Perhaps Jesus died on the cross for God's sake as well as for humanity's

[N0X3x]

My understanding of theology is that original sin, and the sins that followed, actually offended God, in such a way that God himself would be better off without humanity’s existence. The analogy I’ve heard is that, while before original sin, we were penniless, afterwords, we owed God.

My speculation is that the passion and resurrection not only justified man before God, but also, in a sense, “absorbed” the offenses against God in such a way that God was no longer offended (and oddly, because of God’s eternal, immutable nature, never was). Jesus’s passion and ressurection was necessary not only for humanity, but for divinity as well.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That is one of several theories of atonement:
The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. “Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners.”^ [1]^ Anselm’s work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.

theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

Another view:

The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God’s edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as “recapitulating” or “summing up” human life.

or

The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).

and

Acceptance theory
religioustolerance.org/chr_atone9.htm

 

[Lily_Bernans]

My understanding of theology is that original sin, and the sins that followed, actually offended God, in such a way that God himself would be better off without humanity’s existence. The analogy I’ve heard is that, while before original sin, we were penniless, afterwords, we owed God.

My speculation is that the passion and resurrection not only justified man before God, but also, in a sense, “absorbed” the offenses against God in such a way that God was no longer offended (and oddly, because of God’s eternal, immutable nature, never was). Jesus’s passion and ressurection was necessary not only for humanity, but for divinity as well.

Jesus’ Passion, death, and Resurrection weren’t necessary at all. God is God; he is above all; he created all. God needs nothing. He could have just waved his analogical hand and said, “You’re forgiven, do not sin again.” But that wouldn’t have had the effect Jesus had. Jesus endured what he did to show man how to cope with evil and how to transform evil in love.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

That is one of several theories of atonement:
The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did.
or

The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).

and
Acceptance theory
religioustolerance.org/chr_atone9.htm

**Thanks for the references.

I am unable to understand the torture of any human being (much less the best one ever to live) as being necessary to induce our Creator to forgive sin.
For one thing, Jewish animal sacrifices to YHWH never involved torture. And for another, Yeshu himself repeatedly demonstrated that He had the authority and power to forgive sins.
Why He would submit Himself to torture in order to accomplish something that He already had the ability to do?

YHWH’s Chosen One came to earth to teach. I see His submission to abuse, humiliation, torture, and death as providing humanity with the ultimate lesson as to how we should follow our Creator’s Law.
Yeshu lived up to His own admonitions. At any time, our Lord could have defended Himself and exacted retribution against His assailants.
He refused to do so, instead leaving defense and retribution to YHWH. He also refused to allow others to come to His defense and rebuked them.

Yeshu taught that we should trust YHWH our God completely for our future wellbeing.
He said that we must love our fellow humans and show this by returning good for evil.
He complied with His own edicts right up to His death.
This is the most powerful lesson imaginable. It has led many to repentance.

The dramatic death by torture of the Messiah had the additional benefit to humanity creating a miraculous record of this event which is the Holy Shroud of Turin.
This linen burial sheet bears the evidence of our Lord’s wounds, death, and disappearance from His tomb.

**

 

[fhansen]

**Thanks for the references.

I am unable to understand the torture of any human being (much less the best one ever to live) as being necessary to induce our Creator to forgive sin.
For one thing, Jewish animal sacrifices to YHWH never involved torture. And for another, Yeshu himself repeatedly demonstrated that He had the authority and power to forgive sins.
Why He would submit Himself to torture in order to accomplish something that He already had the ability to do?

YHWH’s Chosen One came to earth to teach. I see His submission to abuse, humiliation, torture, and death as providing humanity with the ultimate lesson as to how we should follow our Creator’s Law.
Yeshu lived up to His own admonitions. At any time, our Lord could have defended Himself and exacted retribution against His assailants.
He refused to do so, instead leaving defense and retribution to YHWH. He also refused to allow others to come to His defense and rebuked them.

Yeshu taught that we should trust YHWH our God completely for our future wellbeing.
He said that we must love our fellow humans and show this by returning good for evil.
He complied with His own edicts right up to His death.
This is the most powerful lesson imaginable. It has led many to repentance.

The dramatic death by torture of the Messiah had the additional benefit to humanity creating a miraculous record of this event which is the Holy Shroud of Turin.
This linen burial sheet bears the evidence of our Lord’s wounds, death, and disappearance from His tomb.

**

Enmity comes from man, not God. The passion, death, and resurrection definitively prove that fact, because they definitively prove Gods consuming love for man, while demonstrating man’s hatred of God, man having conceived a distorted image of Him at the beginning according to the catechism. And this proof of God’s love all hangs on one critical fact: Jesus is God.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

**Thanks for the references.

I am unable to understand the torture of any human being (much less the best one ever to live) as being necessary to induce our Creator to forgive sin.
For one thing, Jewish animal sacrifices to YHWH never involved torture. And for another, Yeshu himself repeatedly demonstrated that He had the authority and power to forgive sins.
Why He would submit Himself to torture in order to accomplish something that He already had the ability to do?

YHWH’s Chosen One came to earth to teach. I see His submission to abuse, humiliation, torture, and death as providing humanity with the ultimate lesson as to how we should follow our Creator’s Law.
Yeshu lived up to His own admonitions. At any time, our Lord could have defended Himself and exacted retribution against His assailants.
He refused to do so, instead leaving defense and retribution to YHWH. He azlso refused to allow others to come to His defense and rebuked them.

