If Jesus took the just punishment for our sins

[Marcus_Red]

Careful. All are created in the image and likeness of God. A child is human, same as a beggar, same as a chairman. They are all equal in the eyes of God. Do not arbitrarily place worth on who you think has more.

You misunderstand me. I am rejecting Yours Truly’s assertion, that the degree of offence is proportional to the greatness of the one offended, by a reductio ad absurdum.

It is axiomatic, in my view, that all human beings are of equal worth.

Cheers,

Marcus

 

[Marcus_Red]

An atheist friend once told me, “If your God exists, I’d spit in His face.”

If God exists, it could well be that he is not the God depicted in the Bible, maybe he is the one depicted in the Koran, or maybe his name is Ahura Mazda. Your atheist friend was premature in his anger, Ahura Mazda is actually quite decent, by all accounts.

Regarding your point, unless you can begin to appreciate the humble deprivation God experienced by taking human form, beyond, as you put it, “A beating, a few hours on the cross, a couple days dead then back to heaven for tea and cookies”, then the Christian Faith will be and elusive puzzle.

I can understand a human King or Emperor finding the humiliation difficult to cope with (Tsar Nicholas II and his family come to mind), but I wouldn’t imagine that an all-powerful God would be particularly bothered, especially as he would be in complete control the whole time (unlike the ex-Tsar).

I am not comparing the suffering of someone being crucified with my own suffering, but with the suffering of people who have endured far more … taking two or more days to die on a cross and then staying dead might be worse (after Spartacus’ rebellion the Romans crucified thousands and lined the Via Appia with crosses, no tea and cookies for them). Did Jesus ever suffer from kidney stones? They last more than a couple of hours.

Your posts suggest that you rely entirely on intellect, so your understanding will be insufficient unless you engage your spirit and accept, by faith, that there are profound truths that your mind will never understand through pure intellect.

I rely on experience, not intellect. If I find that reality differs from how I expected it to be then I conclude that I was wrong. This happens often.

So, your flippant references to the crucifixion are, frankly, insulting and evidence of a profound ignorance with respect to understanding the basics of the Christian Faith.

On the contrary, your magnification of the sufferings of Jesus are insulting to all the actual real people who have sufferred far more.

Are you really interested in answers or simply making sport?

I am interested in dialogue, and in understanding your position.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[JimO]

If God exists, it could well be that he is not the God depicted in the Bible, maybe he is the one depicted in the Koran, or maybe his name is Ahura Mazda. Your atheist friend was premature in his anger, Ahura Mazda is actually quite decent, by all accounts.

Well, if you refuse to accept the evidence that is available, then anything is possible, especially if the evidence is filtered through your own understanding.

I can understand (emphasis added) a human King or Emperor finding the humiliation difficult to cope with (Tsar Nicholas II and his family come to mind), but I wouldn’t imagine that an all-powerful God would be particularly bothered, especially as he would be in complete control the whole time (unlike the ex-Tsar).

The problem is that you appear to be limited by your own understanding. It’s all about what you think is true and your experience. You leave no room for the understanding or experience of others.

I am not comparing the suffering of someone being crucified with my own suffering, but with the suffering of people who have endured far more … taking two or more days to die on a cross and then staying dead might be worse (after Spartacus’ rebellion the Romans crucified thousands and lined the Via Appia with crosses, no tea and cookies for them). Did Jesus ever suffer from kidney stones? They last more than a couple of hours.

How can you event comment on the suffering of others? Can you claim to understand the difference between the sufferings of others who were crucified to those of Christ? On what basis other than your own speculation and bias can you make this comparison? The significance of Christ’s suffering isn’t the magnitude of the suffering, but His willingness to suffer for our sake and the redemptive value, both of which you clearly would not recognize.

I don’t know if Jesus had kidney stones. I have passed three myself. One took a few hours and the others took several days. I would not want to repeat any of those experiences; however, the duration of the pain does not capture the intensity or the character of the suffering. Suffering is far more than nerve impulses to the brain.

I rely on experience, not intellect. If I find that reality differs from how I expected it to be then I conclude that I was wrong. This happens often.

Oh really? Well, if you are closed to certain experiences, then your reliance is flawed. If you have made a pre-determination that God doesn’t exist, then you will now allow yourself to experience Him. By this you define your own reality and refuse to accept even the one percent possibility that you could be wrong about God. (My reference to “you” is generalized. I only have a limited understanding of your positions based on your posts and do not intend to make broad assumptions about your personal beliefs.)

On the contrary, your magnification of the sufferings of Jesus are insulting to all the actual real people (emphasis added) who have sufferred far more.

