What does it mean when we say "Jesus died for our sins".?

I have heard several interpretations: (1) He died so that he could rise again and prove that death is not the end. (2) His death was an arrangement God made with Satan. The life of a pure soul and the beloved son of God in exchange for the continued existence of mankind.(3) God was about to give up on mankind and he sent his son to help us clean up our act and Jesus asked his father to give us another chance even if it meant he had to 'die a horrible death".

12 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 7
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    This is a war between God and Satan. To have a war, there must be rules of engagement and a way of knowing it has finished. God has told us that God had to live as man and be sinless as part of the rules of engagement in this war, which is why Jesus KNEW He had won the war just as He died a sinless man. The pay off to this war is the complete separation of God from Satan forevermore.

    God waited until sin was rampant to send His Son because God would not demand of you what He was unwilling to do Himself. The whole purpose of producing a physical realm is to have subjects who cannot see God or Satan and yet still have the choice to choose which they want to follow. The mere fact that many will follow God is the whole reason we will have eternal life with HIm, but, if man sins, those sins cannot be removed, except through an innocent sinless life which God provided with His Son and Satan had agreed to before the creation of the universe.

  • spider
    Lv 6
    3 years ago

    Romans 6:23 For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord. Since one man, the perfect man Adam, brought sin and death on us through disobedience, a perfect man obedient even till death, was needed to release us from the burden.

  • Bob L
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    #1 in correct. #2 is incorrect. #3 is also incorrect. Our sins (the sins of humanity) are many. God set a precedent in Genesis 3:21, that an animal had to die (a blood sacrifice) in order to cover over the knowledge that sin brought with it. Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness only after they had sinned. They became self-aware, rather than other-oriented. The human race inherited that from them. That is the likely origin of "Original Sin." Only God's Son was unblemished by man's sin-nature, and He alone was the appropriate blood sacrifice for our sin(s). Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy that promises are Redeemer. God knew from the beginning what He would do to save His own creation from themselves.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    It means you can sin all you want, since he paid for it already.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • MrBong
    Lv 6
    3 years ago

    It means somebody is lying to you.

  • 3 years ago

    It means you're full of it.He died to send sinners to hell.

  • 3 years ago

    It is meaningless.

    Only the christ-based faiths will ever be blasphemous enough to utilize a “new” testament

    as a self-actuating and never-ending prescription for themselves, that will eliminate their sins

    by using stories, parables, self-administered forgiveness, and pitiful characters in books, that die.

    The 'christ' that christianity is named after appears to have been a highly retarded individual who,

    throughout his demented and maniacal life of delusion, perceived himself as being many different things.

    No one can die for the sins of others ... not even when their delusive mind allows them to think that they can.

  • 3 years ago

    It's none of those, it's blame shifting. God failed creating people he knew would sin, had a tantrum and flooded the world, regretted it, sends his son to get tortured and killed as some peace offering, then had the audacity to expect people to be thankful, and he didn't even save everyone.

  • 3 years ago

    "This is an atrocious understanding of God, sin, and forgiveness. It presents God as angry and vindictive instead of a loving Father, and this creates in us fear and alienation. But God wants to heal our fear and alienation. Penal Substitution also presents a mistaken perspective on sin as an affront against God and his many religious rules rather than our harming ourselves and other people.

    In addition, there is no forgiveness involved at all. If we owe a debt, the person owed can choose to forgive our debt. But if our debt is paid, then it can’t be forgiven—it is already paid. This theory also brings up the question of God’s abuse against his own son—an abuse anyone would consider nothing less than horrific for any father among us.

    There is nothing helpful about Penal Substitution theory; it is all harmful and draws us away from the message of Jesus. Yet those who embrace this theory will offer proof-texts and sometimes harmonize them as proof of this awful theory. But they are only reading their own theory of Penal Substitution back into the biblical passages."

    https://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/2016/02/...

    the New Testament writers agree that the death of Jesus on the cross has a tremendous effect on us, but they never quite explain what they think this effect is or how it works. The Church Fathers were not content with this ambiguity and developed theories of what they imagined happened on the cross. When we talk of the Church Fathers, we simply mean those Christians who wrote about Christianity; it does not imply that they were considered authoritative.

    The earliest wide-spread view of atonement (what happened on the cross) is the Ransom Theory. The thought is that in the fall of Adam we became subject to the devil instead of God. Jesus ransomed us; thus Jesus was victor over the devil. There were other theories, but this one was widely held for about a thousand years until it was challenged by Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in A.D. 1098—about 900 years ago.

    By Anselm’s day Europe had become a feudal society. Common people (serfs) served a knight who protected a certain area and its population. Socially, there was great distance between knights and serfs so that, while an offense of a serf against another serf might seem fairly insignificant, an offense against the honor of a knight was considered very serious requiring the satisfaction of heavy punishment. Knights could not simply forgive an offense because it would indicate that it didn’t matter much.

    The knights, in turn, served the King. Offense against a King was even more serious and warranted an even more severe response.

    Rejecting the Ransom Theory, Anselm devised a new theory to explain the need for Jesus’ death. Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory was very much influenced by the feudal society in which he lived. In Anselm’s mind, sin was an offense against the honor of God, and just as a King could not ignore affront to his honor neither could God ignore our affronts to his honor. They had to be punished. However, Jesus’ death on the cross satisfied that honor, so that his death paid for our sins. Jesus suffered punishment as a substitute for us.

    This was the first theory that atonement was payment for our sin.

    The Protestant Reformers and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    A few hundred years after Anselm, the world of Europe was changing and people were challenging the ideas and restrictions of the old society. One expression of this challenge was the Protestant Reformation led by Luther, Calvin, and others. And one result was the development of a new theory of atonement called Penal Substitution.

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement was built on Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory but with a significant difference—these reformers did not see the atonement as Jesus satisfying the honor of God in our place; instead Jesus satisfied the holiness and justice of God.

    The idea was that God is holy and cannot abide the unholiness of sin, and he is also just and cannot ignore sin—he must punish it. So God poured out his necessary wrath for our sin on Jesus. Therefore, Jesus paid the debt for our sins in satisfaction of God’s holiness and justice.

    Like the Satisfaction Theory, Penal Substitution theory is based on vengeance and retribution rather than love. I believe this falsely portrays the Father as an angry, harsh, vengeful God. Jesus describes him otherwise–as a loving Father seeking our good.

    We often feel alienated from God, but the alienation we feel is only from our side; God is NOT alienated from us. The crucifixion of Jesus was unjust. Reflecting on this injustice changes us–not God. God did not ‘require’ a substitute to change his attitude toward us. His forgiveness was already available. Jesus came in order to share the Father’s love for us and to bring reconciliation (atonement).

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory Today

    Millions of believers today continue to embrace the misguided Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory. I call it The Story of Sin and Salvation: Common Baggage Version (CBV). You likely have encountered it yourself. It is often communicated something like this:

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Nothing at all.

    It is rhetoric, simple and silly propaganda.

    They also claim he "sits with god" right now.

    So he didn't die, or he'd be dead. Nothing gets up from dead.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.