Whats the purpose behind Jesus being crucified?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Which is the best way to start.

Starting fine. Repeating ad nausea when it doesn't actually answer the question, not fine (not saying you did this, but it happens and it is confusing and it leads to frustration).

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats fine, so the best thing is to explain Godly justice, and then expand on it. I think we kind of agree. I would say that Godly justice needs to be explained first, as a root. From there, the concept of substitution explained. Maybe some Christians have only given the first part. I still don't see any purpose in the introduction of ancient cultures though, but we can agree to disagree on that.

The ancient cultures is simply something that grounds it, pointing out that there are different systems of justice than the ones we currently use.

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, the OP asked 'What was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice'? Not how it worked.

Yeah but it is hard to explain the purpose if you don't understand how it worked.

Saying the purpose was to pay our debt to God doesn't make sense if you are unfamiliar with any system that a 3rd party can pay for someone elses crimes. It just comes across as nonsensical.

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree, someone got frustrated that someone didn't say, 'God made up a rule'.

Well yes, that is the point. God made up the rule is the answer. It is God's system of justice, not ours, so appealing to our systems of justice, which is what most people do when they first approach the Crucifixion, will lead to flawed understanding.

Appealing to "justice" without first explaining this is pointless as you are talking about two different things. It is like trying to explain the crowning of a king to someone only used to a democratic countries without first explaining what the heck a monarchy is.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, that is the point. God made up the rule is the answer.
.

Meh. Whatever floats yer boat.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Meh. Whatever floats yer boat.

Lucy Pinder, but that is some what off topic

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Lucy Pinder, but that is some what off topic

<eyes going from side to side>

Who??


(Not sure if you get this SouthPark reference)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Same difference. No modern justice system uses a system like this, so it can be confusing and alien to someone coming to it and trying to figure it out. It was a common justice system in ancient times, and as such you don't actually have to go near "Godly justice" to understand it (ie an atheist), simply look at how ancient justice systems worked and it becomes a lot easier to understand.

Can someone else pay your fine today?

wolfsbane

krudler wrote: »

Isnt it god who determines what a sin is? so by that logic he sent himself to die for us, who he created with sin to begin with, in order to save us from something he invented? isnt that a bafflingly complicated way of doing things?

God did not invent sin. So His paying the just penalty on our behalf is not at all baffling as regards to our need. It is very baffling as regards to our deserts - how could a holy God demean Himself to take on the nature of His creature, and then accept the blame and punishment that was due them? Amazing grace indeed!

janeeen

In a nut shell as i believe it.
Satan tricked Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge .

(gen34 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.")

Eve took some fruit back to Adam and he ate the fruit too. The first sin.
Adam was a perfect man created directly by God so, the only ransom God could pay was with another perfect man Jesus Christ.
Why pay a ransom if your God? Why did God not start again from the beginning?
God is just and loving he made and gave this land (earth) to man.
He would not take it back and start again.

2 peter39The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Adams sin was passed on to all future generations until the ransom was payed through the crucification of Jesus Christ.

Just a point about something sort of unrelated to this topic.
Some christens will say that the account about Adam and Eve was symbolic and never really happened.If this were the case there would be no need for Jesus to have been born on earth or die for our sins.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can someone else pay your fine today?

Yes, though that is more a loop hole because the courts don't have the right to stop you from giving me money, for what ever reason, than a principle of substitution. Technically you have given me money that I then use to pay the fine out of my own pocket.

I can't serve your jail sentence, blaming me and punishing me for something you did would be considered pointless by modern justice systems. Say you rape a woman and get caught. You stand trail and are found guilty of this crime. I then offer to take the blame for this crime and to face your punishment, say 10 years in jail, and you are released and set free. No justice system in the world operates on such a principle.

Slav

To make things even more confusing I can add that the view on Atonement outlined in this thread (the Satisfaction Doctrine/Penal Substitution) is not held universally by all Christians. In fact it can only be attributed to the Western Christianity.

