Evidence for God from Science

I've often heard the resurrection reduced to rather simplistic terms for the purpose of dismissing it. This argument generally goes along the lines of something like: the resurrection is nothing more than God sacrificing himself to himself in order to adhere to his own rules.

Can anybody think of a logical argument as to why God could not have dismissed the need for atonement in the form of Jesus on the cross, letting that part slide, so to speak? If this was the case, I think that the wages of sin would still be death - by this I would think that this is eternal separation form God, a perfectly holy being - and there would still be salvation, yet He wouldn't have had to send Jesus to atone for our transgressions.

The only way I can think of the need for God to send Jesus was because forgiving sin is an impossibility for Him. Why? Probably for the same reason He could not create a stone too heavy to lift or a square circle - because it's a logical impossibility. However, due to my intellectual limitations, I can't go any further with this line of reasoning. And simply state this to someone who believes the resurrection to be a whole load of nonsense doesn't cut it.

So, any answers?

Thanks

Think of it this way. Yu have a mass murderer before the judge and the judge, being a loving judge, just says "I will love you and have compassion and let you go"

If he did that, would He be a JUST judge? WE would see that and be horrified. Justice was not served, nor would we say that he is just. If God did that, just simply dismiss our rebellion, then He might be called a loving God, but He wouldn't be a loving God.

Thanks for the reply, zoegirl. I understand your point. Indeed, it was something that I considered myself. However, if Jesus already paid the penalty for our sins (and that still leaves my original question outstanding: why did did God simply not forgive our sin?), is it not then a form of double punishment to send someone to hell? Firstly, Jesus was punished physically - though it is arguable that his spiritual sacrifice wasn't a punishment. Secondly, God punishes those who reject him (I believe through eternal separation).

To modify your analogy, is the resurrection and damnation not equivalent to a judge ruling that a person should pay €500 for damages after a kindly benefactor has already paid €500. In other words, if the wages of sin is death, surely those dues were already paid by Jesus on the cross?

Welcome, Screwtape!
Hopefully I can help you have a better understanding of the Ressurection.

Screwtape wrote:I've often heard the resurrection reduced to rather simplistic terms for the purpose of dismissing it. This argument generally goes along the lines of something like: the resurrection is nothing more than God sacrificing himself to himself in order to adhere to his own rules.

Can anybody think of a logical argument as to why God could not have dismissed the need for atonement in the form of Jesus on the cross, letting that part slide, so to speak? If this was the case, I think that the wages of sin would still be death - by this I would think that this is eternal separation form God, a perfectly holy being - and there would still be salvation, yet He wouldn't have had to send Jesus to atone for our transgressions.

The only way I can think of the need for God to send Jesus was because forgiving sin is an impossibility for Him. Why? Probably for the same reason He could not create a stone too heavy to lift or a square circle - because it's a logical impossibility. However, due to my intellectual limitations, I can't go any further with this line of reasoning. And simply state this to someone who believes the resurrection to be a whole load of nonsense doesn't cut it.

So, any answers?

Thanks

You need to look back at the Levitical laws concerning the sacrafices, the yearly atonement of sin and the such. The Day of Atonement was something done annually, and was only a temporary covering of ones sin. If you look at some of the minor prophets, even the psalmists you can read what God's response was to their sacrifices. So, Jesus dieing on the cross was neccesary because it is the final, perfect sacrifice for our sin. The Bible says that He became sin for us. We are not perfect, yet Christ is.
God came down and took the form of His creation to save His creation.
When the Bible talks about death, it is reffered to in two different ways. 1) there is the physical death which we all must face. 2) there is eternal death/seperation from God for all eternity, which we are saved from through Christ and Christ alone.
As far as there would still be the eternal seperation if Jesus never came? You have to think about Abraham, Noah, Moses. Are they seperated from God for all eternity? I would say not. Their faith was acredited to them as righteousness.
Forgiving sin was and is never an impossibility for God. Even when David sinned, he realized that he had done wrong and turned to God for forgiveness. And he is a man after God's heart because of that.

As far as the square circle and the stone too heavy, that is just the aithiests way of trying to get you in a corner. Nothing is impossible for God. If he could create a stone to heavy, then He wouldn't be God.

However, if Jesus already paid the penalty for our sins (and that still leaves my original question outstanding: why did did God simply not forgive our sin?), is it not then a form of double punishment to send someone to hell? Firstly, Jesus was punished physically - though it is arguable that his spiritual sacrifice wasn't a punishment. Secondly, God punishes those who reject him (I believe through eternal separation).

To modify your analogy, is the resurrection and damnation not equivalent to a judge ruling that a person should pay €500 for damages after a kindly benefactor has already paid €500. In other words, if the wages of sin is death, surely those dues were already paid by Jesus on the cross?

God simply didn't automatically forgive our sin because it was a carnal freedom of choice to sin which put that seperation between us and God. It is something that is forever. You should read what Paul says about it in Romans. I think it's chapter 3. No it is not a double punishment.
God does not want anyone to go to hell. When we deny Christ, reject Him, we are sending ourselves to hell. God does not want to punish us, He loves us. (John 3:16).
And yes, those dues were paid on the cross, but a person still needs to beleive and accept that they are a sinner and that their sin seperates them from God. Then they need to repent and accept Jesus as their savior.

obsolete wrote:Welcome, ScrewtapeYou need to look back at the Levitical laws concerning the sacrafices, the yearly atonement of sin and the such. The Day of Atonement was something done annually, and was only a temporary covering of ones sin. If you look at some of the minor prophets, even the psalmists you can read what God's response was to their sacrifices. So, Jesus dieing on the cross was neccesary because it is the final, perfect sacrifice for our sin. The Bible says that He became sin for us. We are not perfect, yet Christ is.
God came down and took the form of His creation to save His creation.
When the Bible talks about death, it is reffered to in two different ways. 1) there is the physical death which we all must face. 2) there is eternal death/seperation from God for all eternity, which we are saved from through Christ and Christ alone.
As far as there would still be the eternal seperation if Jesus never came? You have to think about Abraham, Noah, Moses. Are they seperated from God for all eternity? I would say not. Their faith was acredited to them as righteousness.
Forgiving sin was and is never an impossibility for God. Even when David sinned, he realized that he had done wrong and turned to God for forgiveness. And he is a man after God's heart because of that.

