Jesus's Crucifixion

[apple]

Hi,
Can someone explain why Jesus was crucified? It's my understanding He was sacrificed in order to save us. To whom was He sacrificed?
apple

[JardinPrayer]

I'll take a shot at that.

God has certain requirements for the conduct of his favorite creation, man. From the moment of original sin in the Garden of Eden, we have consistently demonstrated our collective inability to abide by God's rules.

The story thus far is:

"Don't eat of the tree of knowledge..." - violated

Sodom, Gomorrah, Babel - a world run amok - God cannot abide and decides to destroy - but for Noah, deemed righteous and made custodian for the new post-flood world.

Moses - given the law to deliver to the Israelites. Most are disobedient.

Thousands of years go by as God watches his most precious creation revel in war, hate, greed, deciet, false worship, and all manner of sin. He has promised never to destroy again and He has tried to set us on the right path by handing down His law...but man is still not equal to God's requirements. What to do?

Well, just as any loving parent would do, God creates a way to cover our sins, which have mounted up so high we could never atone for them on our own. As was stated in the Old Testament, God acknowledges that no convenant (contract, promse) made with a man is unbreakable because man is flawed. The only covenant that is guaranteed is one God makes with Himself. God does not break His promises. So, he created a way for us to be set free from the sins of our forefathers and the sins we would commit for generations to come. He made a contract with Himself that said basically this:

"I love the world so much I will send my only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him would be saved and have eternal life."

What does this mean? Well, I'm leaving room for interpretation here, because there are a bunch of differing Christian beliefs, but my belief is that God took the form of a human being, Jesus, and walked the earth leading a sinless life as a living example of what God expects of us. Jesus was also a teacher and preacher of the gospel (good news) of salvation. He walked, talked, breathed, lived, and prophecied perfectly. He spoke during His lifetime of His impending death and that it was necessary for the fulfillment of the contract God had made with Himself for our Salvation.

Let's talk a little about sacrifice. Many religious practices include the building of an altar and the sacrifice of something cherished to honor their deity. To God, blood is most precious...it belongs to Him and it returns to Him. To shed blood sacrificially was an acknowledgement of that in Old Testament days. To shed it otherwise was the most hateful sin. God demands a sacrifice in atonement for sin. Today, our sacrifice (which means "offering") can be as simple as prayer, repentence, a promise to God followed through to cease a sinful behavior). But, for the accumulated sins of mankind for thousands of years, God was the only one big enough to atone adequately for that. So, He sent His Son to show us exactly how we should model ourselves, then offered Jesus in sacrifice to himself so that we might have the slate wiped clean once again.

When Jesus was dying on the cross, His final words were "It is finished." Again, there are many interpretations of what this referred to. In my church, we are taught that it signified an end to the "Old" covenant (Mosaic Law) and the beginning of the "New" covenant (Salvation through belief). Now, in order to receive God's grace and mercy, one has simply to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, acknowledge our sinful nature and repent of our sins (ask forgiveness), and vow to walk as close to Jesus' example as possible every day. Jesus dying on the cross to wash away the accumulated sins of the past and to make way for the new contract is what you are saying "Thank you" for as a Christian. Without that, we would be lost in darkness...doomed to hell for eternity.

For God so loved the world...He gave us yet another chance to be with Him eternally in Heaven...even though we had made a mess of all His previous chances. Since we couldn't just follow his law, He gave us a living, breathing template to compare ourselves to. Instead of living in sin and trying to take on the garments of righteousness, He showed us in Jesus how to open our hearts and allow God to dwell within us and shine out through our thoughts, words, and deed. What an awesome God!

Does that help at all?

Peace,
JardinPrayer

[markporter]

"To whom was He sacrificed?"
well, I suppose to his father really....but I don't think that it really matters who to, the sacrifice in itself is enough without being to anyone in particular

[apple]

Thanks for the replies but I still do not understand why God would sacrifice something to Himself. It does not make sense if we look at the definition of sacrifice.

Sacrifice means one offering something to another. One loses or pays a penalty to another whom gains from the sacrifice. I assume God lost something, His Son, by having Him crucified. At the same time God gained something, I assume, or He wouldn't have demanded a sacrifice. It begs the question why God, who can do anything He wishes, would require a sacrifice from Himself. What was the purpose of God hurting Himself, which I assume the death of His Son must have done, when God could have simply forgiven the sins?

Why did God have to suffer the sacrifice? It is the offender, the sinner, whom offers a sacrifice. A sacrifice being a penalty to be paid to someone demanding a payment. How is it conceivable for one to sacrifice to themselves? What is gained, if you will?