In East such a view has never been developed or accepted. When it became known to the East it was rejected as being too legalistic and too simplistic. It's funny but one way of summarising the Eastern view on Atonement might look as a precise contradiction to Penal Substitution (and even to sola fide to a certain extent): Christ did not do the works on His Cross so we don't have to do them; He did it so we would have the power to do our works, the power to love, the power to die and the power to resurrect.

Fr. Thomas Hopko gives a good overview on how the Cross is understood by East: Understanding the Cross of Christ - a brief (by Fr. Thomas standards - about 1 hour) introduction on the subject. For a longer version I can highly recommend his lecture The Death of Christ and Our Death in Him - Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 where he also addresses some other topics relevant to this thread like why Jesus had to die, why it was cross, etc.

gbee

Not necessarily factual. Don't forget that the the Roman Church was reformed and the notion of the crucifixion was born as well as other changes like Mary Magdalene.

Prior to that time the Christ Figure did not embrace the Cross and Christ's death was not the great pageant that it has been made.

Around the time of our Christ there was an execution of a Jesus, it warranted one line in the diary. Now, commonly at this time and place petty criminals would be tied to trees and the guards retired in the evening. Many criminals would still be alive and would be taken away by their followers.

Those that had died would simply be thrown into the municipal dump unceremoniously. Now this fate befalling our Lord was not considered a fitting end in the middle ages and certainly the possibility that he had not in fact died was also unthinkable.

So the story that we have has been heavily embellished to dispel any doubt and any possibility for confusion.

However, new and ongoing discoveries are raising questions and doubts as to the actual events and some scholars believe that Our Lord did survive his ordeal and continued to teach to multitudes well into old age.

The Romans, forming the Roman Catholic Church 300 odd years later, did so based on the popularity of Chirst and the large crowds he drew.

PDN

gbee wrote: »

Not necessarily factual. Don't forget that the the Roman Church was reformed and the notion of the crucifixion was born as well as other changes like Mary Magdalene.

Prior to that time the Christ Figure did not embrace the Cross and Christ's death was not the great pageant that it has been made.

Around the time of our Christ there was an execution of a Jesus, it warranted one line in the diary. Now, commonly at this time and place petty criminals would be tied to trees and the guards retired in the evening. Many criminals would still be alive and would be taken away by their followers.

Those that had died would simply be thrown into the municipal dump unceremoniously. Now this fate befalling our Lord was not considered a fitting end in the middle ages and certainly the possibility that he had not in fact died was also unthinkable.

So the story that we have has been heavily embellished to dispel any doubt and any possibility for confusion.

However, new and ongoing discoveries are raising questions and doubts as to the actual events and some scholars believe that Our Lord did survive his ordeal and continued to teach to multitudes well into old age.

The Romans, forming the Roman Catholic Church 300 odd years later, did so based on the popularity of Chirst and the large crowds he drew.

Actually we know that the New Testament records the crucifixon of Christ long before any'reforming' that happened in Rome 300 years later. Also, the crucifixion was taught in versions of Christianity that never came under Rome.

We also have good historical knowledge of how the Romans executed people. Amazingly enough, they didn't rely on tying people to a tree for a day and hoping that they might drop dead.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, though that is more a loop hole because the courts don't have the right to stop you from giving me money, for what ever reason, than a principle of substitution. Technically you have given me money that I then use to pay the fine out of my own pocket.

I can't serve your jail sentence, blaming me and punishing me for something you did would be considered pointless by modern justice systems. Say you rape a woman and get caught. You stand trail and are found guilty of this crime. I then offer to take the blame for this crime and to face your punishment, say 10 years in jail, and you are released and set free. No justice system in the world operates on such a principle.

But since God is the offended party, He gets to decide how His justice will be met. Human law is but, at best, a subordinate function of His law.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

To make things even more confusing I can add that the view on Atonement outlined in this thread (the Satisfaction Doctrine/Penal Substitution) is not held universally by all Christians. In fact it can only be attributed to the Western Christianity.

In East such a view has never been developed or accepted. When it became known to the East it was rejected as being too legalistic and too simplistic. It's funny but one way of summarising the Eastern view on Atonement might look as a precise contradiction to Penal Substitution (and even to sola fide to a certain extent): Christ did not do the works on His Cross so we don't have to do them; He did it so we would have the power to do our works, the power to love, the power to die and the power to resurrect.