Once again, you reveal that you aren’t really interested in exchange of ideas or understanding where we theists are coming from. In your infinite wisdom you have already determined that Jesus doesn’t exist.

I am interested in dialogue, and in understanding your position.

I don’t think you are. It sounds more like you are here to tell us how wrong and foolish we are. What puzzles me is that I can understand why a Christian, for example, might try to convince a non-Christian to believe. Even if the Christian is misguided, many have pure intentions and truly want to help someone. However, I don’t understand the motives of an Atheist who wants to convince a Christian not to believe, even if that Christian is at peace with himself and trying to live a good and moral life. The Christian, even the misguided Christian, offers hope of eternal life. The Atheist offers hopelessness. Why would an Atheist even care other than to prove himself right?

 

[Marcus_Red]

Well, if **you refuse to accept **the evidence that is available, then anything is possible, especially if the evidence is filtered through your own understanding.

The problem is that **you appear to be limited **by your own understanding. It’s all about what you think is true and your experience. **You leave no room **for the understanding or experience of others.

**How can you **event comment on the suffering of others? Can you claim to understand the difference between the sufferings of others who were crucified to those of Christ? On what basis other than your own speculation and bias can you make this comparison? The significance of Christ’s suffering isn’t the magnitude of the suffering, but His willingness to suffer for our sake and the redemptive value, both of which you clearly would not recognize.

I don’t know if Jesus had kidney stones. I have passed three myself. One took a few hours and the others took several days. I would not want to repeat any of those experiences; however, the duration of the pain does not capture the intensity or the character of the suffering. Suffering is far more than nerve impulses to the brain.

Oh really? Well, if you are closed to certain experiences, then your reliance is flawed. If you have made a pre-determination that God doesn’t exist, then you will now allow yourself to experience Him. By this **you define your own reality **and refuse to accept even the one percent possibility that you could be wrong about God. (My reference to “you” is generalized. I only have a limited understanding of your positions based on your posts and do not intend to make broad assumptions about your personal beliefs.)

Once again, **you reveal that you aren’t really interested **in exchange of ideas or understanding where we theists are coming from. **In your infinite wisdom **you have already determined that Jesus doesn’t exist.

I don’t think you are. It sounds more like you are here to tell us how wrong and foolish we are. What puzzles me is that I can understand why a Christian, for example, might try to convince a non-Christian to believe. Even if the Christian is misguided, many have pure intentions and truly want to help someone. However, I don’t understand the motives of an Atheist who wants to convince a Christian not to believe, even if that Christian is at peace with himself and trying to live a good and moral life. The Christian, even the misguided Christian, offers hope of eternal life. The Atheist offers hopelessness. Why would an Atheist even care other than to prove himself right?

OK, since you have no other arguments I guess attacking my motives is all you have left.

Atheists do not offer hopelessness, that is yet another myth. If you are more interested in a* vain *hope than in what is actually true then that is, of course, up to you.

Cheers,

Marcus

 

[JimO]

OK, since you have no other arguments I guess attacking my motives is all you have left.

Atheists do not offer hopelessness, that is yet another myth. If you are more interested in a* vain *hope than in what is actually true then that is, of course, up to you.

I tried as best I could to address your points directly without attributing them to you personally (prefacing with “if” or “it appears”). Trying to make every statement generalized becomes cumbersome and makes the posts difficult to read. I’m sorry if I offended you.

As far as your intentions go, I can only discern what I can from your posts and am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong about any of your intentions. However, in this particular discussion, intentions are relevent because if someone does not intend to have an open discussion, but only intends to try poking holes in the other’s belief system, then that has a direct impact on the tone of the discussion or whether it’s even worth pursuing. Don’t forget, this all started with you coming to a Catholic website and asking us to prove fundamentals of our beliefs. And your tone wasn’t exactly respectful of our beliefs. It wasn’t I who came to an Atheist website demanding proof that God doesn’t exist. If you are going to take such a strong position and trivialize the sufferings of Christ to a bunch of Catholics, you need to develop thicker skin.

If you want to dismiss all my points and claim I have simply resorted to attacking your intentions, then that’s fine. I made some very good points regarding the body of evidence Atheists are willing to accept that get to the heart of the Atheist/Theist debate. Maybe I did not express those points clearly enough or maybe you don’t want to address them. I can’t tell.

 

[Centos]

Hi Centos,

Aquinas gives a list of useful consequences of Christ’s particular actions in getting himself crucified, but does not explain how getting himself crucified was necessary.

The substutionary sacrifice theory at least makes sense in principle, if not in its details. How otherwise does getting yourself crucified make man reconciled to God? Are a man’s sins only deserving of a few hours on a cross and a couple of days dead?

