How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

[Throg]

I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.

 

[El Greco]

Look, it's really simple. Pay attention:

Buhmarun arman te Jesus gormonits, alloveou ton akra te Vogin. Gin alla sokuren ? Matran Jesus fuliups asbert!

Hope this helps.

 

[Throg]

Look, it's really simple. Pay attention:

Buhmarun arman te Jesus gormonits, alloveou ton akra te Vogin. Gin alla sokuren ? Matran Jesus fuliups asbert!

Hope this helps.

Made me smile. Not sure it was all that helpful as it just raises the further question asber quiblix mumfle blorg?

Anyway, I really hope there will be some serious attempts to address my question as I really would like to understand the concept if at all possible.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm sure Christian apologists have written many reams trying to rationalize this essential point of theology.

Lessee... God, cheesed over Adam, gets the nasties for humanity. Many years later (how many depends on how fundie you are), God, a perfectly just and wise being, changes his mind. "Oh, I just can't stay mad at these cute little guys any more."
So he incarnates some bits of himself as a human, gets born in an obscure backwater of the Roman Empire, and gets offed .

Nobody on Earth hears much of this amazing event for about a thousand years.

I dunno.....

 

[Upchurch]

I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.

I believe it goes back to the Old Testament concept of an eye for an eye. Humanity, through Adam and Eve, grievously(?) sinned against God by disobeying the "Do Not Press The Shiney Red Button That Flashes" rule. Humanity repayed that horrible, awful debt by Jesus giving 46 million pounds of flesh owed to God.

This much, I kinda understand, in it's own warped, perverted sort of way. What I don't get is (1) how can Jesus pay humanity's debt if He is devine and, thus, not really human, (2) if the sin was automatically carried forth through humanity's successors from Adam and Eve, why is the payment of that debt not also carried forth through humanity's successors and (3) why were other previous "taking a pound of flesh for being naughty" acts not counted as payment in full (i.e. Noah's Flood)?

 

[Z]

Don't forget the big cheat: He died to save us all, but came back to life three days later.

Does that really count?

Edit: Now that I think about it, though, the story of Jesus descending into Hell, throwing down the gates, freeing all the Damned, kicking out Satan, and setting his own throne up there with the promise that no one would ever go to Hell again is the only way I can reconcile the idea that Jesus saved us all. But most Christians seem to reject this story - since a) it means Jesus is King of Hell, b) NO ONE is damned to hell for their sins, disbelief, etc, and c) EVERYONE on earth is in the same boat, salvation-wise, whether True Believer, Godless Atheist, or Rock-Worshipping Shinto. Even Satanists are Saved.

Not a comforting thought to most Christians.

 

[Hawk one]

Like other atheists in this thread, I'll allow the existance of God and Jesus for the sake of this argument:

You are no the only one who finds the whole concept rather absurd, Throg. Frankly, the story the way it's told cannot ever make any sense in my eyes.

But maybe there is another explanation of some sort, based on Upchurch's post and that link, that might make a tiny bit more sense: Turning it on on the head, so to speak.

Basically, since God was undeniably directly responsible for sin to happen, he should most definitely be made to pay his debt for it. So instead of Jesus dying for our sins, he - as a divine being - instead died to pay back for his own sins and misdeeds against us humanity. Of course, many would say that God should deserve a much bigger punishment for his transgressions. But at least God would somehow actually have bothered to face the consequences of his actions, and taken the punishment, if only rather temporarily.

 

[Throg]

Re: Re: How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

I believe it goes back to the Old Testament concept of an eye for an eye. Humanity, through Adam and Eve, grievously(?) sinned against God by disobeying the "Do Not Press The Shiney Red Button That Flashes" rule. Humanity repayed that horrible, awful debt by Jesus giving 46 million pounds of flesh owed to God.

This much, I kinda understand, in it's own warped, perverted sort of way. What I don't get is (1) how can Jesus pay humanity's debt if He is devine and, thus, not really human, (2) if the sin was automatically carried forth through humanity's successors from Adam and Eve, why is the payment of that debt not also carried forth through humanity's successors and (3) why were other previous "taking a pound of flesh for being naughty" acts not counted as payment in full (i.e. Noah's Flood)?

