# "Jesus Died For Your Sins". Please explain. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768 "2010-09-06T05:13:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/61 "2010-09-06T22:52:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > God doesn’t have a penis. Omnipotent _and_ dickless? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/62 "2010-09-06T22:54:58Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > God doesn’t have a penis. > > Omnipotent _and_ dickless? 😕 Well, I guess if he wanted to have a penis, he could. The question is, would he be circumcised? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/63 "2010-09-06T22:57:01Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > God doesn’t have a penis. > > Omnipotent _and_ dickless? 😕 He’s omnimpotent. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/64 "2010-09-06T23:03:57Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > The mainstream churches teach that > > God is Love. > Jesus is God. > Jesus is Alive. And thereby through suicide God killed love 😉 I understand how Jesus dying keeps us from hell, but I’ve never understood why it was necessary for him to die in the first place. God makes the rules, so why couldn’t he just have said “new rule: you really have to screw up to be damned now.” And since revelations suggests that no one is yet in hell (as judgment day hasn’t happened yet) it wouldn’t even be unfair to people who died before Jesus since they’re not yet damned pre-rule change… ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/65 "2010-09-06T23:45:41Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@FriarTed](#): > > > > raindog- I think a lot of people here really don’t know what you believe about the spiritual status of Jesus & his relationship to God. Now, I do know and realize that while you do not hold him to be God along with the Father, you also hold that he is more than just another creation. So could you explain for the rest your view of the status of Jesus & why his life is sufficient to redeem all of humanity? > > > > Btw, I’m thinking of opening up a discussion- “Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is God & if not, what does the NT teach Jesus is?” thread. > > Hello Friar Ted. > > I hold that Jesus is ‘the firstborn of all creation’ and God’s Son. > > As to why his life is ‘sufficient’----which I take to mean ‘In which way is he qualified?’, I would say simply it is/was his position as a perfect human life. Along the way I would note: > > 1. My reading of the OT doesn’t indicate that the anticipated Messiah was to be God, or any part of God. There was no expectation of God coming to earth. > > 2)It seems apparent to me that even his direct contemporaries didn’t grasp the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice. They were surprised and alarmed at the notion he’d be killed. > > 3)Its only later that Paul made the direction connection-----and more than once----that Jesus’s perfect life answered for the perfect [yet rebelling] perfect life of Adam. A perfect life for a perfect life; a redemption for human kind. > > No where in my reading indicates that this perfect life had to be God, or even the Son of God. On the other hand, _some_ divine intervention had to happen to provide a perfect human life, as the offspring of Adam could only produce imperfection. > > It is a a result of love and concern for human kind that Jesus was selected/volunteered. Surely God could have made another human in the fashion he made Adam. In any event he chose to use Mary, and the result was that a perfect human life answered for Adamic sin. You see, to me, if Jesus were not an Aspect of Deity, then the Atonement is just God beating up on another being to fix His Creation gone wrong. Whereas if Jesus is God- either in Modalistic or Trinitarian way, then the Atonement is truly a work of EmmanuEl- God With Us in our sinfulness, our pain, our alienation, and even our punishment- so that God Himself takes the pain of Sin, Death & Hades/Gehenna into Himself. But still, if I held that Jesus was The First-Created, The Unique Son of God, and The Word through whom God the Father created all else, then I would still say that only The Son could be the sufficient Ransom for the following reasons… The Father creates through The Son, therefore how can The Father re-create/restore His fallen creatures except through The Son; As Adam is the root of all humanity and his fallenness permeates we the branches, The Son is the Root of all creation and only his righteousness & ransoming work can permeate all creation; The Ransom Price for one sinful human life may be one perfect human life, but the Ransom Price for one sinful human life spreading out into the whole human race HAD TO BE a perfect human life whose worth was also that of the entire human race- Who else could that be but The Son who is the Co-Creator with The Father? