Why did Jesus need to die?

[sanchoquijote]

Jesus had to die because he was the fulfillment of the Mosaic law in which God allowed man, through the laying on of hands and confession, to “transfer” his sin onto an animal. Since the penalty of that sin was death, God allowed the animal to die in man’s place. The animal, however, could never take away our sin, but Jesus alone, being God, and being sent by God, could do this.

Jesus couldn’t just die as an infant, because he had to lead a sinless life in order to fulfill the requirement that the animal be without spot or blemish before it would be acceptable unto God. And also, as others have said, He came to teach us and show us the way to God, and he could’t have done that as an infant.

Because mankind suffers, Jesus also suffered to take our suffering on himself, and also, as the scripture says, he can now relate to our suffering and temptations because he has been through the same things.

Doesn’t that sound very limiting and primitive, though? Why would God be limited by silly traditions of people who were infinitely inferior to him in every way? I’ve also heard the “blood was shed in establishing the covenant, and therefore blood must be shed in renewing it,” but that again sounds very limited and primitive to me, and not something worthy of the creator of the universe.

 

[sanchoquijote]

Sure am!

Your Neo Darwinian Evolution say’s the same thing, even if we evolved from Neanderthals, you still need at least one (Adam) who made the ‘next leap’ in evolution so to speak in order to produce all of us and therefore we are all descendent from.

You’re free to believe what you like, won’t make it true though.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Just to be clear, I don’t think that evolution holds that suddenly from two Neandrathal parents you would get a quantum leap forward to a human child. I think that evolution is generally understood to be imperceptibly incremental over time, from one generation to the next, with generation upon generation looking pretty much like one another, and changes being perceptible only over millennia.

 

[sanchoquijote]

Hi Sancho,

After reading your last posts, a lot of your queries are what I have seen text book Atheistic arguments, only found from atheists who are looking to throw Christianity and theism into disrepute and the power of them rely on manipulation, misrepresentation and ones lack of knowledge of the scientific, theological and/or philosophical issues.

It’s perfectly fine for you to ask them (I would encourage it actually), but I believe we could help you further if we know who ‘coined’ the argument to begin with and then we can read it in it’s entirety and see (or find others who have seen) the flaw in their logic much more easily and help with no doubt further queries you will have given their mistaken philosophies.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

I’m not sure what you mean by who “coined” the argument. I know I’m not the first person to raise arguments similar to these, if that’s what you mean. These are just doubts to which I can’t seem to get answers that make sense. I came on this board to see if others have similarly struggled and have any insights to share. I don’t really care of they’re atheistic in nature or not; to me, they’re pretty fundamental and very fair questions to ask regarding Christianity. At the very least, it seems to have generated some interesting discussion!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

First off, Catholic teaching has always maintained that Jesus did not have to die on the cross to redeem us. Indeed, God is God, He is perfect: Jesus having a pin prick is just as efficacious in redeeming us as Him suffering on the Cross. Heck, God is Omnipotent: He could have just willed it, thought about it, and our sins could have been wiped away.

Read Fr. Serpa’s answer to this question.

Also, read St. Pope John Paul II’s answer to the same question.

The short answer from the two Catholic sources is that Jesus died so He can show His unfathomable love for us, among other things by (1) being one with us in our suffering, and (2) letting us participate in His salvation of men.

But for many, which to be honest included me, this explanation is lacking. An act of love is useless if the act repulses the loved one; indeed, it is less than useless, because it shows that either the lover does not know the beloved, or does not care of the beloved’s wants. As an example, imagine a man mutilating his own body just to prove his love for a woman. Unless the woman is as insane as the man, such an act would only disgust the woman and would most certainly not be a loving act but a monstrous one! And to be honest, Jesus’ act of dying for us on the Cross can really seem like that: not a loving act, but a monstrous one.

I had thought about this before, and the only answer I could think of was that if Jesus’ death on the Cross is a loving act for us, then that means God knew that we, deep in our hearts, want the consequence of Jesus’ death.

And what is this consequence? Glory.

We were made to be the Glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7), and if that is so, that is one of our deepest desires. And glory is not achieved in comfort, but in struggle.

“The world offers you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” ---- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

Indeed, man knew this from the beginning. We have always admired and revered great men and women since ancient times. We love sports and challenges. Glory even rears its ugly head with wars and crime. Indeed, we have parables of men rejecting ideal worlds because they have no struggle in them; the movies The Matrix and Star Trek Generations come into mind.