I would have though that loss of immortality, having to till the soil, pain of childbirth and menstruation, getting kicked out of the garden of eden far exceeded the equivalence test of an "eye for an eye" given that the original sin was disobediance and, possibly, the theft of an apple. If a more literal equivalence were necessary then surely a lifetime of obediance to God and an offering of apples would suffice so I don't think it's about justice. Nor do I think it's about the offering of a life since, as you pointed out, many many lives have been offered and taken. I think it must be something special about the offering of Jesus life in particular.

 

[Throg]

Don't forget the big cheat: He died to save us all, but came back to life three days later.

Does that really count?

Given that he then went up to heaven, I think we can let the very brief period of remission slide.

 

[Throg]

Like other atheists in this thread, I'll allow the existance of God and Jesus for the sake of this argument:

You are no the only one who finds the whole concept rather absurd, Throg. Frankly, the story the way it's told cannot ever make any sense in my eyes.

But maybe there is another explanation of some sort, based on Upchurch's post and that link, that might make a tiny bit more sense: Turning it on on the head, so to speak.

Basically, since God was undeniably directly responsible for sin to happen, he should most definitely be made to pay his debt for it. So instead of Jesus dying for our sins, he - as a divine being - instead died to pay back for his own sins and misdeeds against us humanity. Of course, many would say that God should deserve a much bigger punishment for his transgressions. But at least God would somehow actually have bothered to face the consequences of his actions, and taken the punishment, if only rather temporarily.

It's a nice try but it smacks more than a little of misdirection, which would make the whole thing a conjuring trick and stop us from discussing it here so I'm going to have to reject that one.

Thanks for the link and thanks to everybody who has tried to help so far. Hope you will keep trying.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Edit: Now that I think about it, though, the story of Jesus descending into Hell, throwing down the gates, freeing all the Damned, kicking out Satan, and setting his own throne up there with the promise that no one would ever go to Hell again is the only way I can reconcile the idea that Jesus saved us all. But most Christians seem to reject this story - since a) it means Jesus is King of Hell, b) NO ONE is damned to hell for their sins, disbelief, etc, and c) EVERYONE on earth is in the same boat, salvation-wise, whether True Believer, Godless Atheist, or Rock-Worshipping Shinto. Even Satanists are Saved.

What would 1inchrist (or others) think about this? I believe I recall that Jesus only saved "the good souls" that were trapped in hell. Which seems strange, this people has been suffering for several thousands of years, and now they are allowed to go to heaven?

Returning to the original question. I believe Jesus have saved all the believers in him, because he sacrificed himself and died for all humans (yet he is still alive?, if he is god and he knows that he cant die anyway, why was that such a big deal?)

 

[Throg]

[B
Returning to the original question. I believe Jesus have saved all the believers in him, because he sacrificed himself and died for all humans (yet he is still alive?, if he is god and he knows that he cant die anyway, why was that such a big deal?) [/B]

Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins? Is there some metaphysical power in that act of which I am ignorant? Could God, or Jesus who is, himself, God not simply have forgiven our sins? Is that what he was actually doing and his actual life and death were actually some sort of epiphenomenon? Couldn't we have died for our own sins (or the sins of our forebears in the case of original sin). I don't think I even begin to understand the significance of the actual act of dying (as opposed merely to the decision to forgive us).


If any Christians, especially those of a theological bent are looking at this thread and are reticent about posting, please consider this. I am an atheist and a sceptic so even if you answer this question for me I am not suddenly going to convert. For that, I would require evidence that God exists. However, if I cannot understand this conundrum, which seems to me to be at the heart of why Christ should be worshipped, there is no possibility that I will be saved. If you can help me, isn't it your duty to do so? Even if I am being horribly manipulative in pointing this out, I am at least being honest about it and, hey, it's still your duty to do so as a good follower of Christ.

 

[Z]

You know, it seems that the bit about Jesus' descent into Hell has been interpreted numerous ways. In one example, I see it claims he freed the souls of the saints; in another, of the righteous; in a third, the souls of David's line, while yet a fourth describes freeing the 'Children of God'. In most accounts, he sets his throne in Hell; in nearly every account the gates are torn off. Some accounts simply state that he freed all the souls in hell, others that he freed very few souls.

