Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

basically, God had a deal with man. it had something to do with killing goats. Man stopped keeping his end of the deal, so God had to come down and make a new deal, while at the same time upholding our end of the previous one (for us), by becoming the lamb(or sacrifice).

theres obviously more to this whole sacrifice thing than we understand (dynamics of the universe).

and theres more to God and his covenants than we understand.

if you ask me, i think its part of his nature. for example as humans we cant function without food and water. this is known to us, but to something like say...a robot, that knows nothing of a human, it might be difficult to explain the pain of hunger when observed. a robot that see's a starving person might try to explain it away in various theories, but in the end has no concept of "eating" or "food" and therefore will likely never be able to truely explain away what he observes. Never understanding why a starving person fades away. mainly because all he has to compare the persons situation to is his own, and little does he know the 2 aren't comparable.

i liken our position as humans to this analogy. theres something to the nature of God that we dont have a full scope of understanding on. It has something to do with the upkeep of covenants. i dont think he is capable of voiding an unfinished contract that he is a part of. i think he is bound to his contracts in a way we cannot understand.

and our biggest error, is trying to understand something that is not human, from a human perspective.

"it ISNT _____ so it MUST be ______" (typical human conclusion)

what makes sense in our heads, does not define what is truth.
Truth defines what makes sense in our heads.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Fair enough, I only sought to provide an example of vicarious atonement/punishment that most would likely have some familiarity with and not imply much past that.

Much obliged for the clarity.

Originally posted by oniris
Hi there, I was chatting with a muslim about the differences between Islam and christianity, and one of the main culprits he said they have is the assumption that jesus died for the sins of mankind.

More precisely, what he said was: "If god is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing, why did he need Jesus to learn how to forgive mankind"

I thought it was a valid point, what is the general opinion from Christian scolars on this issue?

edit on 19-5-2011 by oniris because: missing a space

I think this quote by Richard Bach

answers this:


What the caterpillar calls

"the end of the world"

the master calls.... "the butterfly."

I'm no Bible scholar, but here's what I think. It was to show mankind how much God loves them, and to show us a comparison of good against evil. Juxtaposing Jesus and his goodness against mankind's cruelness...and yet....Jesus showed forgiveness to his tormentors. So by God allowing Jesus to be crucified, God showed that he loves us so much, he was willing to sacrifice Jesus's life. Also, by Jesus asking God to forgive his killers, he taught us about forgiveness. Anyway, that's kind of what I make of it.

Originally posted by oniris
Hi there, I was chatting with a muslim about the differences between Islam and christianity, and one of the main culprits he said they have is the assumption that jesus died for the sins of mankind.

More precisely, what he said was: "If god is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing, why did he need Jesus to learn how to forgive mankind"

I thought it was a valid point, what is the general opinion from Christian scolars on this issue?

edit on 19-5-2011 by oniris because: missing a space

Personally, I go along with St. Anselm's (a medieval Archbishop of Canterbury) view. God can't just ignore sin, as that would be acquiescing to evil -- evil wins if there are no consequence for it. So enters in the concept of satisfaction, God cannot forgive sins unless there is satisfaction made.

As Anselm noted, the amount of satisfaction required is dependent on whom the slight is committed against. A crime against the King, for example, was a much different thing than a crime against a peasant. That is still often the case -- a man who hits another man is treated much differently than a man who hits a woman, or a man who hits a child.

Sin is an insult and a crime against God, so we have offended an infinite being and, thus, incurred an infinite debt, something that we can never make up for. The only means that exists for God to have satisfaction (and, thus, save us from sin without just ignoring it,) is to have an infinite being step up and provide it -- himself.

Therefore, as it is said, "my own arm achieved salvation", God sacrificed himself to settle the debt, and when we stand before the Judgement Seat, we are damned for our infinite debt, but Christ stands up for us and says "that's okay, I've got this covered" and we are granted forgiveness through Christ's imbued righteousness.

That's not a universal Christian belief, of course, but it is a reasonable answer to your friend's question.

Originally posted by wheelz123
Quite simply, because there is no salvation without the shedding of blood.
2nd line.

And, as far as the question in the OP about Christ:

There needed to be an infinite sacrifice for an infinite amount of sins.

OP, tell your Muslim friend to read the first 3 chapters of Romans.

One thing I often tell people when they say Jesus died for my sins is "then I must sin, I do not want Jesus to have died in vain" they say "what are you talking about?" and I say, "if I am a perfect saint and everyone is a perfect saint then Jesus died for nothing"
A bit crude I know. But it is a very good question, why could he not have continued living and still have sin forgiven? I think it really is just a major guilt trip that was carefully orchestrated for control of the masses.

reply to post by Majestic Lumen


Refer to my post, two above yours, or NOTurTypical's, right above yours.

