suffering when He/She/It is omnipotent, and would hardly lose anything being human, knowing, once he died, he'd just go back.  It's like the melting of ice; water returning to water.  It may change, but no matter what, it remains the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But we can conclude, that the Christian God has suicidal tendencies! He needs counseling!!!! Who will help him????

 

And hey wait a minute, how about the people who nailed Jesus to the cross - did they do the will of God? Did God manipulate them to do it, or did they act out of their own free will? Did they need foregiveness for what they did?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

But we can conclude, that the Christian God has suicidal tendencies! He needs counseling!!!! Who will help him????

 

And hey wait a minute, how about the people who nailed Jesus to the cross - did they do the will of God? Did God manipulate them to do it, or did they act out of their own free will? Did they need foregiveness for what they did? 

 

 

 

Which means....Jesus committed suicide by working the Romans into doing it for him. MORTAL SIN!

[thomas]

Which means....Jesus committed suicide by working the Romans into doing it for him.  MORTAL SIN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It seems so. Poor guy