I have some questions about redemption/atonement: 1) Why did

>>2119183
>1) Why did Jesus need to die for us? Why can't we be redeemed by our own suffering?

Our suffering cannot compare to the debt that was owed to God because of Our first sin.
>2) If the goal was to suffer to redeem us, why did Jesus rise again from the dead to live in glory for eternity instead of staying in hell and taking one for the team?

The death of God was repayment enough. On another level if Jesus remained in hell it would represent victory for Satan because God Himself would be forced to chained to Satan's domain, which is impossible.
>3)If God made the rules for atonement, why didn't he just rewrite them so that no sacrifice would be necessary?
He could, but He chose to do this.

>>2119475
>Our suffering cannot compare to the debt that was owed to God because of Our first sin.

That's not an answer. Isn't god all-powerful? Was he simply unable to forgive us WITHOUT a vile blood sacrifice?

>He could, but He chose to do this.

Because....? He's a sadist? He's a masochist? He lacks the imagination to think of a better solution?

>>2119183
1. There has to be blood sacrifice. In the OT it was sacrificing animals at the temple or whatever. In the NT our bodies are the temple and Christ fulfills all sacrifices so it is no longer necessary, only that we follow him. You cannot be redeemed by your own suffering because you are still fundamentally a sinner. Sin cannot redeem sin.
2. The sacrifice is what redeems us, not his suffering. He needed to rise from the dead to overcome and conquer death, the wage of sin, and to become the life-giving spirit. Hell doesn't exist yet.
3. Why would he?

>>2119475
pure ideology

St Anselm's Cur Deus Homo is a fantastic work on just this subject: why god needed to be incarnate, why he had to die, etc. it's not a super long work either.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CURDEUS.HTM

>>2119475
>The death of God
Takbir!

>>2119183
Because Jesus is a metaphor for the transhuman manifestation of spiritual evolution. Read the Gospel of Thomas; he's prophesying the coming deconstruction of self as individual and fomenting the awareness of humanity as a single collective consciousness that is the second coming.

So, in this radical reinterpretation, your answers would be 1) "our own suffering" still requires us to focus on our ego-self, which we need to overcome in order to be "redeemed;" 2) Jesus' transfiguration and ascension were a metaphor for the transcendence of death that can be achieved through the abolition of all ego; 3) "God" is the superintelligence that exists outside all knowable spacetime, and is the consequence of the technological singularity that humans will produce, but which also produced the seed of self-awareness (which is original sin) that allowed us to begin to develop said technology. It's a closed time-loop.

Full disclosure: These ideas are not sanctioned or probably even considered sane by literally any known branch of Christianity. It's very likely considered heretical by virtually all of them, in fact. You probably already know this, but I thought it might be keen to mention.

>>2119493
It's because God has always been fucking metal, he's not tamed to your sensibilities.

File: image.png (140KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x500px

>>2119183
A 'God' came down to earth, in human flesh, in order to know our suffering?

If I create a machine, do I need to be a machine in order to learn it machine errors? No.

>'God' die for our sin
But God can forgave sins, according to Hebrews 8:12:

For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Why should God need to sacrifice his own begotten Son in the first place?

Remember what Jesus's said during the crucifixion? He said:

Matthew 27:46;

...“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?")

Is this the words of a 'God' which is prepared to die for our sins? No, it the words of a man that cry to God for help.

File: image.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>2119475
Anon, remember. We do not bear the sins of our father:

Ezekiel 18:20

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

>>2120482
*slap*
Be nice

>>2119475
....He could, but he choose to do this.

Matthew 27:46;

...“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?")

Is this the words of a 'God' willing to do this?

I want to hear your answer.

>>2120927
He's quoting the psalms in that instance. It's a song of praise and strength in a time of trouble. It's not a desperate cry for help like you suggest. Learn your bible, buddy.
>>2120937
Yes we do, that's the whole reason sin entered the world and we're unable not to sin.
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the the many will be made righteous."

You seriously need to stop cherry picking verses to fit your pet theories, it's. It good theology.

>actually trying to make sense of christian mythology