Fr. Thomas Hopko gives a good overview on how the Cross is understood by East: Understanding the Cross of Christ - a brief (by Fr. Thomas standards - about 1 hour) introduction on the subject. For a longer version I can highly recommend his lecture The Death of Christ and Our Death in Him - Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 where he also addresses some other topics relevant to this thread like why Jesus had to die, why it was cross, etc.

A gospel of works, it seems.

But let me ask you what such an atonement did for the sins already committed? If I can now do all the good works I need to do to get to heaven, what about the sins I have committed? Does the God of Eastern Orthodoxy just ignore them? If not, who pays for them?

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

A gospel of works, it seems.

No. The gospel of kenosis and theosis if you like.

But let me ask you what such an atonement did for the sins already committed? If I can now do all the good works I need to do to get to heaven, what about the sins I have committed? Does the God of Eastern Orthodoxy just ignore them? If not, who pays for them?

The way you phrased the question suggests that you did not understand what it's all about I think. The categories you operate with in your question just don't make sense in this atonement theory so I don't think I can answer it.

For a start, there is no before and after; the sins committed are no different from the sins being committed and from the sins which will be committed. Second, there is no heaven, there is Kingdom of God. Third, you don't pay you works for a pass there. Forth and the most relevant to the context of this thread, there is no need to pay penalties for the sins at least in term of our human justice: it'a a 100% non-juridical atonement, that was the point.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

No. The gospel of kenosis and theosis if you like.

The way you phrased the question suggests that you did not understand what it's all about I think. The categories you operate with in your question just don't make sense in this atonement theory so I don't think I can answer it.

For a start, there is no before and after; the sins committed are no different from the sins being committed and from the sins which will be committed. Second, there is no heaven, there is Kingdom of God. Third, you don't pay you works for a pass there. Forth and the most relevant to the context of this thread, there is no need to pay penalties for the sins at least in term of our human justice: it'a a 100% non-juridical atonement, that was the point.

OK, let me rephrase it.
1. What does God do about the offences we commit against Him? Ignore them? Punish us? Punish another? Or what?

2. Was Christ punished for His people's sins? Was their guilt laid on Him and did He bare the punishment that was their due?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But since God is the offended party, He gets to decide how His justice will be met. Human law is but, at best, a subordinate function of His law.

Ok, but that isn't relevant to my point. We don't have a justice system where the offended party decides how justice will be met either.

I'm not arguing anything about whether or not all this stuff is true.

My point is simply that it can be quite difficult for people to understand in modern times because we no longer have justice systems that work on similar principles. There is no human modern equivalent in terms of justice to what the crucification was. Simply saying then to people asking about it that it is all about justice is some what confusing and pointless, since to them this most likely doesn't look like justice, because it doesn't look like any justice system we operate.

You have to explain that it is God's concept of justice, which if you are a believer is the highest concept of justice. Explain this notion of justice first, then the crucification makes sense.

StormWarrior

wolfsbane wrote: »

They could not of themselves stop being sinners

If humans are unable to stop sinning, then we have no choice in the matter. How then are we responsible for our sins and why should we pay for them?

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, let me rephrase it.

Christos anesti, wolfsbane!

The rephrasing did not help much I'm afraid. I'll try my best anyway.

What does God do about the offences we commit against Him?

First of all, we need to define what is offence. We are not on a par with God and therefore we are not capable to really offend Him. For example, if your toddler child is not behaving are you really offended by this? I guess you can be upset and you can be worried about him but hardly be offended by such a young fella. You just show him that you are not happy with that sort of behaviour; your reason for doing so is because you know that the consequences can be harmful for him now or potentially in the future but not because you are offended. On the other hand, from the child's point of view he might feel that he did offend you.

Ignore them? Punish us? Punish another? Or what?

Neither. He does not deal with the consequences of sin at all as it's pointless. Instead He deals with the source of the sin: he "fixes" us. Through Incarnation and Cross.

Was their guilt laid on Him and did He bare the punishment that was their due?