Regards,

Marcus

Hi Marcus,

Had you followed the link you would have seen that St. Thomas Aquinas defined several kinds of necessary – he made it clear that anything is possible with God. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or I think – what matters is what is. Christ died for our sins. For Catholics – and many others – that is a powerful truth that makes us love our Lord more and more whenever we mediate on it. You can chose to do what you want with the truth – even ignore it if you want.

May God be with you

 

[Yours_Truly]

YoursTruly:

The sins would be infinite because they are committed against God. The greater the one offended, the greater the offense.

Marcus Red:

Oh, I see. So if I offend a tramp or some young schoolkid then that is a lesser offence than offending the chairman of a multinational corporation, is it? You’re just making this up.

No, I’m not making it up, and I wouldn’t use the example of offending the chairman of a multinational corporation since such people are being smeared in the media by the marxists who despise capitalism and seek to destroy it in order to justify the government taking over all industry (but that’s another story). Rather than giving examples that would make the point you objected to, I’ll just provide a quote from St. Thomas to show that I am not making it up, as you claimed:

**St. Thomas: **“Sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man.”

Here’s a link to that article by St. Thomas in case you are interested in exploring this point further.
Marcus Red:

If God were actually to give me a command then it might be worth while considering how I should respond. All I have heard so far is other *people *telling me that he has handed out some commands, and I have seen no evidence that they are telling the truth. Where is your evidence? In the meantime, your comment is irrelevant.

It would take way too long to even attempt to prove that 1.) Jesus us God; 2.) That He established the Catholic Church to teach with His authority; and 3.) That this Divinely instituted Church teaches the truth that it received from Jesus. Therefore, I’ll have to pass on this point, at least for now.
Yours Truly:

Believe it or not, a God-man is different than a regular man; and if a God-man makes a sacrifice for sins, the sacrifice is of infinitely more value than that of a normal man. If you can’t grasp that, I won’t be able to help you. A God-man can satisfy in one moment what a regular man cannot satisfy for all eternity.

Mrcus Red:

You are wrong. According to the Athanasian Creed Christ was fully man

I didn’t say He wasn’t fully man. I said he was a God-man. He had a complete human nature, including human flesh, a human soul, human intellect, and human will. However, His person was Divine. He is one person with two natures; and his one person is Divine, not human. If he was a human person with two natures He would be no different than a human who is in the state of grace, since a human person in the state of grace has become “a partaker of the Divine nature”, as the Bible says.
Marcus Red:

if he had special dispensation against having to pay the same penalty for sins then he was not fully man…

I have no idea why you would conclude that. What makes Him fully man is that he possessed the complete nature of man. What He was not is a human person.

I’m trying to understand you thinking her. Let me see if I have it. Is it your position that, since Jesus was a man, his sacrifice to God was of no more value than any other man? Therefore, since man has to suffer so much for his sins (eternity in hell), how can Jesus, who was also a man, satisfy for all of these sins by a single death on the cross? I think that is your position.

The missing piece of your puzzle is that Jesus was not just a man. He was not just human. In fact, as I mentioned, His person is Divine. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity - the Word of God - who assumed (took to Himself) a created human nature while remaining fully God. The Person of the Word united Himself, through what is known as the “hypostatic union”, to the created Human nature, thereby enabling Him (God) to offer an infinite sacrifice to God the Father in order to satisfy for the sins of all men. Thus, an infinite sacrifice is made in order to satisfy the justice of God that was infinitely offended.
Marcus Red:

… he would not have all the attributes of a man. Nowhere does any creed say that Christ was exempt from the normal penalties (viz. eternal hellfire).

Well, for one He didn’t have any personal sins of His own to atone for since He was perfect. Remember the verse that says “He was like us in every way, except for sin”. Therefore, why would he be subject to hell if He committed no sins? If your answer is that He would have been subject to Hell because He paid the price for the sins of others, and that these sins were deserving of hell (which I think is what you mean), then your thinking is not right on the Redemption.

The Redemption was not about suffering the punishment due to sin. The Redemption was about satisfying the justice of God so that the sins of men (which were deserving of hell) could be forgiven. The infinite sacrifice satisfied the justice of God, which then made it possible for these sins to be forgiven.

I think that last part is where you were confused. I think you understood the Redemption as Jesus suffering the punishment for all the sins of men, whereas, in reality, what Jesus did through His sacrifice was to satisfied the Justice of God which then enabled men to have their sins forgiven and thus not to be punished eternally for them.