Does anyone know what the earliest versions of this story actually claim?

 

[sophia8]

Could the belief that Jesus died doe Humanity's sins be derived from the ancient ME custom of scapegoating?
I believe that was an annual ritual when the collective "sins" of the tribe were ritually transferred onto a goat which was then either killed, or driven out of the city.
Thus, Jesus was the scapegoat to end all scapegoats.

Of course, I could have got it all wrong and be talking out of my bottom....

 

[Mason]

The way I understood it (and I could be mistaken), it goes back to much older rituals...

When a community needed the blessing of their deity (or deities), they performed sacrifices. Likewise, when the community needed forgiveness, sacrifices were also performed. As times changed, various things were acceptible for sacrifice (such as fruits from harvest, or human blood/death, or an animal, or simply some penitant deed). Individuals/families could do small sacrifices on occasion, but some occasions would arise where an entire community needed some greater sacrifice to please their deities...

The concept of the scapegoat eventually came into play, where an entire community would gather for one great ritual and an animal (apparently the goat was popular, though humans were not unheard of) would be brought forth and sacrificed on behalf of the entire tribe. Basically, every individual present would be a part of the ceremony, and more or less be credited fully for their own sacrifice. Their sins were washed clean by the sacrifice, with the goat taking the actual punishment.

With Jesus, he stepped forward and voluntarily accepted the position of the goat (lamb of god and all that), becoming the sacrifice for all who would accept him as the goat. The one sacrifice was extended from community level to encompass all who had come before him and all who would come after him, so long as they accepted him as the goat and gave their misdeeds to him.

At least, that's more or less the way I have heard it. In the context of ancient tribes run by witchdoctors, it makes perfect sense (helps save on the cost of goats, begins the move from bloody barbarians into semi-civilized sun worshippers....). But modern society should know better.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins? Is there some metaphysical power in that act of which I am ignorant? Could God, or Jesus who is, himself, God not simply have forgiven our sins?

No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

 

[Throg]

Could the belief that Jesus died doe Humanity's sins be derived from the ancient ME custom of scapegoating?
I believe that was an annual ritual when the collective "sins" of the tribe were ritually transferred onto a goat which was then either killed, or driven out of the city.
Thus, Jesus was the scapegoat to end all scapegoats.

Of course, I could have got it all wrong and be talking out of my bottom....

That's a nice historical origin for the idea of Jesus dying for our sins and I had not previously connected the practice of scapegoating with the crucifixion story. Thanks for that. I'm not sure I understand the metaphysics of transferring your sins on to a goat much better than those of the crucifixion. Maybe I'm a bit fuzzy on what sins are as things in themselves and how they can be transferred. With Jesus, of course we have the added problem that He (being God) chose to do it to himself rather than to a goat (and he had been well known for accepting animal sacrifices, famously preferring them to the vegetarian alternative). Surely he had a reason?

 

[Throg]

No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

Doesn't really look like justice to me. Adam and Eve are disobedient and steal an apple so the just punishment for that (in addition to death, forced labour, painful childbirth and exile) is to wait a few thousand years, have God manifest himself as a human baby, grow up for thirty years, preach for three years then get crucified? What sort of a sentencing policy is that? I know He works in mysterious ways and probably has a different understanding of justice in His infinite mercy but still ...

I think I'm going to hold out for a more convincing explanation. I know that you did your best with difficult material, so thanks. In the absence of Christian input, I think the most promising line has been the scapegoat one. Sure, I have to get my head around magic and the concept of sin as some sort of currency but there's something there.

 

[Throg]

No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

Just remembered the "infinitely" clause. Could this be some sort of undefined-result artefact resulting from the use of infinity in redemption equations. : |

Please don't let that put you off, Christians, I really would like to gain a serious understanding of this concept, it's just there's not much to go on so far.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins?

It's a protection racket. God needs a sacrifice to save us from him sending us to hell.

Sort of like the Don extorting protection money to prevent him from sending Guido over to torch your place of business.