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/66 "2010-09-07T00:29:01Z")
[quote=“FriarTed, post:65, topic:552768”] > [@raindog](#): > > You see, to me, if Jesus were not an Aspect of Deity, then the Atonement is just God beating up on another being to fix His Creation gone wrong. Whereas if Jesus is God- either in Modalistic or Trinitarian way, then the Atonement is truly a work of EmmanuEl- God With Us in our sinfulness, our pain, our alienation, and even our punishment- so that God Himself takes the pain of Sin, Death & Hades/Gehenna into Himself. An excellent point and one I hadn’t considered. Thank you. As I perceive this comment, it would have been God [essentially] beating up on another [innocent] human to pay for the sins of another human. (Although saving the lives of _all_ human along the way…) Still, that argument doesn’t make the case that the ‘redemptor’ be God, but rather the redemptor be a _willing_ participant. (and a _volunteer_ even better…) Who better than the Son of God to show that love? > [@](#): > > But still, if I held that Jesus was The First-Created, The Unique Son of God, and The Word through whom God the Father created all else, then I would still say that only The Son could be the sufficient Ransom for the following reasons… > > The Father creates through The Son, therefore how can The Father re-create/restore His fallen creatures except through The Son; > > As Adam is the root of all humanity and his fallenness permeates we the branches, The Son is the Root of all creation and only his righteousness & ransoming work can permeate all creation; > > The Ransom Price for one sinful human life may be one perfect human life, but the Ransom Price for one sinful human life spreading out into the whole human race HAD TO BE a perfect human life whose worth was also that of the entire human race- Who else could that be but The Son who is the Co-Creator with The Father? I think that is a compelling argument, and I think there are many reasons that the Son was the perfect candidate, and you’ve articulated them well. And…I agree with the reasoning. I think we are in much more agreement than it appears. My only distinction is this: from a **technical** POV, a perfect life for a perfect life. From a **symbolic** POV, it had to be Jesus, for who else could show the love and concern that God/Jesus had for mankind? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/67 "2010-09-07T23:07:28Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > An excellent point and one I hadn’t considered. Thank you. As I perceive this comment, it would have been God [essentially] beating up on another [innocent] human to pay for the sins of another human. (Although saving the lives of _all_ human along the way…) > > Still, that argument doesn’t make the case that the ‘redemptor’ be God, but rather the redemptor be a _willing_ participant. (and a _volunteer_ even better…) > > Who better than the Son of God to show that love? > > I think that is a compelling argument, and I think there are many reasons that the Son was the perfect candidate, and you’ve articulated them well. > > And…I agree with the reasoning. I think we are in much more agreement than it appears. My only distinction is this: from a **technical** POV, a perfect life for a perfect life. From a **symbolic** POV, it had to be Jesus, for who else could show the love and concern that God/Jesus had for mankind? A couple of points: 1. Lots of people have given their lives for others; I think it would be even easier to find somebody willing to give their life for _everyone_ (as that would necessarily include the people they like best). So I don’t see that there’s any reason for it to be Jesus for _that_. The way I heard it, he was unique in being able to manage to live a sinless life, apparently through technical chicanery to get him around original sin and/or having divine knowledge in his head allowing him to know and avoid sin. Is that not right? (And doesn’t that mean he’s at least a little divine?) 2. My bigger question here has always been, why is a horrific human blood sacrifice necessary at all? It makes sense in terms of ancient bloodthirsty gods and feeding virgins to dragons as protection money, but it doesn’t really make functional sense for any diety or entity that doesn’t see value (or flavor) in the death of the sacrifice itself. And suffering/privation as punitive punishment doesn’t make any logical sense when the punishment is by proxy, unless (again) the suffering _ **itself** _ is valued currency to the entity, independent of all justice or sin or anything. Is the notion that God is evil and bloodthirsty, and Jesus is throwing himself in God’s jaws to slake his mighty hunger and let us pass unmolested? It would explain the sacrifice thing as few explanations do, but it’s a _hair_ different from the usual modern descriptions of the diety in question. This gets even starker when you have Jesus forgiving people left and right, with just words. I suppose you could argue that all those forgiveness incidents were bought ‘on credit’ to be paid back to God in blood later (with interest?), but that seems pretty odd too, in my opinion. Especially as many of those forgiveness events were accompanied by healings - God was clearly _actively_ aiding his future lunch, especially if you posit that Jesus himself was not divine and lacked the power to do healings by himself. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/68 "2010-09-08T01:55:55Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > As Adam is the root of all humanity and his fallenness permeates we the branches\ Why? Why should his fallenness permeate through our branches? I never, ever, understood that. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/69 "2010-09-08T03:48:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Lots of people have given their lives for others; I think it would be even easier to find somebody willing to give their life for _everyone_ (as that would necessarily include the people they like best). Let me first say I am not a believer; I just happen to be very familiar with the theology from the time I wasted on it decades ago… Basic Christian theology does not consider Jesus’ sacrifice as equivalent to one person willingly sacrificing their own life so that others may live. In substitutional atonement, there is an intrinsic value to Jesus’ death that balances the offense of Adam, one that no finite human is capable of paying. Moreover, most of the value in “laying down one’s life” is situational, like the value of food to a starving man vs. one whose just had a big meal. By definition, an eternal God is not affected by temporal situations, so this type of value cannot be applied to the divine debt. A better analogy might be “Lots of people have paid off someone else’s debt, but it’s impossible to find somebody able to pay the debts of _everyone_.” > [@](#): > > My bigger question here has always been, why is a horrific human blood sacrifice necessary at all? It makes sense in terms of ancient bloodthirsty gods and feeding virgins to dragons as protection money, but it doesn’t really make functional sense for any deity or entity that doesn’t see value (or flavor) in the death of the sacrifice itself. And suffering/privation as punitive punishment doesn’t make any logical sense when the punishment is by proxy, unless (again) the suffering _ **itself** _ is valued currency to the entity, independent of all justice or sin or anything. This is exactly right, and the consensus position of most modern Christian theology. It is, in fact, the root idea behind the “moral influence” theory of the Passion: The illustrative and educational value of the story itself required this style of sacrifice. I make this point only because–after reading numerous posts in this thread–many folks seem to be arguing against an antiquated version of the atonement. This is somewhat like arguing against modern chemistry by citing the ridiculous conclusions of medieval alchemy. I’m not saying their arguments are as solid as modern science, and there are plenty of good reasons to reject Christianity. But believe me: Great minds have gone over these apparent contradictions pretty thoroughly, and their arguments deserve to be approached more seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/70 "2010-09-08T03:49:08Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > > [@FriarTed](#): > > > > As Adam is the root of all humanity and his fallenness permeates we the branches\ > > Why? Why should his fallenness permeate through our branches? Because god said so. See how internally consistent it all is? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/71 "2010-09-08T04:36:27Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Why? Why should his fallenness permeate through our branches? I never, ever, understood that. This is absolutely a weak point in Christian theology, a classic case of how theological “truths” are often adopted from cultural norms and then rationalized, rather than arrived at thru logical inference. The starting point is, of course, [Romans 5:12-21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5&version=NIV); St. Paul is pretty clear that Adam’s sin brought damnation to humanity and that Christ was instrumental in correcting that situation, so if you accept Paul’s letter as scripture there’s no avoiding the question. St. Augustine–re-interpreting his Greek originals–givens the basic explanation against which all other theologians react. Augustine thought original sin was a natural result of the pride that develops in creatures of free will, and since the sex act recreates the same type of free-willed human, the same sin is recreated generation after generation. Most commentators (myself included) see this as another example of Christianity’s infantile interpretation of sex (even if you think sex is dirty, what nut would actually think it’s responsible for eternal damnation?). To be fair, there is an entire historic/theological dissertation in my glib paragraph. Augustine–a man quite familiar with the irresistable temptations of the flesh–did try to mollify the obvious interpretation. He originally preferrred to think of Adam as a stand-in for all humanity–i.e. that any human would have acted the same way in the same situation, and in this sense we all “participated” in the sin–and he said that Satan’s temptation was a “necessary” ingredient–i.e. it wouldn’t have happened without a little prodding. However, I tend to agree with Peter Brown that Augustine’s theological positions hardened in his old age (as a way to counteract the secular crumbling of the now-Christian Roman empire), and certainly his arguments against the Pelagians (who denied original sin and exhalted human free will in the salvation process) are the ones that were remembered by later Christian figures, particularly Martin Luther. Organized Christianity IMO made a bad decision in following the later Augustine’s theory on original sin so closely. The Catholic Church has tried to back out of it since Aquinas, but then they go and make ridiculous pronouncements like the Immaculate Conception, which is more an example of their eternal problems with human sexuality and the interpretive path they’ve chosen. ---