Is the crucifixion not supposed to make sense? By that, I mean, is it something written in the Bible that we are not supposed to understand at this time?

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 12:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121249#post121249)
apple:

One loses or pays a penalty to another whom gains from the sacrifice.
Not necessarily. Here are some "official" definitions of sacrifice:
To offer as a sacrifice to a deity.
To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value.
To sell or give away at a loss.


It begs the question why God, who can do anything He wishes, would require a sacrifice from Himself. What was the purpose of God hurting Himself, which I assume the death of His Son must have done, when God could have simply forgiven the sins?
I addressed these points in my original post. God has His own set of rules...things He demands in order for the world to be "right" in His judgement (the only judgement that counts). He's not like Merlin, sitting on a mountain waving a wand...doing "anything He wants." He tells us in His word what his demands are. When we fail to meet them, God, by His own rules, cannot simply allow that state of sin to continue unchecked. He does not break his promises, and His promise to the Israelites was that, if they follow the law, they would receive His favor and, if they did not, they would be smitten. Having vowed not to destroy mankind again (after the flood), and out of a love so great He could not bear to see his most precious creation doomed to darkness, He did for us what we could not do for ourselves...He made a sacrifice to God on our behalf.

The precedent for making a covenant with himself was set in the Old Testament. In fact, that is exactly what Old Testament and New Testament mean. They are the two contracts God made with Himself because they were too important to trust with a sinful man. It's a difficult concept, but one you will do well to try to wrap your head around. It is God's way...no one else can do this.


Why did God have to suffer the sacrifice? It is the offender, the sinner, whom offers a sacrifice. A sacrifice being a penalty to be paid to someone demanding a payment. How is it conceivable for one to sacrifice to themselves? What is gained, if you will?
Again, you're not using a valid definition of sacrifice. It's not a penalty, it is an homage, an acknowledgement of superiority to a deity. As I said above, it is not conceivable for anyone to sacrifice themself except God. That is part of what makes Him so great in His mercy and grace. What is gained is our immortal souls. He did this for us as a supreme act of love, to compensate for our shortcomings, according to His divine judgement of what it takes for the universe to be in order. I, for one, am not questioning that. I'm just saying "Thank You, Jesus!"


Is the crucifixion not supposed to make sense? By that, I mean, is it something written in the Bible that we are not supposed to understand at this time?
On the contrary. Understanding what took place on that cross is the very heart and soul of the New Covenant. It is the thing that allows us to acknowledge Jesus as Saviour...the first step toward salvation. I pray you arrive there.

Peace,
JardinPrayer

[apple]

Thanks for the reply.

This is what I understand from your post. God made rules. Man sinned and had to pay the price for his sins. Man could not pay the price so God paid the price for man by sacrificing His Son. Is that correct?

[rocket]

Thats a stupid question! He was sacrificed to Gawud, to wash away your sins....one of which was asking this question.

Please refer to the Liberal Arts Guidelines before posting. This post has been edited due to your inability to adhere to them.

[mickiel]

[i]Yesterday @ 05:46 PM [url=http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?Is the crucifixion not supposed to make sense? By that, I mean, is it something written in the Bible that we are not supposed to understand at this time?

This statement must of nessecity be true. Gods involvement with the physical creation is a planned one, he planned the death of Christ. Are Gods plans unnessercary, or unvalid to pure reason? Good questions, but if God is reason, then his actions are the same. If we do not unfderstand the reason, we simply are not meant too.

[FirstSunday33ad]

This is what I understand from your post. God made rules. Man sinned and had to pay the price for his sins. Man could not pay the price so God paid the price for man by sacrificing His Son. Is that correct?

God didn't sacrifice His Son. Jesus [the Son] died for humanity, God [the Father] allowed it. Man killed Jesus, not God. As Jesus was and is God, this means God paid the price man could not pay.

As for the "rules". They were not arbitrary. God didn't just think them up..."I know let's make the punishment for sin death"...Sin is an act of being in opposition to God. To be in opposition to God is to be dead. Man sinned so man died. In order to remove the sin, something had to die in his place- animal or God.

Animal sacrifice was only temporary as animals are blameless but not innocent of sin, so to permanently pay the price, that left God Himself. But in order to pay this price God had to become man, live as a man, be tempted as a man and die as a man - while being sinless.

