Jesus' Sacrifice foolish?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J1Priest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J1Priest

Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How do you answer this?

I answered:

Many things are missing, especially the Fall and Free Will: Notice that God made Man free, and Man, in his God-given freedom, chose to turn back on God.
This caricature is taking things from the Bible, yet it misses that God specifically prohibited Man from eating from the tree.
Jesus was the only one that would be able to make up for Man’s breaking of the Law because only Jesus could fulfill the Law.

But I feel like that’s not a good argument and I’m missing many things.
Any help!?
 
For me, one of the main reasons God chose “martyrdom” as the means to redeem us, was to demonstrate, or prove to us, how great His love for us truly is.
John 15:13 "Greater love has no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

In the garden, Adam and Eve doubted God’s love for them - by not believing His command regarding the tree was in their best interest. That doubt led to sin.

As to the particular manner of martyrdom - crucifixion - that is also interesting to ponder.

Nita
 
Israel was bound to the Mosaic Covenant with God. Even though Israel had defaulted on their part of the bargain, they were still under penalty for breaking the Covenant.

What was that penalty? According to Deuteronomy, exile and then death. They’d already experienced exile, now they were under penalty of death.

Just as with any Covenant, the only way to get out of one is if one of the parties dies - just look at the marriage covenant - till death do you part.

So the only way to end the Covenant is if Israel (as punishment) or God dies (to end the Covenant). If Israel dies, what’s the point? And God couldn’t die… or could he?
 
Israel was bound to the Mosaic Covenant with God. Even though Israel had defaulted on their part of the bargain, they were still under penalty for breaking the Covenant.

What was that penalty? According to Deuteronomy, exile and then death. They’d already experienced exile, now they were under penalty of death.

Just as with any Covenant, the only way to get out of one is if one of the parties dies - just look at the marriage covenant - till death do you part.

So the only way to end the Covenant is if Israel (as punishment) or God dies (to end the Covenant). If Israel dies, what’s the point? And God couldn’t die… or could he?
I guess my problem with seeing Israel’s disobedience to the Covenant as being the reason for Our Lord’s martyrdom, is that man needed redeeming before the Mosaic Covenant was even established. Sin and death entered with Adam’s sin; so they needed to be taken on and conquered in order to save man from them.

Nita
 
Well but it is dealing more with the seemingly contradiction of God offering Himself to Himself for a rule that He created.

Why would He punish Man for a rule that God knew Man was going to break. And why did God have to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to undo this breaking of this rule… etc. …
 
Well but it is dealing more with the seemingly contradiction of God offering Himself to Himself for a rule that He created.

Why would He punish Man for a rule that God knew Man was going to break. And why did God have to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to undo this breaking of this rule… etc. …
God did not die for a rule that He created. This rule, that nothing unclean may enter Heaven is a part of His nature, and God cannot change His nature. Therefore, since He loves us so much, it was necessary for Him to die to cleanse us of our sins.
 
I guess my problem with seeing Israel’s disobedience to the Covenant as being the reason for Our Lord’s martyrdom, is that man needed redeeming before the Mosaic Covenant was even established. Sin and death entered with Adam’s sin; so they needed to be taken on and conquered in order to save man from them.

Nita
Well, you could also say why did God even create Adam and Eve if he was simply going to have to send His Son to save us?

A lot of what God does is so we can wrap our feeble minds around the lesson that is learned, IMO.
 
Because that’s how much He really wanted us/you/me to exist!
True, but that doesn’t explain why we had to go through the whole rigmarole. He could have created us and introduced us to Jesus immediately.

No, if all of this hadn’t have happened this way, then we wouldn’t have come to even begin to appreciate just how much God loves us and wants us to be with Him in Heaven.
 
Well but it is dealing more with the seemingly contradiction of God offering Himself to Himself for a rule that He created.

Why would He punish Man for a rule that God knew Man was going to break. And why did God have to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to undo this breaking of this rule… etc. …
God didn’t HAVE to sacrifice Himself to save us. It is the way He CHOSE to do it. He could have chosen another way if He had wanted. The question to ponder is why He chose that particular way.

The cartoonist mocks the method God chose. Reminds me of St. Paul’s words
1 Cor. 1:18-23 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
 

No, if all of this hadn’t have happened this way, then we wouldn’t have come to even begin to appreciate just how much God loves us and wants us to be with Him in Heaven.
:amen:
That’s been my point in all of the posts I’ve made. Must not express myself very clearly.
 
Actually the point is the answer to Cain’s question. The scripture does not record an answer from God for the first question that a human asks of God. Many think that it is a rhetorical question, but in fact the remainder of the scripture is God’s commentary on the answer to that question.
Humanity didn’t get it.
Humanity still doesn’t get it.
As a last ditch act of divine desperation he came into the world to show how to do it. The crucifixion is the last object lesson he gave us. It redeems us in the sense that we now have a concrete example of how God wants us to love. We are saved from our ignorance.
To answer the question in the thread title: yes, it was foolish to think that even with the best demonstration of the correct answer we would get it right. Even with the answer to crib from we’re screwing it up.
Love was never particularly intelligent. It’s an example of fools rushing in.

Matthew
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
Yeah, but God needed a reason to do all this.
Hi NotWorthy,
My apologies, but I’m just not following.:confused:
Could you clarify what you mean by “all this”?

(Eg. Do you mean create man even tho He knew He would sin;
establish the whole Mosaic Covenant with its laws, promises, and curses;
unite Himself to human nature;
choose crucifixion as the means to redeem;
or all of the above??? plus…)

Nita
 
Actually the point is the answer to Cain’s question. The scripture does not record an answer from God for the* first question that a human asks of God*.
Never read or thought of that before! (We need a “wow”, or an “oh my gosh” smiley face.)