He did not bare the punishment in juridical sense. Another example (I think I've already gave it in some other thread): kids knew that they should not play with matches but one day their father when returning home found the house on fire. He rushed in trying to save the kids, helped them escape from there but died himself in the fire. Can we say that he bore the punishment which was due to the kids? In a certain way I guess we can use such an analogy but not in a sense of punishment = penalty.

PDN

StormWarrior wrote: »

If humans paedophiles are unable to stop sinning abusing children, then we they have no choice in the matter. How then are we they responsible for our sins their crimes and why should we they pay for them?

Doesn't sound such a reasonable argument now, does it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Doesn't sound such a reasonable argument now, does it?

A pedophile can not/stop abusing children. The ones that do should be removed from where they can harm and the ones that don't should be left alone.

It seems to be a common Christian belief, held by yourself if I remember, that a human cannot help but sin, that it is impossible for a person to not sin.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

A pedophile can not/stop abusing children. The ones that do should be removed from where they can harm and the ones that don't should be left alone.

It seems to be a common Christian belief, held by yourself if I remember, that a human cannot help but sin, that it is impossible for a person to not sin.

But we still choose to sin.

Are you seriously going to argue, Wicknight, that anything you have done in your life that was contrary to Christian morality was a case of you being forced against your will?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But we still choose to sin.

Well that is the issue though isn't it, can you go through your life and not sin? Is that possible?

To say you have a choice but you will at some point pick to sin because of your nature calls into question if you have an actual choice.

PDN wrote: »

Are you seriously going to argue, Wicknight, that anything you have done in your life that was contrary to Christian morality was a case of you being forced against your will?

No, but then I don't believe in the Fall and original sin or my sinful nature

StormWarrior

But the people who don't believe that the Christian god is real, maybe they don't believe that the things considered sins by Christians, are actually sins? If an atheist chooses to have pre-marital sex for instance, I don't think they say, "Well, this is a sin, but I choose to do it anyway." They aren't being forced to do it, they just don't believe that it's wrong.

As for the paedophile thing, if the paedophile was genuinely unable to stop abusing children the way you believe humans are unable to stop sinning, or the way a bulimic is unable to stop binge eating, then I don't think they are responsible. Maybe the paedophile doesn't even think they are doing anything wrong, after all it is just mainstream society's current belief that paedophilia is wrong, societies in the past have disagreed.

wolfsbane

StormWarrior wrote: »

If humans are unable to stop sinning, then we have no choice in the matter. How then are we responsible for our sins and why should we pay for them?

God does not tell us how we are so related to Adam that his sinful nature is ours and we are as guilty as he. Just that it is.

But it is indisputable that we are naturally rebels against God. We are conscious that evil is in us and we are naturally happy to have it so.

StormWarrior

I'm not conscious that evil is in me, I don't even believe that such a thing as evil exists. And I don't rebel against god, as I don't believe that it exists.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

God does not tell us how we are so related to Adam that his sinful nature is ours and we are as guilty as he. Just that it is.

But it is indisputable that we are naturally rebels against God. We are conscious that evil is in us and we are naturally happy to have it so.

But do we choose to be happy about it? Or is that just the way we are?

And if that is just the way we are, why are we this way?

Soul Winner

Danye wrote: »

Hi hows it going?

I just have a question that I have been thinking about..what was the purpose of Jesus being crucified? Would of it not been better If he had of stayed alive and changed the world?

He did stay alive and did change the world

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But do we choose to be happy about it? Or is that just the way we are?

And if that is just the way we are, why are we this way?

We choose to be happy about it because that is how we are.

We are this way because Adam sinned and his fallen nature passed on to us.

wolfsbane

Slav said:

Quote:
What does God do about the offences we commit against Him?
First of all, we need to define what is offence. We are not on a par with God and therefore we are not capable to really offend Him. For example, if your toddler child is not behaving are you really offended by this? I guess you can be upset and you can be worried about him but hardly be offended by such a young fella. You just show him that you are not happy with that sort of behaviour; your reason for doing so is because you know that the consequences can be harmful for him now or potentially in the future but not because you are offended. On the other hand, from the child's point of view he might feel that he did offend you.