And all of this would not be possible if God just willed sin away. We would have not been able to struggle and be glorious, and thus we would have not been able to fulfill our purpose.

As the Church sings every Easter:

Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven,
exult, let Angel ministers of God exult,
let the trumpet of salvation
sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph!

Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her,
ablaze with light from her eternal King,
let all corners of the earth be glad,
knowing an end to gloom and darkness.

Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice,
arrayed with the lightning of his glory,
let this holy building shake with joy,
filled with the mighty voices of the peoples.

…

O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling,
to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam,
destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault
that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

----- The Exsultet

 

[ericc]

I have various problems with Original Sin - I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, and I can’t see how any Original Sin (from them or any analogous “sinning forbears”) could be imputed to us as descendants. But setting aside those objections, let’s assume that Original Sin did occur in one way or another and that it was somehow imputed to us.

As a Catholic you have to believe in Adam and Eve, our first parents. That is not optional. Why don’t you not believe in Adam and Eve? You made a statement but you didn’t say why.

You may have a misconception of what OS is. To make it layman, the Original Sin of A/E caused a defect in man’s nature. It is not a personal sin. You and I didn’t commit that sin. It is the analogy of a defect in your grandparents DNA that is inherited by you. But this is not biological DNA, it is spiritual DNA.

Then the question is: why did Jesus need to die in order to overcome that? Why would an omnipotent God need to sacrifice his son in order to overcome this? Jesus’ death and resurrection seem in some ways unnecessarily big in some ways (more than an omnipotent God would need to do) and excessively small in others (dying a humiliating death as a minor preacher with a resurrection witnessed only by a handful of followers).

So much of Christianity is based on the notion of God sacrificing his son, so I have to ask: why was it even necessary at all? What did it accomplish that could not have been accomplished by (to my limited mortal mind) more effective and less sacrificial means? And if the whole point was to demonstrate God’s love for us, then why stop at only one such intervention in history?

If you read Genesis, then you understand that Adam/Eve brought death to the world through their disobedience. Man is no longer in good standing with God. Who can then make good or repair the breach between Man and God? You need another Man. Adam was made perfect. Hence you need another perfect man to reconcile us with God. Since mankind’s nature is already damaged, you will not be able to find a perfect specimen of man to represent us to God.

That’s where Jesus Christ comes in. The perfect sacrifice, sinless before God, doing the will of God, prefect obedience. The “drama” of his crucifixion is to intensify the message that the sins of the world is something so repulsive to God. Crucifixion was that message as that was considered the nastiest of punishment then. You don’t send a message by a slight slap of the wrist. That would have belittled the seriousness of sin. In the same manner many countries reserved the most drastic of punishment for the most serious of crimes.

But if your question is whether God could have just willed everything back to original condition without punishment, the answer is yes he could. But he then would not be a Just and Fair God by whitewashing the sin.

As you can see there is a lot of reciprocity in breaching the gap between Man and God. One man’s disobedience brought death to supernatural life, another man’s obedience and his death brought supernatural life back.

 

[Simca]

Doesn’t that sound very limiting and primitive, though? Why would God be limited by silly traditions of people who were infinitely inferior to him in every way? I’ve also heard the “blood was shed in establishing the covenant, and therefore blood must be shed in renewing it,” but that again sounds very limited and primitive to me, and not something worthy of the creator of the universe.

But this was not a “tradition”; It was something that God instructed man to do–it was not something that Israel just invented. God said that, “The life is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar in order to make atonement; it is the blood which makes atonement”.

The idea of sacrifice may sound “primitive”, but it is the way God provided for man. Has an advanced man been able to reach God through, let’s say, philosophy or space exploration? No, it is only through faith, a simple faith; and it is because of this simplicity–Jesus’ sacrifice and our faith in him–that the scripture says causes many people to stumble, because they think it is just too simple and absurd-sounding to be true. But God reaches down to people of all intellects–the totally uneducated or the PHD–God wanted it that way so he’d be accessible to all peoples. It is not limiting, therefore, but open to all, so that all people may be able to come to him.

I hope I’ve been able to answer all the points you’ve brought up.