As for "sinning to justify Christ", spend a few minutes reading Paul's letters, he addresses that specific thing a number of times.

reply to post by oniris

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Hi there, I was chatting with a muslim about the differences between Islam and christianity, and one of the main culprits he said they have is the assumption that jesus died for the sins of mankind.

More precisely, what he said was: "If god is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing, why did he need Jesus to learn how to forgive mankind"

I thought it was a valid point, what is the general opinion from Christian scolars on this issue?

There are two main problems here…

Firstly, Islam sees Jesus, as only a prophet of God, and nothing more…

And…

Secondly, there is a verse in the Quran, not sure which exact number and verse, off the top of my head, but there is a verse, which states that “no man can bear the burden of another mans sins”, or words to that effect…and this is one of the main reasons why, Muslims do not accept Jesus death, as paying for their sins.

Of course Jesus, was no ordinary man…


- JC

Tell your friend, that it was done because God loves him so much, that he wanted to be able to demonstrate his power to him by resurrecting Jesus inside of him. And if your friend can understand the enormity of what all that entails, he may come to understand why Jesus has higher titles than just 'great prophet.'

That's an interesting question, from an interesting source. The Koran depicts Allah intervening in Jesus' execution, so that his prophet would not die in such a miserable and disreputable way. (Well, Mohammed is the one telling the story, maybe he didn't want to give people ideas about how to deal with prophets.) "The Jews" are made to think that they have executed Jesus, but in Allah-reality, Jesus was rescued (4: 157-158).

With all respect to my friend adjensen, I think the case is simpler than Anselm's. Jesus, in the usual Christian conception, is not only fully God, but also fully man. Men die.

One of the things that argues for that answer in this context, in my view, is that it bears directly on the fundamental Islamic objection. To be both God and Man is a category mistake, according to Islamic thought. To be Creator excludes being simultaneously a creature.

Jesus-Isa is born of a virgin, but is not God's son. Paternity, too, is a mistake in Islam, in the sense of being contrary to black-letter revelation. Allah has no kin. Isa simply has no father. Allah wished to have a virgin-born prophet. When Allah wishes something, it happens.

So, in arguing with a Muslim, you would need to persuade him or her to entertain the Christian view of the God-Man, at least arguendo, despite its unfamiliar and paradoxical character. If you succeed in that, then I suspect the proposition that "all men are mortal" comes readily enough, once "all men have a father" is accepted.

Finally, most Christians worldwide are not Protestants. The Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Resurrection was an integral part of the work of salvation, not just evidence that the work had been done a few days earlier on the cross. You cannot rise from the dead unless you die first.

If you need a kumbaya moment, Paul is well thought-of throughout living Christianity, although he is not a prophet of Islam. If the object of life in Christ is to obtain a glorified body forever, then the mortal body must be discarded. 1 Corinthians 15, throughout, may be helpful.

Best wishes for a happy and productive Draw Mohammed Day II, today, 20 May 2011.

Hehehe, well, I think most people have mistaken my purpose. I am not a religious person at all, thus naturally NOT trying to convert my muslim acquaintance.

I do have a certain intellectual curiosity towards religion, and the question seemed challenging.

Well, I must thank you all for your contributions, which left me quite a bit more knowledgeable on the subject, I knew ATS would respond with interesting views from all sides of the spectrum, I will recall:

AndrewJay's excellent answer: To continue the roman empire

MasterAndrew's lack of literacy (probably still thinking I'm a muslim): If you are a muslim then tell me: "lots of good though slightly islamophobe questions"

CharterZZ's useful post: Why does anyone believe in a book. I mean wtf

IIIiIIIIIIiIII's answer to the above: Books can teach us useful lessons: "Pinochio teaches us it's bad to lie"

SaberTruth's: An offense needs an equal redemption (we angered an infinite being)

RelentlessLurker's robot analogy

Adjensen's very informative quote from St Anselm

And eight bits comparative teology: "How to convert a muslim"


Once again, thanks for all your input

reply to post by oniris


better question;

Why did "GOD" wait (at least) 100,000 years of human evolution (since we separated ourselves from animals) before he finally decides to introduce a savior? Why does he go to the less literate parts of the desert to do so?

You have to believe this nonsense if you are to submit to Christianity.

Matthew 27:5

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

Also, it appears the Jesus ressurection was not uncommon. And many were ressurected that were not "sent by God"

"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." Christopher Hitchens

We don't need holy warrant to be good. And religion doesn't have a monopoly on good, only God.

Sorry, more of my thoughts:-

I don't think i am (or anyone is) bound by a human sacrifice and i don't think his death absolves the "sin" of an entire species of animal.

Many tribes and civilisations are STILL unaware of the story.

He also wasn't the best moral teacher. He told people that they must leave their families to follow him, without exception (dying, starving family members)

Luke 14:26-27
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.”

