How can an innocent man die for the sins of the world if everyone reaps what they sow?

Question

According to a book titled "The Project", he can't. In its sci-fi type story, it shows that the redeemer of mankind was originally its creator, and also the one who caused original sin. By treating humans the way he did, with violence and brutality , he caused them to be sinful: which also made him obligated to eventually die for all those sins. Acting like a pompous, self-serving tyrant in the Old Testament, he set a terrible example for humans to follow. Later, when he came to earth to undo all this, his efforts met with limited success. No one in the book is referred by an actual Bible name, but it's not that hard to figure out who's being spoken of. If you find this concept fascinating, or even outrageous, you should check it out by going to iuniverse.com and reading the book's first chapter. Just type in the author's name, James Joseph, and you'll be taken directly to where you can read it.

Answer 1

LOL are you trying to force your petty morality on a diety?

Answer 2

I'd like to clear this up. The Almighty creator of us all, including Jesus Collosians 1:
when he made spirit creatures gave them free will. Satan chose the wrong way. That was his decision. There was nothing wrong with the way he was made.
Adam was a perfect man given free will, his chose was to sin.
Eve's chose was to sin.
The earth and everything in it was perfect.
those laws were to lead us to christ. To emphasis the nature of how bad those sins were in gods eyes. Deserving of death.
Talk to a women who just found out her dear husband of 20 years is having an affair. She would gladly see this women stoned to death. The only comfort is to know that God understands how bad that is. The law was to tell them they would die and never be back. The wages of sin is death.
Those who were obedient will be resurrected in the last day.
To eternal life in a paradise earth. Some chose to die for the pleasures of this life. That is not God's fault.

Answer 3

James Joseph is just a man with wierd ideas of his own. What are you doing giving credence to a Science Fiction book anyway?

Stay away from the Wizard of Oz - because if you take fiction as fact, then this book will REALLY mess you up.

Avoid man made garbage and stick with the Bible.

Answer 4

It makes more sense than what people are presently believing. Look at the way god is portrayed in the Hebrew and then the Greek scriptures, Sounds like 2 different people to me, or maybe he's schitzophrenic.

All I know is someone innocent person dying because some other person sinned makes no sense to me.

Answer 5

The Creator did not "cause" original sin; original sin was "caused" by Adam & Eve's free will. Yes, God gave them free will, but they used that free will to make a choice: to sin or not to sin. They chose to sin. By doing so, they became responsible for the sin. An innocent man died for the sins of the world because he loves us so much, he couldn't bear the possibility of being without us for all eternity.

Answer 6

Supposedly, Jesus died to alleviate the original sin of Adam and Eve (not the sins of Jesus himself) that all humans were accountable for (up until Jesus died). Not, your current life sins (reaping you sow). So, there is no contradiction, here. But, good question. Hope this answer helps.

Answer 7

OK, put the book down. Back away, slowly.
Now, go take a valium, eat some chocolate, and pick up a Harry Potter book.
You'll feel better.

Answer 8

Jesus when down to death and took the key from his in order that we who believe will not see hell
when we die, only to go toward the light of God

Answer 9

In answer to your question, because we cannot save ourselves. That's why God sent Jesus, to provide a way out for our sins.

Answer 10

You need to back up a few steps and look at the idea of sin for a while.

Jesus could not have died for something that never existed.

Sin, the idea that God could ever be displeased with you because of something you had done, did not exist when Jesus died, nor does it exist now.

This is a fictitious idea dreamed up to induce guilt and control people.

The moment you start to actually think about this impossible definition of sin the whole concept falls apart and you wonder how you could had ever believed it at all.

Try it, think about the idea from a basis of logic and it quickly becomes apparent that the idea only exists in the minds of those who believe it is real.

Let me assist you a little. Let’s start with the word itself. Where did this word sin come from? In England when archery was practiced as a sport the goal was to try to hit the center of a target. When you actually try to do this you quickly realize just how difficult it is to consistently hit the exact center of the target, or the mark as it was called then. This mark in the center of the target is an elusive goal for even the best archers due to the many variables like, Wind, distance, angle, etc. So they often miss the mark they were hoping to hit. They had a term for this missing the mark; it was called a syn or sin as it is spelled these days. Often the wind would blow an arrow that had been shot with the best of intentions, so far off course that it completely missed the mark it was aimed for. Seeing this a companion might look at the archer with a smile and say that was a syn. Meaning, you missed the mark, you had better try again. At this point he would simply string another arrow, make the necessary corrections to compensate for the wind and try again. This process would continue until he eventually got it right and hit the mark.