 

[josh987654321]

Just to be clear, I don’t think that evolution holds that suddenly from two Neandrathal parents you would get a quantum leap forward to a human child.

My apologies, I meant, the next ‘leap/step’ being ‘ensoulment’ which makes man or homo sapiens, unique and substantially and fundamentally distinct.

I think that evolution is generally understood to be imperceptibly incremental over time, from one generation to the next, with generation upon generation looking pretty much like one another, and changes being perceptible only over millennia.

I agree, although I personally have a few issues it, but it’s probably best a topic for another thread.

I’m not sure what you mean by who “coined” the argument. I know I’m not the first person to raise arguments similar to these, if that’s what you mean.

Yes, I couldn’t imagine one studying Catholicism, reading the Gospels etc and having such questions arise during such studies and I assumed it was an atheistic book one was reading or an atheistic friend trying to attack Christianity, but nevertheless, I shouldn’t have assumed and I should have taken you at face value and therefore I am very sorry for my previous posts to you.

These are just doubts to which I can’t seem to get answers that make sense. I came on this board to see if others have similarly struggled and have any insights to share. I don’t really care of they’re atheistic in nature or not; to me, they’re pretty fundamental and very fair questions to ask regarding Christianity. At the very least, it seems to have generated some interesting discussion!

I hope you don’t mind if I share two things that I have read that I believe may help.

The first one is regarding Jesus death on the Cross.
Jesus to Catalina:

I Have Given My Life for You - loveandmercy.org/Eng-IHG-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

**To redeem all of mankind, a child’s cry, a moan, a single tear of Mine would have been enough… Would you have understood My Love in the same way? If with so many great proofs you still take so long to accept it, what would have caused you to believe in My Love, if I had limited Myself to what seemed paltry? …

It is because of all this that you must believe in Love, principally, in My Love …

Only by going beyond the limit of “what is necessary” would many eyes be opened to My Love.**

Jesus to Catalina:

The Passion - loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf
(Roman Catholic Imprimatur)

**"Contemplate My wounds and see if there is anyone who has suffered as much as I, to show their love…

"Contemplate for a moment these bloodstained hands and feet… This naked body, covered with wounds, with urine, and blood. Dirty… This head punctured by sharp thorns, soaked in sweat, full of dust, and covered in Blood…

"Contemplate your Jesus, hanging on the Cross, without being able to make the slightest movement… naked, without fame, without honor, without liberty…

"Contemplate Me in the image of the Christ that weeps and bleeds. There and in this way the world has Me**

http://s24.postimg.org/s91lh9u91/Crucifixion.jpg
The Gospel of Luke:

34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

And In regards to your previous thread, I believe the following may help -
St Faustina's Diary 1452:

liturgicalyear.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/divine-mercy-in-my-soul.pdf

When the clock struck twelve, my soul immersed itself more deeply in recollection, and I heard a voice in my soul: (63) Do not fear, My little child, you are not alone. Fight bravely, because My arm is supporting you; fight for the salvation of souls, exhorting them to trust in My mercy, as that is your task in this life and in the life to come. After these words, I received a deeper understanding of divine mercy. Only that soul who wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one.

And the following posts -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12412994&postcount=21
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12412995&postcount=22

I hope this has helped

May God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Ron_Conte]

Jesus did not have to die. God could have chosen to save us in some other way. His suffering and death were fitting as a means of salvation, because suffering and death entered the world through sin. Jesus saves us from our sins.

“Though one blood drop, which thence did fall, accepted, would have served, he yet shed all”

 

[openmind77]

Hey Butch, where are you getting your facts? DNA does not confirm that we came from diverse unrelated ancestors, but rather everyone on the planet can be traced back to one set of parents. We are all related. That’s a scientific fact.

Humans (scientifically speaking) did not originate from One set of parents.

All humans can be traced back to one Woman in Africa using DNA evidence. There is a similar theory that we can be traced back to one Male (also in Africa). However, the two original Female (and the less likely original Male) probably did not live at the same time (so they were not a couple). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

[Ron_Conte]

Humans (scientifically speaking) did not originate from One set of parents.

All humans can be traced back to one Woman in Africa using DNA evidence. There is a similar theory that we can be traced back to one Male (also in Africa). However, the two original Female (and the less likely original Male) probably did not live at the same time (so they were not a couple). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Catholics believe by faith that Adam and Eve existed, fell from grace by committing sin, and that we are all their descendants. Science fails to take into account the miraculous intervention of God, as well as His providence and grace.