Furthermore, we still can't prove the miracles, and even if granted, it still doesn't verify he was sent by the controller of the universe or that his moral and ethical teachings were thereby correct.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34) is one of the controversial statements reported of Jesus in the Bible.

As Hitchens has said ""Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

It's as if monotheists believe that before the 10 commandments were handed down to Moses, that humans had no concept of human suffering, It's as if Christians believe without God we would all be killers, murderers, rapists and theives - I think that's an insult to intelligence and our legacy of altruism as a species.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's as if Christians believe without God we would all be killers, murderers, rapists and theives - I think that's an insult to intelligence and our legacy of altruism as a species.

... and I think that is an insult to Christians, who do not uniformly believe such a statement.

Your longstanding claim that morality and values are purely subjective contradicts your claim that there is some sort of species wide altruism -- by your measure, there is no "right thing to do" (altruism), just what seems right to you at the moment. In your philosophy, that doesn't translate to anyone beyond yourself.

reply to post by adjensen


Believe it or not. That is what Christian dogma consists of, you either say "i agree" or you don't.

If you don't believe in the dogma of the bible it makes for a very short and UN-supernatural read. You either believe in "GOD" (Deist position) or you believe the claim that man has described God without having evidence (Theist or religious position)

Humans ARE altruistic, we wouldn't have got this far if we'd been more concerned about killing than we had about building a civilisation. Of course we have to reason sociopaths and psycopaths like Charles Manson.

Just because every civilisation agrees on a particular moral position doesn't mean that morality is not subjective. And i'm certainly not saying killing, theieving, paedophilia, torture can be justified. (Just that most societies find those concepts to be undesirable and that it causes a significant ammount of emotional and physical uproar that disturbs the peace within a given community)

... and I think that is an insult to Christians, who do not uniformly believe such a statement.

I'm an Atheist. Most of my criticisms WILL insult Christians.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Just because every civilisation agrees on a particular moral position doesn't mean that morality is not subjective. And i'm certainly not saying killing, theieving, paedophilia, torture can be justified.

One of these days, it's going to sink in that saying "killing (et al) cannot be justified" is citing an objective, not subjective truth. If morality is subjective, then yes, killing and all the rest can be justified. And when it is, you, as a moral relativist, have no grounds for complaining.

I'm an Atheist. Most of my criticisms WILL insult Christians.

They need not. Points of disagreement may discussed rationally and without intent to offend. But applying a non-uniform view, which you personally disagree with, on an entire group to pass judgement on them is both unreasonable and intentionally insulting.

reply to post by oniris


God created man and earth. It was good. Man has free wll. Lucifer was to guard God's creation but he wanted to redo things - he did not like the way God created man because man was not as knowledgeable of good and evil as the angels are. So he wanted - not to be the guard of God's creation - but the master or god of a better creation. He called on Eve to bite the apple - and chose to learn good and evil, so she could become as powerful as God. Then she tempted Adam to do the same. They lost their purity and innocence and became separate from God and subject to Satan's rule. God punished Satan making him into a reptile to crawl on belly in the dirt. Satan is pissed off. He does not love humans. He sees them as stupid and weak. He's disgusted by what he created in fallen man, and he names them guilty and he toys with them and punishes them. Satan enjoys man's fallen nature and he enjoys making them suffer.

God permitted Jesus to give all men and women a way out of his fallen fate and a new path to be with God once again. He sent his son, Jesus, to teach man the new agreement - that if they would beleive in Jesus - accept Him as their Savior - their sin would be washed away and they could be released from the rule of Satan and be with God. God allowed Jesus to sacrificed in place of our punishment. Jesus wanted to rescue mankind from the corruption and power of Satan and he wanted to take on the sins of the world to release men from the guilt and punishment of Satan.

When we accept the sacrifice Jesus made to release us from sin, we are released from the punishing consequences of our sin - Satan's realm and rule. God had mercy on mankind from seeing them suffer under the rule of Satan with no way out. We were not created to compete with an angel - Satan. We could not overcome nor step out of evil. The closest thing I can compare it to on earth would be the fate and life of a kitten in the hands of a sadistic human. God devised a way out - through Jesus. Through Jesus we can be worthy to be with God again.

This is so even though Satan still struggles for our souls with temptation and trickery. He mocks Jesus and Christians. He hates Christians and Christ. He murders Christians - sometimes through Muslims. He infiltrates churches and corrupts leaders and members. He turns things upside down and inside out. What is good is bad and what is bad is good. It's like being the fodder of an ongoing spiritual war that Satan declared on God for dominion over mankind and earth. For those who can last it out and stay next to Jesus and struggle to follow his way as best as they can, life is much better and and eventually, there will be no more torment by Satan in heaven with God.

Originally posted by sara123123Then she tempted Adam to do the same.

Where does it say she tempted him? He was "there with her" and "listened to her voice", but there is no record or inference of her tempting him. Otherwise, I largely agree with your summary of things. :-)