Yeshu taught that we should trust YHWH our God completely for our future wellbeing.
He said that we must love our fellow humans and show this by returning good for evil.
He complied with His own edicts right up to His death.
This is the most powerful lesson imaginable. It has led many to repentance.

The dramatic death by torture of the Messiah had the additional benefit to humanity creating a miraculous record of this event which is the Holy Shroud of Turin.
This linen burial sheet bears the evidence of our Lord’s wounds, death, and disappearance from His tomb.

**

I agree regarless of the shroud. But scripture is pretty strong on the Penal Substitution theory.

 

[fisherman_carl]

. He could have just waved his analogical hand

and said, “You’re forgiven, do not sin again.” .

He did with the woman caught in adultery.

 

[grannymh]

My understanding of theology is that original sin, and the sins that followed, actually offended God, in such a way that God himself would be better off without humanity’s existence. The analogy I’ve heard is that, while before original sin, we were penniless, afterwords, we owed God.

My speculation is that the passion and resurrection not only justified man before God, but also, in a sense, “absorbed” the offenses against God in such a way that God was no longer offended (and oddly, because of God’s eternal, immutable nature, never was). Jesus’s passion and ressurection was necessary not only for humanity, but for divinity as well.

What people tend to omit is that originally, there was a special friendship relationship between the Creator and the human creature. People try to make God into some type of a human parent or human storekeeper, etc. What is forgotten is that humans do not have the power to change a Divine Person.

While people understand that God exists, they forget that it is God Who initiated the original special friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. Genesis 1: 26-27. While people understand that God exists, they forget that there cannot be two Gods. Genesis 2: 15-17.

In some vague manner, people remember that the original human, biblically known as Adam, ate some rotten organic fruit and got kicked out of his garden.

Now, common sense should kick in. If Adam cannot be an equal God Creator, that signifies that he has to live in free submission to his God Creator. He should not reject God. He should not prefer himself over God. The forbidden tree in Adam’s garden signifies the need for submission, obedience to God . Adam, who has human free will, decides to be like (equal to) God, without God, not in accordance with God. Bang! The original friendship relationship between human Adam and Divine God is shattered.

Here is where people forget who did what. It is God Who instituted His relationship with Adam. Adam is not an equal God. Adam is not Divine. Adam cannot restore God’s friendship relationship. Adam and his descendants are in a deep mess.

John 3: 16.

God so loved humans that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed human nature so that He could step into Adam’s sandals and, because of His Divinity, He could restore the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. About here, people should recall that following the Original Sin, humans ended up with bodily death. Obviously, bodily death had to be dealt with. The Person Jesus Christ is True God and True Man because of the Incarnation in which He assumed, not absorbed, the original human nature that was without sin.

By conquering bodily death, crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus Christ restored the original relationship between us and our Creator.

1 Corinthians, chapter 15. usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15

54*
And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about:c
“Death is swallowed up in victory.
55
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”d

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The Person Jesus Christ is True God and True Man because of the Incarnation in which He assumed, not absorbed, the original human nature that was without sin.

By conquering bodily death, crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus Christ restored the original relationship between us and our Creator.

1 Corinthians, chapter 15. usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15
d

The most perfect man ever to exist said this:

Why do you call me “good?” Only our Father in Heaven is good.

No human being is “good” by the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven, not even YHWH’s Chosen One, and not Adam either.
I don’t agree that the “original human nature…was without sin.” A human being is inherently sinful.
Only repentance of our inherently evil nature can improve any human being’s relationship with his Creator.
That is the lesson of the Cross: give up your selfish human inclinations and take up your own cross.

**“A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on this fig tree but found none.
He said to the man who looked after the the vineyard. “Look here, for three years now I have been coming back to look for fruit on this fig tree and finding none.
Cut it down: why should it be taking up the ground?”
‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it one more year and give me time to dig around it an manure it: it may bear fruit next year; if not, then you can cut it down.’” **

**The fig tree symbolizes the children of Israel, the owner of the vineyard is YHWH, and the man is Israel’s Messiah. YHWH considers destroying Israel, but Jesus asks for time to leave His teaching.
And a great Teaching it turns out to be, leading many to repentance. His submission to arrest, abuse, and torture is the concluding dramatic lesson of His great Teaching.
I will have to admit that I respectfully disagree with some of what St. Paul wrote. I suppose that makes me a heretic, or at least not a very good Christian in the eyes of our Church which holds his letters as gospel.
For instance:
**
“…Christ died for our sins, . . . .and if Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins.”

**I feel that these statements lead to confusion about the true purpose of our Teacher’s submission to arrest and suffering. As a result of our confusion, we think that it is alright to do silly things such as building nuclear weapons or fighting wars for the “protection of the innocent.” But a correct understanding of the arrest of the most innocent human being ever to live shows that even His closest friend was prohibited from using the sword to protect Him.

Our Teacher did suffer for us, for our benefit. But the forgiveness of our sins comes only though repentance of our selfish human nature which His suffering should induce us to accept.
We are “still in our sins” whenever we fail to repent of that evil human nature.
**