What does this have to do with the reality of sin you ask? Remember that you are reading an English bible, a bible that was translated from some other language. When this translation was done English words needed to be found that had a meaning as close as possible to the meaning of the words the bible had used in the other language. Remember the goal of any good translation is to be as faithful as is possible in transferring the original meaning of the work. The English term syn was the word that most completely did this job of transferring the original idea of sin from the original text. In the original biblical intent, sin was not something that God was displeased with you about. It meant that you had tried but your choice was not the best you could have made, you needed to make the necessary corrections and try over.

This is what life is about. Situations confront us on a daily basis, each requiring some response from us. We may chose to respond in one of two ways. We assess the situation and respond from either a basis of love or from a basis of fear. When we respond from our fears we invariably respond in an unloving manner. This unloving response always creates even more negativity. On the other hand if we respond from a basis of love to the situation, it has a calming effect for all who are involved. It may not completely resolve the situation but it never makes things any worse. Through out life each of us alternately chooses both loving and unloving responses as our responses to the situations we are confronted with. The hope being that at some point we will start to notice that one of these strategies creates more chaos, while the other causes chaos to dissipate. This was Gods intent in allowing us to have this experience we call our life. This is why the endless variety of situations and possible responses to these situations confront us on a daily basis. We are expected to experiment with the numerous possible ways to respond and come to our own conclusions about which types of responses best serve our goals.

Most of us quickly realize that we prefer a peaceful calm existence to one of constant turmoil. If we are paying attention to the responses we have been making to the situations we have been confronted with we will notice that some of them, the ones made from a basis of fear intensify chaotic situations. Much like throwing gasoline on a fire would do. While the responses we make from a basis of love have an opposite quelling or calming effect.





It is from these types of observations that our source intended for us to draw conclusions about the value of a loving response. The hope being that at some point we might realize that the only logical response to any situation would be a loving response. Jesus taught this but much of his teaching about it has been lost to time. One need only consider his simple request that we love our neighbor, to see that he saw this as crucial for our spiritual development. Listen carefully to what he was saying to us. Notice that there was no except for in his advice about this matter. He fully intended to advise us to respond lovingly to everyone in every situation. He was telling us to suspend judgment and fear and make no response that could increase the turmoil in any way. This was what he meant when he said turn the other cheek. The intent was to ask us to ignore the inclination to defend ones self in a violent unloving way, and see what would happen if we made some other choice. Sadly these messages Jesus had for us are almost never connected and taught in the proper context.

If you have been able to follow this idea so far you can understand that It makes perfect sense that we always seem to be experiencing situations that test our resolve so to speak. They could more honestly be seen as Gods gifts to us. Gifts from our source sent to us lovingly in the hope that they will assist us in our spiritual growth. Many of us who have wondered why it had to be so hard sometimes, might have understood better if we had realized that simplicity is not really the best teacher. It is the more stress filled situations that life presents us with that get and keep our attention and burn the lessons they have for us into our memories.

The point of all of this is to realize that this was Gods intent from the very beginning. He always intended that we would experiment with as many of the possible responses to the situations that confront as we needed until we reached the conclusion that the only logical response to any situation would be a loving response. The realization that any other response would only create more turmoil. In short we were to learn this lesson from both perspectives. He wanted us to understand what love was to be sure, but He wanted us to be equally certain about everything that was not love. This way there can be no confusion.

The question now becomes, if this was always Gods intent how likely is it that God will be angry with us for using the mechanism He himself provided for us to use to attain this understanding. How likely are we to be judged or punished for doing exactly what we were always intended to do?

I realize that this probably goes against every idea of God that you were ever given. This can be a clue for you if you actually hear what I just said. All the ideas you have about God were given to you by someone else. The one who gave them to you got then from someone else also. Realize that few ever really analyze what they have been told about God, they simply accept it because they are usually children when these ideas are first presented to then. They are often presented to them by people they trust so they are simply accepted as fact. Problem is the people they are hearing them from also were children when these ideas were first presented to them. No one is actually analyzing these ideas from a logical basis from an adult perspective. This may be the first time you have even ever considered any idea about God other than the Judgmental, punishing idea you were given as a child.

I am not asking you to abandon any belief system. I am just asking that you consider the possibility of a God that loves you and sees the effort you make toward being a loving person in an accepting, understanding way. A God who is far more interested in our successes, than concerned with our mistakes. A god who asks only that you pay attention to the consequences of the choices you make and correct any errors at the next available opportunity. One of these versions of God makes a lot more sense to me. How about you?