**Author:** ![komolono](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/komolono/32/532_2.png) [@komolono](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/komolono)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/72 "2010-09-08T07:40:20Z")
> [@Girl\_Next\_Door](#): > > “Jesus died for your sins” That is the believing part of Christian faith. If you missed that, you could be a Jew or a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist. There is nothing more for you to know, except have faith. It makes perfect sense if you are not perfect yourself - forgiving. I really need a SD support group - I can’t stop answering these questions. Or at least another account - An Alter Ego for these late night messages. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/73 "2010-09-08T13:20:46Z")
**Girl Next Door** , I suggest that if you want a serious, thoughtful, informative answer to questions about theology, that you avoid taking as gospel\* the answers you will get from a messageboard dominated by snarky atheists and agnostics (God love 'em). The Wiki article on Atonement is pretty good at explaining the actual theology (or theologies). As you see here though, the snark begins with post #2 – although some answers have been more helpful. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/74 "2010-09-08T14:11:19Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Don’t worry. We really don’t know exactly what forbidden fruit Adam ate. I’m guessing durian. 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. I’m totally serious here; do \*not \*crack one of those things open. Let’s just say it was a prototype that didn’t turn out as planned. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Aw, come on; how bad could it possibly be? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/75 "2010-09-08T14:35:50Z")
IANAC but this is the way I understand mainstream Christian theology. Had Jesus not offered himself as a sacrifice each human on being judged would have had to answer not only for his or her own sins but for the original transgression of Adam, and the latter alone would have been sufficient to consign him to damnation. Jesus removed that taint and now we simply have to account for our own misdoings (probably enough to damn us anyway, certainly in my case!) The only human born without the taint of Original Sin prior to Jesus was Mary, owing to the Immaculate Conception, ie she was conceived by her parents without sin, whatever that means. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/76 "2010-09-08T15:26:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **CJJ** said in part…snip… > > I make this point only because–after reading numerous posts in this thread–many folks seem to be arguing against an antiquated version of the atonement. This is somewhat like arguing against modern chemistry by citing the ridiculous conclusions of medieval alchemy. I’m not saying their arguments are as solid as modern science, and there are plenty of good reasons to reject Christianity. But believe me: Great minds have gone over these apparent contradictions pretty thoroughly, and their arguments deserve to be approached more seriously. I don’t quite get your point here. Can you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/77 "2010-09-08T15:34:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@DanBlather](#): > > > > Can you point me to the passage where she consents to being impregnated? I searched my copy of the NT and can’t find it. > > God is omniscient. He knows the answer is yes, so He doesn’t have to ask. > > Besides, there was no penetration. God doesn’t have a penis. MARY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF GOD: You’re tellin’ me! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Girl\_Next\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@Girl\_Next\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Girl_Next_Door)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/78 "2010-09-08T15:35:23Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > **Girl Next Door** , I suggest that if you want a serious, thoughtful, informative answer to questions about theology, that you avoid taking as gospel\* the answers you will get from a messageboard dominated by snarky atheists and agnostics (God love 'em). > > The Wiki article on Atonement is pretty good at explaining the actual theology (or theologies). As you see here though, the snark begins with post #2 – although some answers have been more helpful. Thanks, **Skammer** , but I think I’m good. Though my screen name may imply a certain innocence, I’ve been a Doper for a long time and pretty good at discernment. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/79 "2010-09-08T15:35:44Z")
[King Kong Died For Your Sins.](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/King_Kong) ---
**Author:** ![Girl\_Next\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@Girl\_Next\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Girl_Next_Door)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768/80 "2010-09-08T15:37:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [King Kong Died For Your Sins.](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/King_Kong) Post hoc ergo propter hoc. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-died-for-your-sins-please-explain/552768.md?page=5)