An interesting speculation - but not one the Bible teaches:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Romans 2:8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

Ephesians 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

God is really offended by sin - because He is infinitely holy. Sin is not a morally neutral foolish action - it is evil. We just take too light a view of it.

Quote:
Ignore them? Punish us? Punish another? Or what?
Neither. He does not deal with the consequences of sin at all as it's pointless. Instead He deals with the source of the sin: he "fixes" us. Through Incarnation and Cross.

He does indeed 'fix' us. He gives us new natures, makes us new creations. But He also punishes man's sins:
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

Quote:
Was their guilt laid on Him and did He bare the punishment that was their due?
He did not bare the punishment in juridical sense. Another example (I think I've already gave it in some other thread): kids knew that they should not play with matches but one day their father when returning home found the house on fire. He rushed in trying to save the kids, helped them escape from there but died himself in the fire. Can we say that he bore the punishment which was due to the kids? In a certain way I guess we can use such an analogy but not in a sense of punishment = penalty.

So Christ was killed when He came to save us, but His death was not as the Lamb of God, offered in substitution for His people? What then does this mean? -
1 Peter 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. cp.
Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all...

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),

Christ being made sin for us tells us just how infinitely angry God is against sin, and how infinitely He loves us.

wolfsbane

StormWarrior wrote: »

I'm not conscious that evil is in me, I don't even believe that such a thing as evil exists. And I don't rebel against god, as I don't believe that it exists.

What do you term the rape of children? Is it just an offence against the criminal code? If the code changed, would it be OK?

Your unbelief is an act of rebellion, for nature and conscience both confirm the existence of God to your heart/mind.

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

An interesting speculation

It's not speculation. It's just the way the Greeks and the Semites always (as far back as we have records for) understood the Gospel compared to a modern understanding of the West.

but not one the Bible teaches

It's certainly not as per your interpretation of the books. But that is exactly what the Bible teaches according to those ancient Greeks and Semites understanding of the Bible.

God is really offended by sin - because He is infinitely holy.

Purely from a logical point of view I've never understood it to be honest.

Sin is not a morally neutral foolish action - it is evil. We just take too light a view of it.

Who?

He does indeed 'fix' us. He gives us new natures, makes us new creations. But He also punishes man's sins:
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

Romans 2:5-9 is more about the final judgement which is a slightly different story. But still it's understood not as a punishment of sinners only just because they deserve it according to some law. God's wrath is against Satan and sin, not the sinners. As we have seen He loves sinners, He loves them all and His love is unbounded and unconditional. However those who's attached to God and His works (Rom 2:7) will enjoy what God enjoys but those who's attached to sin and Satan and his works (Rom 2:8) will suffer together with him in the lake of fire. It's not a punishment as such, it's just a warning about how things work. Speaking the language of law, the prosecution is against Satan but humans could voluntary choose to become his accomplices in that trial and follow him in his sentence: a place where God does not want to see any of them.

So Christ was killed when He came to save us, but His death was not as the Lamb of God, offered in substitution for His people?

Not sure how did you came to that conclusion...

As for the substitution part, most certainly we can call it a substitution in the same sense as a sacrifice in the Temple was a substitution for a human sin. However it would be completely wrong to think of Temple sacrifices strictly in juridical terms, e.g. OK, I sinned and offended God, I have to be punished for that but I'll bring an animal to the Temple for the burnt offering and that would settle it. As we know from the Bible the ancient Jews knew perfectly well what would be a more appropriate sacrifice. They were God's people not pagans.

What then does this mean? -
1 Peter 2:24 ...
Isaiah 53 ...
2 Corinthians 5:21 ...
Galatians 3:13 ...

Exactly what it says provided we don't understand Temple sacrifices too simplistically.

Christ being made sin for us tells us just how infinitely angry God is against sin, and how infinitely He loves us.

Angry against sin but infinitely loves us the sinners? Yes, that would be an acceptable summary if we don't assume by God's anger what we normally think about human anger.