Jesus did this and since his death was a violation of the Law, death and hell had no claim to Him. Since He was the perfect sacrifice - voluntary, human, sinless, God - His death and resurrection was sufficient to redeem all of humanity from its sin.

[apple]

The moderator will move this post to a discussion forum as some of the answers I have received need clarification.


Regarding JardinPrayer's reply concerning the definition of sacrifice it is logical to assume there are two entities involved. To sell or give away or offer a sacrifice involves one giving or offering something to another. The mention of the sacrifice of Jesus was for the sins of man. Man had to offer something to God, or God demanded something in return, for forgiving man's sin. It follows that whatever was offered or sacrificed had to be something of man's.

Now, one could counter that man didn't have anything of sufficient value to offer which is my understanding. In that case it appears God gave man something to offer which was His Son. This is where logic falls apart and that is why I asked if the sacrifice of Jesus was something written in the Bible that we are not supposed to understand.

If I may use an analogy to help explain my position let's assume someone owed me money. I tell them I will not trust them again if they do not repay me. They are unable to repay me so I, again, give them the amount of money they owe me and they immediately give it back to me and I consider that the loan is paid. It is not logical.

Let's look at the definition of sacrifice: "To offer as a sacrifice to a deity.
To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value.
To sell or give away at a loss."
one entity is offering something to another entity. One entity is losing or giving up something to another entity. If entity "A" demands that entity "B" make a sacrifice then entity "B" must offer something. If entity "A" gives entity "B" the 'thing' that is to be sacrificed then entity "B" has not sacrificed anything. Furthermore, the entire purpose of a sacrifice, one entity giving to another, has been thwarted. Entity "A" has only received what they gave entity "B".

JardinPrayer writes, "It's not a penalty, it is an homage, an acknowledgement of superiority to a deity. As I said above, it is not conceivable for anyone to sacrifice themself except God."

It sounds like God made an homage to Himself acknowledging His own superiority. If God is the only one that can make a sacrifice then that has to be the case. God made a sacrifice to Himself and that negates the definition of the word 'sacrifice' as the word 'sacrifice' implies one entity giving to another.

To mickiel: Do you understand the reasoning behind the sacrifice? Does it make sense to you?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Man had to offer something to God, or God demanded something in return, for forgiving man's sin.

There’s the error in your thinking “God demanded something in return”. A better way of thinking of it is “SIN demanded something in return”.

The Bible says “the wages of sin is death”. Sin demanded its wages be paid before it would release man from its debt. We were held ransom by Sin and could not free ourselves. God – through Jesus – paid this ransom.

[mickiel]

[i]Today @ 05:06 PM another.

To mickiel: Do you understand the reasoning behind the sacrifice? Does it make sense to you?

The only thought i have that makes any sense is this: God created evil to use it in his creation of the development of righteous characther in man. Or his own characther transfered into his children. In Genesis 3:22, God said an interesting statement-- "man has BECOME LIKE US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL". So God is aware of something about evil, its effects, its deteration, but hes done something with it that must be a nesseccity, or he wouldnot have brought it into existance. I think the death of Christ is the eraser of it. Because a God brought sin and evil into existance, the death of a God must be the requirement to eliminate it. The typeology of the scarifical Lamb may offer more insight.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I have to voice an objection to your reply:


The only thought i have that makes any sense is this: God created evil to use it in his creation of the development of righteous characther in man. Or his own characther transfered into his children. In Genesis 3:22, God said an interesting statement-- "man has BECOME LIKE US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL". So God is aware of something about evil, its effects, its deteration, but hes done something with it that must be a nesseccity, or he wouldnot have brought it into existance.

God did not "create" sin or evil nor did He bring them into existance.

Evil is any act that is contrary to the nature of God. It is not "created", that is, it is not a thing of substance - it is an act of will. Man brought evil into existance through sin which was created by Satan through pride.

God allowed man and Satan to do this because He grants us freedom of will and he has used our evil and our sin against us to accomplish His purposes; but He did not "create" or bring into being either.

[NOTE TO MODERATOR: I apologize for breaking the rules of the Liberal Arts Dept. If you wish to delete this or move it, please do so. Thank you]

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122187#post122187)
FirstSunday33ad:

I have to voice an objection to your reply:



God did not "create" sin or evil nor did He bring them into existance.

Evil is any act that is contrary to the nature of God. It is not "created", that is, it is not a thing of substance - it is an act of will. Man brought evil into existance through sin which was created by Satan through pride.

God allowed man and Satan to do this because He grants us freedom of will and he has used our evil and our sin against us to accomplish His purposes; but He did not "create" or bring into being either.

