Why did Jesus have to die?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guyonthestreet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Mediator as told by Boyd K Packer
There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.
He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full. Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”
“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?
There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”
And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.
 
It is a very well worded good post from mcmullan. The others have also tried in good catholic way. Thanks. Please Continue.
 
How can a system created by God be inheritly corrupt? No, it was not corrupt. It was just not God’s final plan for us. It was not ever intended to save us but rather to demonstrate that we are incapable of saving ourselves.
the system God created wasn’t corrupt, it’s only humans who are incouragably corrupt (we call it total depravity).

As for the second part of your post? Jesus died to atone for our sins, one sacrifice for all sins (yes because man is incapable of saving ourselves i.e. because we’re totally depraved).
 
17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,

18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

says in kindest voice You show that you have not gotten to know the foundation on which your faith claims.

Son of Man is clearly written in the Tanakh and it clearly shows what the Son of man is. This is why Jesus does not say “I” but rather “the Son of man…” The Son of Man is what so many miss out on and why it can be said that most would not know Jesus if he were in front of your face.

Note verse 19. You might want to get to reading some of the prophetic books because this is no doubt truth.

Side Note: General By the way, it is sad that others are having to say “please, no abuse.” It only goes to show that Jesus’ teachings are not where they are being claimed to be. 🙂
it seems you are dancing around the main issue of my post…

and you are reading far too much into that passage about the Son of Man. Jesus is the Son of God and son of Man… He was talking about himself… you seem to be complicating matters… Understanding (certain) scirptures is complicated enough as it is…

and what religion are you? 7th Day Adv?
 
i feel that one reason Jesus came to live on Earth (besides the primary one of “becoming sin for us”/ expiating for us) was to teach us how to deal with sin… (and suffering)… When he was being abused/tortured/crucified… he submitted because He wanted to do the will of God… If i said i understood perfectly why it was He had to go through all that to save us, i would be lying… I don’t. I have meditated on the Sorrowful Mysteries (stations of the Cross) many, many times & still i find myself somewhat incapable of fathoming certain aspects of it. But on some level, i understand virtually completely. At least I understand what i need to understand…basically…

In any case, everyone’s life, whether s/he sees it that way or not, is a re-enactment of the life of Christ, His sufferings and the crucifixion.

We all have crosses, even the rich… One cross the rich have that the poor don’t, for example, is the constnat question in their minds (sub-conscous): “Does this person love me for me or for my $? If i lost it all… was disfigured in a car wreck, would this person still be with me?”

Anyway… we all have crosses and we all suffer and die… our souls going into the unknown… :hypno:

So what I’m saying is that Jesus came not only to die (I feel) but to teach us how to live (and die to sin)… He taugh us how to endure sufferings for the sake of righteousness, for the sake of doing God’s will… and not our own…
 
Did Jesus become Sinful (had all the sins of mankind) just before he died (At the last moment as a sacrifice )??
 
Did Jesus become Sinful (had all the sins of mankind) just before he died (At the last moment as a sacrifice )??
No he did not. It is not a good way to explain it, but he bore our sins like a beast of burdon would: weighed down by them and suffering from them but not actually possessing any of them at all.
 
I am thinking about this over lent, and I’m lost for an answer. Couldn’t God simply forgive? Why was it actually necessary to have His Son come to earth in the form of man, and then die for our sins, in order to lay the foundation for the forgiveness of our sins? Why was it even necessary for God to have a Son. He managed for a few thousand years just fine talking to the O.T. prophets. I don’t fully get why Jesus had to die, as opposed to say, teach us and lead a happy life into old age. Why such a vicious, cruel, unnecessary death?
Jesus had to die because he was born. That’s what happens to everyone who is born. He or she will eventually die.

Ben: 🙂
 
I don’t fully get why Jesus had to die, as opposed to say, teach us and lead a happy life into old age. Why such a vicious, cruel, unnecessary death?
I’ve no idea.

The inspired New Testament authors do not provide us with a full or systematic explanation of the meaning of Christ’s death. Trying to piece their sayings into one meaningful understanding is at the very least a monumental challenge. And despite the fact that lots of gifted and clever people have taken up that challenge I think it’s true to say that we still do not have a definitive or authoritative explanation. What we do have is a bunch of theories, one of which might be true. There are doubtless a dozen or so theories about the Atonement and I daresay some of them might fall into the category of “silly.” But I know of four that make at least some sense.