The only thing I'm not too sure about is how infinite that anger is (neither agree nor disagree really; just don't know). Is it biblical?

wolfsbane

Slav said:

It's not speculation. It's just the way the Greeks and the Semites always (as far back as we have records for) understood the Gospel compared to a modern understanding of the West.

'Modern' understanding? Justin Martyr said, 'The Father of all wished his Christ for the whole human family to take upon him the curses of all, knowing that, after he had been crucified and was dead, he would raise him up.’

Eusebius said Christ,'received death for us and transferred to himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us'

But it is true one cannot rely on the Fathers for all truth. The leaven of error was in the churches from the beginning, and many serious - and even fatal - errors arose quickly. But we have the word of God and His Spirit to guide us, so we need not appeal to men. We test men's opinions against the Word.

The issue then is, What does the Word say about Christ bearing our sins in His own body on the tree?

Quote:
but not one the Bible teaches
It's certainly not as per your interpretation of the books. But that is exactly what the Bible teaches according to those ancient Greeks and Semites understanding of the Bible.

As above.

Quote:
God is really offended by sin - because He is infinitely holy.
Purely from a logical point of view I've never understood it to be honest.

It seems perfectly logical to me - but the crucial thing is, What does God say about His attitude toward sin and sinners?
Wrath:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Revelation 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Vengeance:
2 Thessalonians 1:7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Quote:
Sin is not a morally neutral foolish action - it is evil. We just take too light a view of it.
Who?

All of us to some extent, but especially those of us who regard it as a childish folly rather than from the Pit itself.

Romans 2:5-9 is more about the final judgement which is a slightly different story. But still it's understood not as a punishment of sinners only just because they deserve it according to some law. God's wrath is against Satan and sin, not the sinners. As we have seen He loves sinners, He loves them all and His love is unbounded and unconditional. However those who's attached to God and His works (Rom 2:7) will enjoy what God enjoys but those who's attached to sin and Satan and his works (Rom 2:8) will suffer together with him in the lake of fire. It's not a punishment as such, it's just a warning about how things work. Speaking the language of law, the prosecution is against Satan but humans could voluntary choose to become his accomplices in that trial and follow him in his sentence: a place where God does not want to see any of them.

The Bible describes it as God's vengeance against the wicked. They are responsible for their sins and God holds the person to account. He punishes the person for their sin. His wrath is upon the person. The person receives the same sort of punishment God prepared for Satan and his angels. It is not just against the latter, but all who rebel against him and refuse to repent.

Quote:
So Christ was killed when He came to save us, but His death was not as the Lamb of God, offered in substitution for His people?
Not sure how did you came to that conclusion...

Because you deny He was punished in our place.

As for the substitution part, most certainly we can call it a substitution in the same sense as a sacrifice in the Temple was a substitution for a human sin. However it would be completely wrong to think of Temple sacrifices strictly in juridical terms, e.g. OK, I sinned and offended God, I have to be punished for that but I'll bring an animal to the Temple for the burnt offering and that would settle it. As we know from the Bible the ancient Jews knew perfectly well what would be a more appropriate sacrifice. They were God's people not pagans.

The OT sacrifices were a type of the one true sacrifice to atone for sins. They did not actually remove the guilt. Only Christ could do that, by bearing the sins of His people Himself.

Quote:
What then does this mean? -
1 Peter 2:24 ...
Isaiah 53 ...
2 Corinthians 5:21 ...
Galatians 3:13 ...
Exactly what it says provided we don't understand Temple sacrifices too simplistically.

What it says is the wrath that was due to the sinner was laid on Christ instead.

Quote:
Christ being made sin for us tells us just how infinitely angry God is against sin, and how infinitely He loves us.
Angry against sin but infinitely loves us the sinners? Yes, that would be an acceptable summary if we don't assume by God's anger what we normally think about human anger.

God's anger is perfectly holy and just, whereas ours is somewhat less than that.

The only thing I'm not too sure about is how infinite that anger is (neither agree nor disagree really; just don't know). Is it biblical?

Angry enough to cause His Son to cry out, My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me? Angry enough to cast the sinner into the lake of fire for eternity.

Ephesians5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.