[NOTE TO MODERATOR: I apologize for breaking the rules of the Liberal Arts Dept. If you wish to delete this or move it, please do so. Thank you]


I understand your views, i use to share them in times past. In keeping with the intent of the liberal arts rules, which i now understand, i offer no combative response. I offer personal questions i asked myself, and God. And one simple verse in John 1:3. All things came into being by him, apart from him, nothing that has come into being, has done so on its own. I believe this to mean nothing has evolution, or the ability to create itself apart from God, it also means God does not "allow" things to create themselves. I just know evil has come into being, and its very powerful. satan the devil is evil personified and he is a real being, not just a way of thinking, he is that thinking or the father or god of it. Evil didnot create itself, slip past God and jump into reality. Nor did God passively allow it to wreck the vast majority of his physical creations, God is not stupid. I will stop here, in respect to this forum, if you wish i can personally send you scriptures and explinations of why i believe these things.

[apple]

First Sunday writes, "God didn't sacrifice His Son."

But God said he gave His only begotten Son so man would live. That sure sounds like God sacrificed His Son. If God didn't sacrifice His Son why did God create a Son in the first place?

Again, you write, "“SIN demanded something in return” and "Sin demanded its wages be paid before it would release man from its debt.

This is illogical. Sin is a condition, a state man may be in. Sin cannot demand anything. Sin is not an entity.

God demanded something in return. God made the rule that sin will result in death unless a sacrifice is made. Mankind did not have anything worth sacrificing so God gave mankind His Son so mankind would have something to offer (I give my only begotten Son). The question is why was that necessary? It is not logical for one to demand a sacrifice and then become the sacrifice or pay the sacrifice. As I explained earlier it is not logical. The word "sacrifice" implied the interaction between two entities.

Why would God suffer the loss of His Son in order to save mankind if God did not have to? If God made the rules and the cost of paying the penalty was the loss of His Son then what is the logic of God demanding payment or sacrifice? It is not logical. What has mankind learned? If a child is told it will be spanked if it is naughty and it is naughty and the father spanks himself what is learned? Where is the logic?

The bottom line is God supposedly makes the rules and decides on the punishment, however, when we see that He had to suffer the punishment by losing His Son, or Himself dying on the cross depending on whether Jesus was God, it doesn't add up.

Let's look at this scenario. Suppose a price had to be paid for man's sins in order for man to be saved but the price was not paid to God. Suppose man would be destroyed if the price wasn't paid and man was not able to pay the price so God paid the price. Doesn't that make more sense? A price had to be paid to "someone" but not to God as it is illogical for God to suffer and pay a price to Himself. That is what I meant when I first posted that there is something about the sacrifice that doesn't make sense. There must be a piece of the puzzle missing. What do you think the piece is?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Again, “God did not demand something in return”. Man didn’t “owe” God something for sinning. Man owed sin his life for sinning. This is an abstract concept so it is no wonder you struggle with it. The best way to understand it is to personify sin. However, it is not necessary, you can also try it as a formula:

A = God, -A = antiGod, B = Man, C = Christ, F = Free choice,
X = Disobedience, Y = Sin, Z = Death, -Z = antideath,
G = Creation

Rule 1: F must always be present.

X is the result of F; therefore F + X = Fx
Y is the result of Fx; therefore Fx causes Y
Fx = -A, therefore Y = -A
Since A = -Z, then –A = Z therefore Y = Z

F + X = Fx causes Y = -A = Z

Y and A therefore cannot coexist – for one to be present the other must be absent.
In order to cancel Z, A must be present. In order for A to be present; the effects of Y must be cancelled. But X causes Y and is dependent on F. Therefore X cannot be removed without violating rule 1; therefore A cannot be present meaning Z remains a constant. In order to cancel the effects of Y an additional value is required.

C(z) = -Z
Therefore C(z) cancels Z
Since Z = -A, then –Z = A,
Therefore C(z) = A
Therefore C(z) cancels -A
Therefore C(z) cancels the effects of Y.


F + X = Fx causes Y = -A = Z + F + C(z) = A

A + G = Bf(a)
Bf(a) + X = Bfx(y)
Bfx(y) = -A = Z
Bfx(z) + Cf(z) = Bfx(c).
Bfx(c) = Bfx(a).

[garthoverman]

FirstSunday33ad:

In order to cancel the effects of Y an additional value is required.
Why is it "required" and not simply "desired"? Is your God not omnipotent? Couldn't He make it any other way?

