Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Who has not made a mistake and paid for their mistake. If you make a mistake does that change you from a man to a donkey? God has not called you sinner. It is what men do to each other.

In the likeness and image means of the same character and function. Why the caveat of free will meaning we can usurp the power of god in some way.
Your will and gods will are the same will. The disparity lies in our conception of our own function, thinking it good judgement to know good and evil. Only god is good, the only good is god and god is good only, not good and evil.

You mean good with the capacity for evil.
God made no such mention.

Progress in faith, not perfection.

What do they look like?

I say sign because the word is from old english, synn, which means sign.
A sign can be synonym to a mark. To miss the sign of god, is synonymous to saying, to miss the mark of god. At any rate a mark or a sign in this instance are both visual/conceptual cues.

How do you identify that, or what does it look like?

 

Obviously he didn't fit the description which is why the question.

 

:smilielol5:How can anyone get it so wrong?

Oh yeah, just another of your vain attempts to show that you can never be wrong about anything.

 

Just saying. My point is the truth about him is probably not that he was a carpenter. They doubt what they see because they thought he had a history that did not produce the effects they were seeing. Could it be that carpenter is not the way he perceived his own calling, not where he applied himself in life even though he was associated with a craft mans family?

My comments are not as cut and dried as being right or wrong as I consider the weight of the story as a whole. Yes it is possible that he was a carpenter. It is more likely given the statements that refer to him as remarkable that he was into an altogether different vocation.

It was once thought that jesus came from a backwater hinterland but new archeological evidence points to a much more cosmopolitan and industry intensive environment.

 

In addition waterbrother, jesus says of himself in the very same account, not that he is a carpenter but that he is a prophet, not without honor except in his own home.

 

Art if very rarely historically representative, but more often theological. Grünewald's Crucifixion altarpiece for example uses a distorted gruesome Christ as a meditative principle: a sermon without words.

I quite like the Byzantine icon tradition which intentionally is not life-like. The Copts have an interesting tradition too.

Coptic example:

 

gods, or a god, don't HAVE TO do anything. a god of love and justice, would however, feel compelled to concern itself for the happiness and well being of its creation.

but that would be ALL of its creation. not just one sapient species on one world.

 

Still trying to prove yourself right no matter how wrong you are.

Here is the whole thing in context:
(Mark 6:1-6) And he departed from there and came into his home territory, and his disciples followed him. When it became sabbath, he started teaching in the synagogue; and the greater number of those listening were astounded and said: “Where did this man get these things? And why should this wisdom have been given this man, and such powerful works be performed through his hands? This is the carpenter the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, is it not? And his sisters are here with us, are they not?” So they began to stumble at him. But Jesus went on to say to them: “A prophet is not unhonored except in his home territory and among his relatives and in his own house.” So he was able to do no powerful work there except to lay his hands upon a few sickly ones and cure them. Indeed, he wondered at their lack of faith. And he went round about to the villages in a circuit, teaching.

As can be easily seen by anyone who doesn't want to prove himself right even though they are wrong, the man is plainly stating that here is a carpenter that is the son of Mary and Joesph and who has brothers and sisters, that we know, so how can he know so much and perform such miracles? The is not asking is this man a carpenter, he is saying this is the carpenter.

Also when Jesus then calls himself a prophet, he was pointing out that he was now a prophet and not that he was never a carpenter. In fact he is pointing out how hard it is for people who had probably known him all his life, who knew what kind of work he had done, who knew his mother and father, sisters and brothers, to accept that he was now a prophet. A prophet is without honor in his own country.

 

I was only commenting on the picture rudenoodle posted and was commending him on the depiction of Jesus as a well muscled man, which he probably was and was not trying to get into the artistic, theological and meditative principles and meanings of depicting him otherwise.

 

Which sapient species or world do you believe God has ignored?

 

Actually you are trying to prove me wrong no matter how right you think you are.

It is easy to see that the label carpenter did not fit the description of his current behavior. How did he get to be a prophet? Did he turn prophet suddenly? Why was he found, in his fathers house at age twelve? If we insist on the vocation of carpenter he is unable to do much in their presence because of lack of belief.

We can take the other mention of the incident as can be found in matthew, 13;55, "is this not the carpenters son.....", not, is this not the carpenter. In which case the disbelief is brought on by heritage or reputation, not by occupation. Fact is the point of the statement, a prophet is not without honor except in his own country, has nothing to do with whether they thought he was a carpenter or not, but that he displayed qualities far beyond his reputation. They could have said, isn't this the hot dog vendor, and the story would not change in substance.

