Some info for those who (like me)are confused about Christianity......
Since neither Judaism nor Islam have the false notion of "original sin"---none of these theories makes any sense.....
The Ransom Theory -- God deceitfully bribes and tricks Satan:
This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the "Classic" theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul's death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.
The early church father Origen (185-254 CE) was a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt. He suggested that, as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, Satan had acquired a formal dominion over, and ownership of, all of humanity and the rest of the world. In order to free people from the grip of Satan, God agreed to arrange the death of Yeshua, his son, as a ransom price to be paid to the devil. This would formally compensate for Adam and Eve's sin, and would release humanity from Satan's grip. Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil." 2 Origen believed that Satan accepted the offer because he assumed that he would end up with ownership of Yeshua. The devil didn't realize that Yeshua would escape his clutches. God deceitfully pulled a "bait and switch" operation by resurrecting Yeshua a day and a half after his death on the cross. This left Satan without any reward. Yeshua had escaped Satan's grasp and was reunited with God. Origen concluded that humans can then be reconciled with God if they trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior.
The Satisfaction Theory
The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn't like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn't need to pay him anything for our release.
To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as the need for universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.
Some people still wonder why God didn't just forgive us outright. Another criticism of this theory is that it puts Jesus in the role of a sacrificial lamb. In ancient times lambs and other animals were often sacrificed to pagan gods as a way to appease them. It was thought that the death of an animal could serve as a substitute payment for a person's sins. Similarly, in the Satisfaction Theory, the suffering and death of Jesus serves as a substitute payment for humankind's sins.
The Moral Exemplar Theory
According to this theory, Jesus tried to help us obtain salvation by giving us a perfect moral example of how to live. He hoped that his teachings and his example would inspire us to lift ourselves out of sin and enter into true communion with God.
This theory, which is also called the Moral Influence Theory, is usually attributed to the medieval scholar Peter Abelard. Many Christians have found it attractive and helpful. But some people wonder how it explains the crucifixion, since Jesus could have given us his teachings, and also provided a perfect moral example, without dying on the cross. One possible answer is that his death, though not strictly necessary, helped to draw attention to his life and therefore made his mission more effective.
Unfortunately, many people continue to ignore the example that Jesus set, and still commit immoral acts. Thus, if the purpose of his mission was to inspire everyone to live without sin, so far it hasn't been fully successful.
The Penal-Substitution Theory
The basic idea of this theory is that Jesus suffered and died to take upon himself the punishment that we ourselves deserve. Although God wasn't willing to forgive us outright, he was willing to accept the punishment of Jesus as a substitute for our own punishment. Thus, in this theory Jesus takes the role of an innocent scapegoat who is punished for the sins of others.
On one occasion God punished humankind by sending a flood that killed everyone on the earth except a few people on Noah's boat. But according to the Penal-Substitution theory, when humankind later needed to be punished again, God allowed Jesus to take the punishment for us.
Some of the underlying assumptions of this theory can be found in the letters of Saint Paul. The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century took those assumptions and developed them into the modern form of the theory. In some ways it resembles the Satisfaction Theory, since Jesus' act of taking our punishment for us is basically equivalent to paying our debt for us.
The Penal-Substitution Theory is accepted by many modern Protestants. Most of them also believe that Jesus' sacrifice brought the possibility of forgiveness to everyone, including people who have lived since the crucifixion and people who will be born in the future. This is known as universal atonement. But some Christians believe that Jesus died only for the "elect", a small minority who are predestined to be saved. This is called definite (or limited) atonement.
The Governmental Theory
According to this theory, God acts as a governor (or overseer) of all life on the earth. But he became very displeased with the way people were behaving, and he wanted to show us that we deserve severe punishment. To demonstrate just how severe, he sent Jesus to suffer and die.
Thus, the crucifixion was meant to be a demonstration of the punishment that we all deserve. By giving us this demonstration, God hoped that we would realize the seriousness of our sins and reform ourselves. He could have actually punished us, and would have been justified in doing so, but decided to merely give us a warning, and let us have another chance.
One problem with this theory is the fact that many people have lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus or the crucifixion, and therefore were never aware of God's warning. And even now, many people who are aware of it appear to disregard it.
The Christus Victor Theory
In 1931 Gustaf Aulen published the book Christus Victor, in which he argued that Jesus came to earth to defeat the evil forces that had gained control over us. To win our salvation, Jesus needed to overcome both Satan and death. The name Christus Victor, which means "Christ the Victor", refers to his successful accomplishment of this task.
In some ways this theory is similar to the Ransom Theory, for it assumes that humankind had come under the control of the Devil after the sins of Adam and Eve caused God to abandon us. But in this theory, instead of God paying Satan a ransom for our release, Jesus freed us by directly defeating the Evil One. And his resurrection proved that death can also be conquered.
In his book Aulen argues that this was the original belief of the earliest Christians. It is also the basic belief of many modern Eastern Orthodox Christians, and in recent years it has become popular among some evangelical Christians.
Thanks Woodrow---Yr explanation is easier on both the eyes and the mind than the confusing bulk I posted.....