Also, if F->X = Fx and Fx->Y doesn't this mean that your God created Y if he created F? This runs counter to your assertions in the thread "Did God create sin/evil?" Which is it? Maybe F->X = Fx is not necessarily true?

Yours,
Garth

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125638#post125638)
garthoverman:


Why is it "required" and not simply "desired"? Is your God not omnipotent? Couldn't He make it any other way?

Also, if F->X = Fx and Fx->Y doesn't this mean that your God created Y if he created F? This runs counter to your assertions in the thread "Did God create sin/evil?" Which is it? Maybe F->X = Fx is not necessarily true?

Yours,
Garth

1 + 1 = 2.

Now make the 2 equal "0". You cannot without the addition of a new value (-2. - 1 - 1. etc).

Your question about God "making it any other way" therefore is illogical.

F + X = FX, FX + Y = Z.

Explain how this means A = Y? To repeat rule 1: F must always be present. F allows X which creates Y leading to Z. Remove F and you violate rule 1.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126294#post126294)
FirstSunday33ad:


1 + 1 = 2.

Now make the 2 equal "0". You cannot without the addition of a new value (-2. - 1 - 1. etc).
That assumes that I must remian within axioms of basic arithmetic. If I am free to alter to those axioms as I wish (which an omnipotent entity would be) I can make 2 = 0 very easily.


Your question about God "making it any other way" therefore is illogical.
Why? Even humans can make arithmetic another way. We made it the first way, and we're free to construct different mathematical systems if we like.


F + X = FX, FX + Y = Z.

Explain how this means A = Y? To repeat rule 1: F must always be present. F allows X which creates Y leading to Z. Remove F and you violate rule 1.

I don't think you understand what I said. I did not claim that A = Y. I deduced that A caused Y. From your post, you said that X is the result of F which together results in Fx. That is why I noted that F -> X = Fx. Is this not accurate? If not, why?

If it is, you then said that Fx -> Y. Which if A -> F, and F-> X -> Y, therefore A -> Y which runs contrary to your assertion that God did not create sin. If the last sentence is true, then at least one of your original propositions must be false. Maybe A did not create free will? Maybe free will does not cause disobedience? Maybe disobedience does not cause sin? If these causal chains are unbreakable, then your God set into motion an unalterable chain of events resulting in sin and is therefore just as guilty for the end result as a human who fires a gun knowing where it is aimed.

Regardless, you've yet to explain why your omnipotent creator was "required" to introduce a new value as opposed to simply doing as he desired (i.e. altering the axioms of the system). Requirements imply limitations; which limitations did your God have to contend with? Who/What imposed those limitations?

Yours,
Garth

[FirstSunday33ad]

That assumes that I must remian within axioms of basic arithmetic. If I am free to alter to those axioms as I wish (which an omnipotent entity would be) I can make 2 = 0 very easily.

You are free to do so. Now do it – REMEMBERING – that it must actually work. Simply declaring 2 is now 0 doesn’t work


Why? Even humans can make arithmetic another way. We made it the first way, and we're free to construct different mathematical systems if we like

Point avoidance. You must make 2 become 0 without adding another value


I don't think you understand what I said. I did not claim that A = Y. I deduced that A caused Y. From your post, you said that X is the result of F which together results in Fx. That is why I noted that F -> X = Fx. Is this not accurate? If not, why?

Ah, now we are going into semantics. God gave man free will. Man freely chose to disobey. By disobeying man became sinful. Your conclusion – “God caused sin” - doesn’t logically follow. The only conclusion allowed is “God allowed man to sin”. That maintains the consistency of freewill and leaves the onus for sin at the feet of man and his disobedience.


Regardless, you've yet to explain why your omnipotent creator was "required" to introduce a new value as opposed to simply doing as he desired (i.e. altering the axioms of the system). Requirements imply limitations; which limitations did your God have to contend with? Who/What imposed those limitations?

Limitation 1: Freewill. We have the freedom to obey or not, we have the freedom to believe or not, we have the freedom to follow or not.

The only way to prevent humanity from choosing to sin would be by removing our freedom to choose sin – violation of freedom of will.

Therefore, the only way to remove the effects of sin while maintaining free will was by introducing something that removed sin that could be freely accepted or rejected – that is the new value.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 06:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126579#post126579)
FirstSunday33ad:



You are free to do so. Now do it – REMEMBERING – that it must actually work. Simply declaring 2 is now 0 doesn’t work
Sure it does. All it requires is that I postulate 2 = 0 as a fundamental axiom in the system. Heck in binary, 2 = 10.