But where they completely absolved of their sins or did their forgiveness still rest upon Jesus' sacrifice? I would imagine that it's the latter. Romans 3.23 would seem to confirm this: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

obsolete wrote: As far as the square circle and the stone too heavy, that is just the aithiests way of trying to get you in a corner. Nothing is impossible for God. If he could create a stone to heavy, then He wouldn't be God.

Well, I think I may have to disagree with this. Looking at the simple example of an apparent impossibility for God: a weight that is too heavy for him to lift. As God is omnipotent the obvious answer is that there is no such stone that could limit Him. However, there are weights too heavy for us to lift. Therefore, by not being able to lift the weight, we are able to create something God can't. I realise that it's a bit of double think, but I would say it's much more likely that illogical things like square circles are not possible for God because they simply don't exist. God can do anything as long as it is logically possible.

But where they completely absolved of their sins or did their forgiveness still rest upon Jesus' sacrifice? I would imagine that it's the latter. Romans 3.23 would seem to confirm this: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Excelent question! Remember when Jesus at the Last Supper said that His blood was the blood of the new covenant? That is the new covenant that we, as Christians, are covered by.
When Jesus was on the cross, the theif asked Him to remember him when He was in His kingdom. But Jesus said, "Today you will be in paradise with me". He didn't say Heaven, but paradise. Sheol, or pit/grave has/had two aspects. Torment, and paradise. There's a great chasim that seperates the two. Those who were faithful to God, like Abraham, were probably in paradise. Others, not so lucky. I think they were there until Jesus's sacrifice, and that was where He went and collected them to take them to Heaven.

Well, I think I may have to disagree with this. Looking at the simple example of an apparent impossibility for God: a weight that is too heavy for him to lift. As God is omnipotent the obvious answer is that there is no such stone that could limit Him. However, there are weights too heavy for us to lift. Therefore, by not being able to lift the weight, we are able to create something God can't. I realise that it's a bit of double think, but I would say it's much more likely that illogical things like square circles are not possible for God because they simply don't exist. God can do anything as long as it is logically possible.

There is nothing we can "create" that God cannot. Who was it that made the weight too heavy for us really? Us or God? i believe the latter.

1.) Square circles is a contradictory in terms
2.) A circle that is a square is simply that, a square
3.) God never contradicts Himself.



But here are some square watermelons for you.

Screwtape wrote:I've often heard the resurrection reduced to rather simplistic terms for the purpose of dismissing it. This argument generally goes along the lines of something like: the resurrection is nothing more than God sacrificing himself to himself in order to adhere to his own rules.

Can anybody think of a logical argument as to why God could not have dismissed the need for atonement in the form of Jesus on the cross, letting that part slide, so to speak? If this was the case, I think that the wages of sin would still be death - by this I would think that this is eternal separation form God, a perfectly holy being - and there would still be salvation, yet He wouldn't have had to send Jesus to atone for our transgressions.

The only way I can think of the need for God to send Jesus was because forgiving sin is an impossibility for Him. Why? Probably for the same reason He could not create a stone too heavy to lift or a square circle - because it's a logical impossibility. However, due to my intellectual limitations, I can't go any further with this line of reasoning. And simply state this to someone who believes the resurrection to be a whole load of nonsense doesn't cut it.

So, any answers?

You are right - either Jesus' payment on our behalf was able to atone for our sin, or we all stand condemned to death in our sins.

With Israel in Biblical times, if someone ever got into debt and could not repay what they owed, then they would be put into slavery to work and pay off their debt. However, if someone else chose to come and pay the debt, then the person in debt could be redeemed. The person who would pay to redeem another from slavery was called the "kinsman redeemer." And it would only be by the gracious act of a kinsman redeemer's gracious act that he would pay to redeem another.

Now, the first qualification of being a kinsman-redeemer is that the redeemer must be related to the person in debt. The second qualification for the redeemer is that they must be free themselves.

Applying this to ourselves and Christ, we are all sinners before God having committed wrongful acts. God on the other hand is all-righteous and as such He cannot just glimpse past wrongful acts we commit against Him (as you also understand). If God did just glimpse past our sin, it would make God semi-righteous and accepting of evil, which means God wouldn't really be righteous at all. So if we are ever to be with an all-righteous God, we have to be made right before God.

So if we who are slaves to sin are to be with a holy and righteous God, we need to be somehow freed from being a slave to sin. Jesus was the only person who qualified for the task of redeeming us. Jesus qualified firstly because he met the redeemer requirement of being associated with us by being born into our world as a human. Jesus also met the second requirement, that is, being free from sin. So if we were ever to be redeemed from sin, and so be justified before a righteous God, Jesus was qualified to redeem us.

However redemption doesn't come without a payment. In order to set us free from sin so that we could be accepted by God, a payment was required. As you point out, the price of sin is death. This especially makes sense when we understand how sin kills our relationship between us and a Holy God, causing a spiritual death. Jesus therefore chose to sacrifice Himself, making payment on our behalf for our sin. He chose to do this freely and out of grace, I believe for all humanity.

Hope this helps.