 

[fred_conty]

I have various problems with Original Sin - I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, and I can’t see how any Original Sin (from them or any analogous “sinning forbears”) could be imputed to us as descendants. But setting aside those objections, let’s assume that Original Sin did occur in one way or another and that it was somehow imputed to us.

Then the question is: why did Jesus need to die in order to overcome that? Why would an omnipotent God need to sacrifice his son in order to overcome this? Jesus’ death and resurrection seem in some ways unnecessarily big in some ways (more than an omnipotent God would need to do) and excessively small in others (dying a humiliating death as a minor preacher with a resurrection witnessed only by a handful of followers).

So much of Christianity is based on the notion of God sacrificing his son, so I have to ask: why was it even necessary at all? What did it accomplish that could not have been accomplished by (to my limited mortal mind) more effective and less sacrificial means? And if the whole point was to demonstrate God’s love for us, then why stop at only one such intervention in history?

Thanks.

Sancho

Why could and is Original Sin passed to us?

Because basically we are desendents of Adam and Eve, the first parents of all mankind. This sin is not something we personally are guilty of but rather have this sin thru the genelogy of being one family of which the head sinned. If Adam and Eve had had children before they sinned, then those children would not have inherited their sin.

Some have said that what was inherited was simply a lack of sanctifying grace, or their children inherited a purely natural life and not a supernatural life which Adam and Eve lost by their sin. But I’m not quite sure that is 100% correct. It seems that there is more that just a lost of sanctifying grace, that we have actually a sin thru our being connected to our first parents (even tho it is not our fault).

The angels are quite different. They did not beget one another and did not belong to one family. Each angel is a family so to speak. And therefore one angel’s sin is not passed to another because he has no family…he is the family. They do not beget little angels. This is according to Thomistic teaching.

But we are different, we are connected to one another by family. And so as Adam by a tree and the sin of disobediance lost holiness, Christ the second Adam by a tree(cross) and an act of obediance restored holiness, being one of us a man who was also connected to our family.

why did Jesus need to die?

If we look at the answer in a methodical and rational way, the short answer is that he didn’t have to.

If we look at the answer with the understanding what salvation is about, then he did.

Salvation is about a person accepting Christ and loving him. It isn’t just a mental exorcise that brings about salvation. And so that all men, even the most hard hearted, would see thru his wounds and sufferings how much he loved them, and then would respond to his love with their love. For love begets love. And love is primarily demonstrated for another person by how much they are willing to give or sacrafice themselves for the one they love.

If the whole point was to demonstrate God’s love for us, then why stop at only one such intervention in history?

Because one is sufficient. If a person isn’t moved by the first and the best, then he won’t be moved by more.

And as a side comment, in the Little Talks With God by St Catherine of Siena, God the Father told her that his Son would in fact do it again if it would mean it would help someone. But that once was sufficient.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have various problems with Original Sin - I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, and I can’t see how any Original Sin (from them or any analogous “sinning forbears”) could be imputed to us as descendants. But setting aside those objections, let’s assume that Original Sin did occur in one way or another and that it was somehow imputed to us.

Then the question is: why did Jesus need to die in order to overcome that? Why would an omnipotent God need to sacrifice his son in order to overcome this? Jesus’ death and resurrection seem in some ways unnecessarily big in some ways (more than an omnipotent God would need to do) and excessively small in others (dying a humiliating death as a minor preacher with a resurrection witnessed only by a handful of followers).

So much of Christianity is based on the notion of God sacrificing his son, so I have to ask: why was it even necessary at all? What did it accomplish that could not have been accomplished by (to my limited mortal mind) more effective and less sacrificial means? And if the whole point was to demonstrate God’s love for us, then why stop at only one such intervention in history?

Thanks.

Sancho

A good starting point might be that Jesus “needed” to die because he was born human.
All humans are assumed to die.

Maybe it is more about his willingness to become human and the manner of his dying.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Catholics believe by faith that Adam and Eve existed, fell from grace by committing sin, and that we are all their descendants. Science fails to take into account the miraculous intervention of God, as well as His providence and grace.

Adam and Eve did exist, but they could have been a pool of persons, the first 5,000 or 10,000, and yes, humanity was sinful, all of them.