Point avoidance. You must make 2 become 0 without adding another value
Done.



Ah, now we are going into semantics. God gave man free will. Man freely chose to disobey. By disobeying man became sinful. Your conclusion – “God caused sin” - doesn’t logically follow. The only conclusion allowed is “God allowed man to sin”. That maintains the consistency of freewill and leaves the onus for sin at the feet of man and his disobedience.
So you're saying that F does not cause X? This is contrary to your original proposition. If F does cause X, then the causal chain extends from A -> F -> X, which means A -> X is true. Let me make it easier... from your propositions, the causal chain can be represented thus:A -> F -> X -> Y -> Z
If there is nowhere that this causal chain breaks down, then the intiator of the First Cause is culpable for all subsequent causes.




Limitation 1: Freewill. We have the freedom to obey or not, we have the freedom to believe or not, we have the freedom to follow or not.
So then you're saying that X is not a necessary result of F, correct?


The only way to prevent humanity from choosing to sin would be by removing our freedom to choose sin – violation of freedom of will.
Well I won't even get into divine foreknowledge vs. free-will, but regardless if you assert that humanity is capable of choosing to not sin, then you are contradicting your statement that F causes X. Rather, it should be that F can cause X, but does not necessarily.


Therefore, the only way to remove the effects of sin while maintaining free will was by introducing something that removed sin that could be freely accepted or rejected – that is the new value.
And why couldn't he simply forgive all sins at once? Is he not omnipotent?

Yours,
Garth

[FirstSunday33ad]

Sure it does. All it requires is that I postulate 2 = 0 as a fundamental axiom in the system. Heck in binary, 2 = 10.

This is just saying 2 = 0 or doesn’t equal two at all. It does not solve the problem it simply avoids it.


So you're saying that F does not cause X? This is contrary to your original proposition. If F does cause X, then the causal chain extends from A -> F -> X, which means A -> X is true. Let me make it easier... from your propositions, the causal chain can be represented thus:
A -> F -> X -> Y -> Z

If there is nowhere that this causal chain breaks down, then the intiator of the First Cause is culpable for all subsequent causes.

Man I hate playing the “I’m too stupid to breath” game with sceptics.

Freewill equals free choice. The choice is obey vs. disobey. Man makes this choice everyday. Inevitably we choose to disobey. Disobedience is sin. Sin is anti-God. Anti-God equals death.

Since you have clearly understood my meaning from your following replies, I will leave off this explanation here.


And why couldn't he simply forgive all sins at once? Is he not omnipotent?

And so we arrive back at full circle. Everything said by everybody previously has been ignored. Well, I will repeat what I said to Apple – Sin was owed a debt; our lives. That debt had to be paid. Christ paid it.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126660#post126660)
FirstSunday33ad:


This is just saying 2 = 0 or doesn’t equal two at all. It does not solve the problem it simply avoids it.
No, it is intended to demosntrate that the axioms that define identities and operations in arithmetic can by freely altered if one is so inclined. An omnipotent God should be just as free.



Man I hate playing the “I’m too stupid to breath” game with sceptics.
We can play the "I'm too stupid to spell 'breathe' correctly" game if you like.


Freewill equals free choice. The choice is obey vs. disobey. Man makes this choice everyday. Inevitably we choose to disobey. Disobedience is sin. Sin is anti-God. Anti-God equals death.

Since you have clearly understood my meaning from your following replies, I will leave off this explanation here.
So when you said that X is a result of F you misspoke. I can live with that.



And so we arrive back at full circle. Everything said by everybody previously has been ignored. Well, I will repeat what I said to Apple – Sin was owed a debt; our lives. That debt had to be paid. Christ paid it.
Why was sin "owed" anything? Is God incapable of forgiving the debt by his own sheer will? I thought he was omnipotent? I want you to directly address my challenge to your assertion that your God was "required" to do something as opposed to simply doing it because he wanted to. Who imposes the requirements?

Yours,
Garth

[gnosis]

06-13-2003 @ 05:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122077#post122077)
FirstSunday33ad:



There’s the error in your thinking “God demanded something in return”. A better way of thinking of it is “SIN demanded something in return”.

The Bible says “the wages of sin is death”. Sin demanded its wages be paid before it would release man from its debt. We were held ransom by Sin and could not free ourselves. God – through Jesus – paid this ransom.

Hi FirstSunday,

If you ever need employment look me up. The wages of your work will be money, just don't ask me to pay it but ask the work you have done to pay you.

gnosis