Atontement: Was it "necessary" for God to die?

[darinhouston]

I might get more out of a bud light than I do some people's responses here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[robbyyoung]

[darinhouston]

JR, start another thread if you want to discuss another topic. If you agreed with me, you have a funny way of showing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jriccitelli]

I appreciate a lot of your reasoning, albeit I do not believe Jesus can fully be discussed without the atonement and cross, and vice versa. I would agree having a beer together would be a good solution for the moment. Salude!

Sent from my phone, using a small keypad.

[TheEditor]

he verse says nothing of the kind. It says that God gave His Son because of His love for man. It says nothing about sin. (Editor)

Why would you just give your only child over to be tortured, unless there was no other way?
Its rather lopsided to think we just give away children to be tortured and killed, just to demonstrate love, unless of course there was absolutely no other payment that could have the worth necessary. You don't see it, but it comes when you consider it (or see it in red).
More conjecture. There are many that are "just", even prior to the atonement. Abraham comes to mind... (Editor)


I don’t think any of those here of who 'do not' believe in the Deity of Jesus share the common basic theological principles and precepts that we who 'do' believe Jesus was God, believe. And it is as I commonly observe: they observe alternate views of the atonement, alternate view points on works and the Law, and yet the three doctrines are interwoven as to be one, so one without the others is impossible.

Excuse me? How do you come by this idea? When I was a JW I bought Substitutionary Atonement lock, stock and barrel. Are you aware that the alternative views of the Atonement were mostly codified by trinitarians? You may want to freshen up on these views and their origins before you make such bald statements of fact.

You can't demand to have word structure or a concept in scripture that isn’t there, while all the time the 'rejection of such an idea' is made plain by the overwhelming text that 'is' there. You can’t logically say: Where does it say: I can’t get drunk on Bud light? I don’t see a scripture that says “don’t get drunk on Bud Light”!

Now you're being silly. I would never get drunk on Bud Light. Back in the day, it would have had to have been Red Hook or something like that.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

...the Word was God...

And the Word became flesh...

...and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world...

...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you...

This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.

This is not some damnable heresy, this is the core of the Gospel itself that can give you eternal life... trust me when I say only Satan wants to take away this truth.

Well, you have already taken away some of it yourself by your neat stacking of those verses. Particularly the corollary you are trying to make between the Word becoming flesh and the word being life. Jesus says that his "words" are life. Those "doing" these things are "eating" his flesh. Observing his words equates to "eating" his words. Actually, the way you have stacked those verses works out to support the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist quite nicely. Hmmmm....

Regards, Brenden.

[darinhouston]

I appreciate a lot of your reasoning, albeit I do not believe Jesus can fully be discussed without the atonement and cross, and vice versa. I would agree having a beer together would be a good solution for the moment. Salude!

Sent from my phone, using a small keypad.

Problem is, though I love Jesus greatly (and so don't need your preaching on the subject) this thread was never meant to discuss Jesus, per se.

The reason I'm exploring this issue is that if we can prove through Scripture that (as is commonly taught) God had to die, then we have an almost necessary corollary that Jesus was in fact God plain and simple. That is precisely why people try to make this argument, but I still don't see a Scriptural basis for it. Failure to prove this point doesn't mean Jesus isn't God, but it deprives us of a popular proof.

Exploring this isn't mere idle curiosity or mental exercise. It has apologetic and devotional (and truth seeking) purposes. But when we get distracted from the precise question, we lose our way to a beneficial end.

I'm beating this point up in hopes to prove it, but alas I see no proof thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

Just an odd comment that this is a very odd debate from my perspective.

Everyone in the thread believes Jesus was more than just a great man (as far as I can tell).

Everyone seems to agree that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord, even in some sense divine.

It seems to me like a mostly semantic argument... or disagreement on how to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son

To me (and I'm not trying to be annoying, just stating my opinion), it's weird to debate: Was it necessary for God to die? While simultaneously agreeing that the Son of God, the Lord, the Messiah, etc. necessarily died. I'm just not sure what is gained by making this a divisive issue (either way).

I'm a trinitarian, but I have no trouble with this pocket of people on this forum who prefer to think of the Father as God and would rather not use that noun to describe Jesus and instead stick to the more common biblical labels for Him. I think it is unnecessary. And I think the Trinity doctrine is true and beautiful. But I don't find this caution troublesome. And vice versa. I don't see why using the term 'God' is out of bounds for someone who is clearly the Son of God and Lord and fulfills statements about Yahweh, etc.

To me, the whole debate is just a failure to let the word God have the semantic range that it has. It's a rigidness that I find unnecessary.

/rant

[Homer]

Excellent post Matt!

[darinhouston]

Just an odd comment that this is a very odd debate from my perspective.

Everyone in the thread believes Jesus was more than just a great man (as far as I can tell).

Everyone seems to agree that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord, even in some sense divine.

It seems to me like a mostly semantic argument... or disagreement on how to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son

To me (and I'm not trying to be annoying, just stating my opinion), it's weird to debate: Was it necessary for God to die? While simultaneously agreeing that the Son of God, the Lord, the Messiah, etc. necessarily died. I'm just not sure what is gained by making this a divisive issue (either way).

I'm a trinitarian, but I have no trouble with this pocket of people on this forum who prefer to think of the Father as God and would rather not use that noun to describe Jesus and instead stick to the more common biblical labels for Him. I think it is unnecessary. And I think the Trinity doctrine is true and beautiful. But I don't find this caution troublesome. And vice versa. I don't see why using the term 'God' is out of bounds for someone who is clearly the Son of God and Lord and fulfills statements about Yahweh, etc.

To me, the whole debate is just a failure to let the word God have the semantic range that it has. It's a rigidness that I find unnecessary.

/rant

I guess that's because I'm so odd... Seriously, why not debate something so foundational that people quote so dogmatically without Scriptural support? I'd say the position that "our sin is so great compared to God's infinite holiness that God Himself had to die" is a pretty bold statement to make.