Pope Pius XII did not think so, but our understanding of Sacred Scripture is always evolving.

catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

For example, did God create the cosmos in six days? What is a day to God? God lives in timelessness. Creation is not at odds with evolution at all. The story of Adam and Eve need not be at odds with the fall and original sin.

 

[Aloysium]

Adam and Eve did exist, but they could have been a pool of persons, the first 5,000 or 10,000, and yes, humanity was sinful, all of them. . . Pope Pius XII did not think so, but our understanding of Sacred Scripture is always evolving. . .

Lots of points for discussion here.
Let’s just say there had to be one first human.
I cannot see this being anything but an all-or-nothing proposition - no half-humans.
As to the time frame, clearly we had to exist before we spread throughout the world.
That was more than ten thousand years ago.
Anyway, there is nothing that disproves the existence of Adam and Eve if one of the considerations is that God is God.
Science is very bad at reflecting back to us, who we are.
Biochemical activity, computer analogies, statistical descriptions of morally neutral behaviour is the best that can be done.
As to our understanding of scripture, it is made possible through the same grace of the Holy Spirit whereby it was conceived, passed on, and interpreted by the church.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lots of points for discussion here.
Let’s just say there had to be one first human.
I cannot see this being anything but an all-or-nothing proposition - no half-humans.
As to the time frame, clearly we had to exist before we spread throughout the world.
That was more than ten thousand years ago.
Anyway, there is nothing that disproves the existence of Adam and Eve if one of the considerations is that God is God.
Science is very bad at reflecting back to us, who we are.
Biochemical activity, computer analogies, statistical descriptions of morally neutral behaviour is the best that can be done.
As to our understanding of scripture, it is made possible through the same grace of the Holy Spirit whereby it was conceived, passed on, and interpreted by the church.

Not to be argumentative but God could have created 10,000 people simultaneously. No problem for a God who can do anything at all.

The Book of Genesis is actually allegory, something which fills the Hebrew Scriptures, and was written the way it is to show that God created in an orderly fashion.

I’m not saying there was no Adam and Eve. There might have been, but it seems odd that God would create just two.

 

[ericc]

Not to be argumentative but God could have created 10,000 people simultaneously. No problem for a God who can do anything at all.

The Book of Genesis is actually allegory, something which fills the Hebrew Scriptures, and was written the way it is to show that God created in an orderly fashion.

I’m not saying there was no Adam and Eve. There might have been, but it seems odd that God would create just two.

But the Church does require us to believe in one set of parents. Pope Pius XII in 1950 specifically addressed the problem of polygenism in the Encyclical Humani Generis:

[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter……When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (Humani Generis, 36-37).

Occam’s Razor would have A&E rather than 10,000 fallen couples. And if one plays the number games, then there could be some who may not have fallen which would mean they would not see death. But that is not so. The other alternative is that all 10,000 couples felled and Occam’s Razor would come back in. Why deal with 10,000 when 1 would do?

 

[Faith1960]

Adam and Eve did exist, but they could have been a pool of persons, the first 5,000 or 10,000, and yes, humanity was sinful, all of them.

Pope Pius XII did not think so, but our understanding of Sacred Scripture is always evolving.

catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

For example, did God create the cosmos in six days? What is a day to God? God lives in timelessness. Creation is not at odds with evolution at all. The story of Adam and Eve need not be at odds with the fall and original sin.

We’re not allowed to believe in polygenism.

 

[Vico]

We’re not allowed to believe in polygenism.

**Roberto Masi **wrote in L’Osservatore Romano, newspaper of the Holy See, April 17, 1969:“Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are *per se *outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin.”

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM

 

[Faith1960]

**Roberto Masi **wrote in L’Osservatore Romano, newspaper of the Holy See, April 17, 1969:“Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are *per se *outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin.”

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM

So we can now believe in polygenism?

 

[Vico]

So we can now believe in polygenism?

The author emphasized in the text that the Council of Trent did not decide on genism, so it is possible to consider variations, however is has not bearing on revelation, which is about original sin and justification:
The Council teaches that every child is born with original sin, which is proper to each man (DS, 1513), and that the justified person no longer possesses the sin (DS, 1515). This is the point which the Fathers wish to teach; the other elements are taken from the then contemporary theology, without wishing by this to attribute to them a greater value than that which they already had.