Between the two versions there is room for interpretation, because they do not say the same thing.

It is reasonable to think that jesus was not in fact a craft person or if he was, it may have been by assignment and not enthusiasm. It is said to take ten thousand hours to become virtuous at any profession. Given the degree of his virtue in relation to god, it is more likely that he was a studious day dreamer by vocation, even if he may have had a reputation of being in a carpenters family.

So as a technicality we are both correct falling on the statement that best suits our personal understanding.

 

Which he probably was, because.

The point is the emaciated christ is not meant to be a photographic representation, therefor is not less accurate as a portrayal, because it is portraying metaphorical meaning, not physical description.

 

No need to prove you wrong, the evidence is clear, you are wrong.

No, God's word is correct and you are incorrect. Jesus was a carpenter and since Joseph was also a carpenter he could also be considered the son of a carpenter. Interestingly children were generally apprenticed in the occupation of their fathers, thus another reason Jesus was a carpenter.

 

I'm well aware of what Ukr-Cdn's point was, so your repeating it is just redundant.

 

You can't have it both ways. You point out that it doesn't say a carpenter but the carpenter. Carpenters son is a totally different way of stating it. Interestingly your observation that children where generally apprenticed in the occupation of their fathers is convenient to your view, it doesn't prove jesus was a carpenter. I included that fact in my statement when I said, while he could have been a carpenter it may have by assignment and not enthusiasm.

I don't think you comprehended what I said, or are not considering what I said in your response.

 

Not to me.

 

Yes, I can have it both ways, Jesus can be both a carpenter and a carpenter's son. So when the man said; "This is the carpenter the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, is it not?", he was stating what seemed to be common knowledge that Jesus was a carpenter.

No what we were discussing is your statement that there was nothing that said Jesus was a carpenter and quite plainly there isw a statement that Jesus was a carpenter and not whether Jesus was enthusiastic about it or not.

I fully understand and comprehend, that as usual, you are just trying to weasel out of admitting you were incorrect, when it is plainly pointed out to you.

 

As is usual.

 

Not quite so. The common knowledge derived from the conflicting descriptions, the carpenter, or the carpenters son, is that he was associated with a carpenters family. He could very well be the carpenters son and not be a carpenter himself and as is always the case with hearsay reports from different authors, details can become embellished in the repeating of the story. "The carpenters son" could easily become "the carpenter" in the recounting. I simply feel that you are over reaching in your firm belief that jesus was a carpenter and that I am mistaken in my comments.

And as usual waterbrother you try to limit information to produce the answers that you would like to see. Yes that is one thing we are talking about. And as well i am talking about what we can and cannot know with certainty.
It is true that I had initially only recalled the one version, the carpenters son.
I was surprised by the scripture you pointed out, not because I had never seen it, but because I never conceive of christ as a carpenter, but I have certainly conceived of him coming from a carpenters family. I get a far stronger impression of christs nature from the episode from when he was twelve. He seemed to state at that time that he was a person of recognizable character. We are talking about a period of time 12 to 30 from which there is no documentation, just a little snippet at each end, and therefor, we may fill in the blank according to our instruction. At both ends of that period, jesus himself states that he is a devotee of god, he does not claim for himself the label of carpenter.

You are correct, the passage does say the carpenter, but you are wrong, it is not a statement of fact, but a question, "is this not?" You are supplying the impetus that calls it fact.

You know, perhaps the problem is that you are trying to show me wrong as opposed to trying to expand your understanding. My devotion is to the information, not to whether anyone is right or wrong.

 

I am going back to the original question

Why did God need to Sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

According to the bible, God sent Jesus to earth as the Messiah to esave mankind from Sin and Death. In God's perfect sense of justice there had to be an exchange..Since no man can be born perfect because of inherited sin, Jesus is the only created being who could achieve this because he was perfect and thus thus the perfect sacrifice to God, which gives us the ability to be forgiven because we are sinful, selfish beings. It also gave us the ability to approach God in prayer for help. and , it gives us the opportunity to worship God whole hearted and humble and lastly Jesus ransom sacrifice opened the way for humans to live forever if they become obedient to his teachings and intently trying to learn and do as much as possible in worship of God.