 

[Yours_Truly]

In my last post, I accidentally gave you the wrong link to the quote from St. Thomas. Here’s the correct one. And here’s the article the quote came from. Keep in mind that St. Thomas first asks a question. Next he raises objections, the provides his answer, and lastly answers the original objections he raised.

Article 2. Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate. For since the Word of God is perfect God, as has been said (I, 4, 1; I, 4, 2), no power was added to Him by the assumption of flesh. Therefore, if the incarnate Word of God restored human nature. He could also have restored it without assuming flesh.

Objection 2. Further, for the restoration of human nature, which had fallen through sin, nothing more is required than that man should satisfy for sin. Now man can satisfy, as it would seem, for sin; for God cannot require from man more than man can do, and since He is more inclined to be merciful than to punish, as He lays the act of sin to man’s charge, so He ought to credit him with the contrary act. Therefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature that the Word of God should become incarnate.

Objection 3. Further, to revere God pertains especially to man’s salvation; hence it is written (Malachi 1:6): “If, then, I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?” But men revere God the more by considering Him as elevated above all, and far beyond man’s senses, hence (Psalm 112:4) it is written: “The Lord is high above all nations, and His glory above the heavens”; and farther on: “Who is as the Lord our God?” which pertains to reverence. Therefore it would seem unfitting to man’s salvation that God should be made like unto us by assuming flesh.

On the contrary, What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: “God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” Therefore it was necessary for man’s salvation that God should become incarnate.

I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): “We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery.”

Now this may be viewed with respect to our “furtherance in good.” First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): “In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith.” Secondly, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): “Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?” Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): “What greater cause is there of the Lord’s coming than to show God’s love for us?” And he afterwards adds: “If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return.” Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): “Man who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man.” Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): “God was made man, that man might be made God.”

So also was this useful for our “withdrawal from evil.” First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): “Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies.” Secondly, because we are thereby taught how great is man’s dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): “God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man.” And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): “Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness.” Thirdly, because, “in order to do away with man’s presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went before,” as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourthly, because “man’s pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great,” as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), “ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ,” and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: “Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other–for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example.”

And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man’s apprehension.

continue

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuing with the article of St. Thomas:

Reply to Objection 1. This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity, without which we cannot attain to the end.

Reply to Objection 2. Satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways–first, perfectly, inasmuch as it is condign, being adequate to make good the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man cannot be sufficient for sin, both because the whole of human nature has been corrupted by sin, whereas the goodness of any person or persons could not be made up adequately for the harm done to the whole of the nature; and also because a sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man. Secondly, man’s satisfaction may be termed sufficient, imperfectly–i.e. in the acceptation of him who is content with it, even though it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man is sufficient. And forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes some perfect thing, by which it is sustained, hence it is that satisfaction of every mere man has its efficiency from the satisfaction of Christ.

Reply to Objection 3. By taking flesh, God did not lessen His majesty; and in consequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing Him, which is increased by the increase of knowledge of Him. But, on the contrary, inasmuch as He wished to draw nigh to us by taking flesh, He greatly drew us to know Him.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Centos,

Had you followed the link you would have seen that St. Thomas Aquinas defined several kinds of necessary – he made it clear that anything is possible with God. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or I think – what matters is what is. Christ died for our sins. For Catholics – and many others – that is a powerful truth that makes us love our Lord more and more whenever we mediate on it. You can chose to do what you want with the truth – even ignore it if you want.

What I don’t understand is why God has to do what Thomas Aquinas says, or where Thomas Aquinas got his information. Was he also using privileged revelations that only he has access to?

It now seems (from this thread) that (a) it wasn’t necessary for Christ to die and (b) he didn’t take the punishment for our sins. The whole point of the exercise seems to have been to reconcile God and Man, so that God can let people into heaven. People also have a bunch of other stuff to do to qualify (good works, confession, mass etc, etc, if I remember rightly). Why couldn’t God just do that anyway? People were willing to repent of their sins before Christ died, and they still have to do it after he died. What changed?

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Centos]

Hi Centos,

What I don’t understand is why God has to do what Thomas Aquinas says, or where Thomas Aquinas got his information. Was he also using privileged revelations that only he has access to?
Marcus

Did you read the quotes from the Bible in the passage that I quoted?

May God be with you

 

[Marcus_Red]

Did you read the quotes from the Bible in the passage that I quoted?

Actually, yes. Aquinas is giving a post hoc/i commentary on how neat he, Aquinas, thinks the death of Christ was. You are claiming that he has established it was the best way for God to achieve his aim. I don’t see Aquinas doing that, apart from the implication that it must have been the best way because it is how God did it.