Atonement Theory No 1: The Ransom Theory
My understanding is that this was the earliest theory to gain acceptance in the Church. This theory proposes that there was some sort of “cosmic battle” between God and Satan (the battle between good and evil, I suppose) and Satan was somehow able to establish control over humankind and become the governing power over the world. God did not set aside Satan’s rights as the authority over humans and the result was that all of humankind remained enslaved to an unworthy ruler. God then made a bargain with Satan that entailed a transfer of the sinless soul of Jesus Christ for all other souls of men – Jesus’ soul became a ransom to be paid to Satan. Since Satan didn’t realize that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh the theory really proposes that God pulled a fast one on Satan. So in this theory it was Satan and not God who demanded the blood of Jesus and therefore the Atonement was primarily for Satan not for God or for humanity.

Atonement Theory No 2: The Satisfaction Theory
This theory, which apparently first appeared in the Middle Ages, pictures God as a feudal lord who in order to maintain His honor insists upon adequate satisfaction for any encroachment on that honor by His “surfs.” Sin is seen as a failure to render to God due honor – and that injures God’s person. This violated honor can be rectified either by the punishment of those who violated it or by accepting satisfaction for the violation. God chose the latter method (for whatever reason). In this theory, humanity needs not only to restore God’s honor but also to make satisfaction to God for dishonoring Him. Commensurate with mediaeval thinking, the recompense has to be proportional to the dignity of the offended party. But in this case the offended party is God. Well, no human can adequately recompense God. No finite person can make an infinite satisfaction for the offense committed against the Lord of the universe. Even if a human gave his or her best he or she could give back to God only what was due Him and nothing more. Humanity needs someone qualified who could make an infinite satisfaction to God. But since God alone is infinite only He could make such satisfaction. But if satisfaction were to be of any avail to humans then a human would have to be involved also. This necessitated the incarnation of God. Because He was the God–man, Christ, by His death, brought satisfaction to God’s wounded honor for all of humankind. In this theory, the Atonement was not directed toward humans. Humans did not need to be restored to God per se for it was God who could not commune with humans because of His wounded honor. Humans desired fellowship with God but God had to first rectify His honor before He could enter into fellowship. Christ died to satisfy something within God’s very nature and thus restore fellowship between Himself and His creation.

Atonement Theory No 3: The Moral Influence Theory
In this theory, God has never needed to be reconciled to man. It is humans that have alienated themselves from God through fear because of their sin and their ignorance. The natural response after sinning is to hide from the presence of God. What needed to be rectified, then, was the human fear of God and human ignorance of His love. Humans need not fear God’s judgment because God’s love is so abundant toward us. Christ showed us that God is not against us. He demonstrated through His suffering and death God’s great desire to relate to us in our pain and suffering. When sinners view God’s love for us through Christ, they will be compelled to cast off their fear of God and then fellowship with Him as was originally intended. In this theory, Christ’s death was not the purpose of His coming but was a consequence of it. All of Jesus’ life demonstrated God’s love for us. His death was just the ultimate expression of that love.

Atonement Theory No 4: The Penal–Substitution Theory
This is the one that Evangelical Protestants seem to favor and tend to adduce as fact. In this theory, sin is seen as very serious. Rather than God’s honor being wounded, sin is seen as breaking the law of God. The infringement of God’s law brings God’s wrath and His curse upon the evildoers. To avert the wrath of God, Christ took the place of human sinners. Instead of we sinners having to die for our sins Christ died for us so that we might live.

Bearing in mind that these are theories or interpretations, the foregoing illustrates two points.

The first point is that unlike doctrine, theology is sometimes speculative (and by theology I mean the accepted tool by which doctrine is explained and clarified by believers who have spent a lot of time studying their subject for believers who haven’t).

And the second point, which follows from the first, is that we Christians accept that the Atonement works but not one of us can state with certainty exactly how it works.

In conclusion, then, I’ve still no idea.

Cluelessly,
Mick
👍
 
I personally do not believe Jesus had to die. I believe He knew it and accepted it. Why did He accept it? for too many reasons, among them proving who He said He is. His death and resurrection are one of the most powerful challenges to humanity and at the same time a love challenge.
**inJesus, we see in the bible that Jesus was praying in the garden before his arrest to avoid the cup. Did he not know hs mission? If he knew his mission to die for all mankind then he should not pray to avoid the cup.
You are assuming things for nothing.

Jesus was praying to his God to avoid the cup. He told his friends to pray too, obviously for the same things that he was praying i.e. to avoid the cup.

Then it is clearly written in bible that an angel was strengthening him. That means the angel was giving him confidence that his prayer was accepted. That he need not pray to God any more. The angel was strengthening him means angel was with him, not against him. Angel could not give strength to Jesus by saying that his prayer was not accepted.

The word “strengthening” seems to have been specially designed to divert the meaning and put it in half doubt.

WE muslims believe that the prayer of Jesus was accepted. There is a complete report about it in the Quran (Ch.3 v. 50-60) If the prayer of Jesus is not accepted then it puts a very bad impression on the followers of Jesus. They could lose all hope in prayers.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top