Jesus had authority and power to forgive sin before the cross. So getting that power can't be the reason God told him to allow men to kill him on a cross.On a side note, I would like to point out an inconsistency. in another thread you pointed out that you hold to Penal Atonement. If you are worried here about how you believe Non OSAS portrays God, why aren't you worried about how Penal Atonement portrays God? The bible says that God will forgive sins. Penal Atonement holds that God requires justice and that sin must be "paid" for. A debt paid is not forgiven. It further holds that God had His own Son die on the cross to satisfy His wrath. Personally, I find that reprehensible. Under this doctrine God promises to forgive sins, but in reality doesn't. Instead, He requires the death of HIs own Son to satisfy His wrath and "Pay" the price for sinners. How does that doctrine portray God? First a liar, sins aren't forgiven, they're paid for. Then killing His own Son. Let me ask you this, if there was a guy on the news who murdered his son because his daughter misbehaved, would expect him to be honorable to his neighbor? If God would lie and kill His own Son simply to satisfy His wrath, why would you expect Him to honor anyone's salvation?
Now Jesus said after the cross.. all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me"
Given that he could forgive sin before, what power did he gain after?
Thanks for bringing up these matters, they are worthy of a discussion elsewhere, you're the first person I have met to bring up this problem with God's wrath poured out on his son... Which as you point out doesn't make any sense. (Seems no one dare bring this up in churches, as it's just accepted as true.