Altho, as someone who is always bugging Our Lord with questions, it makes me a little nervous!!! Don’t want to be like Cain.

Nita
 
Hi NotWorthy,
My apologies, but I’m just not following.:confused:
Could you clarify what you mean by “all this”?

(Eg. Do you mean create man even tho He knew He would sin;
establish the whole Mosaic Covenant with its laws, promises, and curses;
unite Himself to human nature;
choose crucifixion as the means to redeem;
or all of the above??? plus…)

Nita
Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well.

If Adam and Eve were created, and the first person they met was Jesus who led them straight to heaven, we wouldn’t appreciate God for all He did for us.

Look at it this way. Does one learn Calculus by simply learning Calculus. Or does one first learn basic math, add a little algebra, mix in some geometry and a dash of Trigonometry. Shake and stir for, oh…, about 12 years, and then begin to learn about Calculus.

Or how about this way. We had to crawl through the Genesis era, so that we could walk through the Exodus years, so that we could jog through the Joshua through Maccabees centuries, in order to win the race with Jesus.

Actually, despite my complete ineptitude in explaining this point, I think you and I are on the same page.
 
Code:
   		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **drafdog** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3716047#post3716047) 				
  		*Actually the point is the answer to Cain's question.  The scripture does not record an answer from God for the* **first question that a human asks of God****.
Never read or thought of that before! (We need a “wow”, or an “oh my gosh” smiley face.)

Altho, as someone who is always bugging Our Lord with questions, it makes me a little nervous!!! Don’t want to be like Cain.

Nita
But, doesn’t Jesus answer this question? “Yes. Yes you are your brother’s keeper”.
 
God did not die for a rule that He created. This rule, that nothing unclean may enter Heaven is a part of His nature, and God cannot change His nature. Therefore, since He loves us so much, it was necessary for Him to die to cleanse us of our sins.
Necessary? No. As Father Serpa is fond of saying in the AAA forum, God could’ve redeemed us with a thought. There is nothing that constrained Him to suffer on our behalf – He chose to redeem us by humbling Himself and suffering a grotesque and humiliating execution so that He could demonstrate His love for us in a manner that is so visceral that we could somehow comprehend His love for us. Furthermore, this afforded Him the opportunity to be resurrected, to further demonstrate His glory and to give us an even more powerful sign of that which awaits His faithful.

Peace,
Dante
 
:rolleyes:

Well, let’s see.
  1. God is all good – so he can’t create anything in the FALLEN state – not even babie’s spirits today are created that way – the fall immediately after creation because the body is defective.
  2. God can’t lie. (It is not possible).
  3. Even though man needed redeeming before the covenant with israel – including the covenant with Noah, etc. God can’t truly save us without our cooperation (He could RE-CREATE us or force our will like puppets either temporarily or permanently, but then we would still have a nature weak enough to fall again). God did contact various individuals throughout history and enter into oaths – because OATHS are a humanly expected form of contract which human beings expected to be made (perhaps the Devil wanted the swearing even more because of the Deaths it would cause – Hell is not all of the same depth or punishment – one may fall deeper into the likeness of the devil, or less.).
If one can not fulfill an oath – a penalty has to be paid for a contract of this nature – so as God swore to Abraham and Moses (by himself, since he had no one GREATER to swear by) God too came into the obligation of death should he fail to save us. Exactly why he chose to die becomes easier in that light – though not perfectly understood.
  1. God did not have to enter into the contract at all (eg: He did not have to save us that way)-- but then he would have had to enter into an agreement of another kind if he were to save us (not re-program us as something we aren’t).
  2. In the process of the salvation he offered – people continued to sin – bringing the curses of the covenant oath into effect (If you’d like to speculate about “alternate” utopian contracts – I’m game.) – but God already made the promise of hesed – fidelity to his part of the Oath. Love beyond our sin.
  3. The devil too entered into covenants with man’s flesh – the body made from dust that the serpent would “eat” all the days of its life. Man was also in the distorted image of the devil inasmuch as he sinned and also (to a certain extent) possesed by the devil though not totally.
  4. The very purpose of God in the sacrificial death of Jesus was to allow the devil to become technically, fully, and eternally guilty of the sin he tricked man into.
How could God prove his innocence (that the Devil got us to dis-believe – OUR sin not his) in any humanly understandable way (perhaps not Humanly possible – but only if God infuses into us something which was lost),

But his action showed the evil in man’s heart directily – and stripped him totally of any excuse for accusing God – and if man won’t trust God – how can man be saved? (for man it is impossible, but all things are possible with God.)

Also, consider, the Devil can not peer into a man-god’s mind to know he is God, or how he is God – the devil lost the ability to “see” in a good way when “he/she/it” fell. The devil misjudges Job, for example. In the subtle trap of Genesis, the devil had an excuse – his own ignorance of the true nature of man. At that time, he was guilty of his own rebellion – but not ours.
  1. On this first thought —> Man is not God <---- therefore he is “evil” if he be completely less than God – (eg: if you who ARE evil know how to give your children good things, How much more the Father in heaven…) But since God creates ONLY GOOD (and perhaps the indifferent), he necessarily provided some way for us to be able to DO THE GOOD – and not evil. In effect, since only he is perfect – God himself provided what man lacked – wheter called a “rule” or a “law” in man’s heart – it is there.
    The same has to be true of all the angels who did not fall.
As a second line of thought:

Jesus mentioned that he “had” to go (ex`odus) on the cross – and I do not fully understand what he meant – as Nita and others can explain – since this “going” is not spoken of as tied the “contract” but to an impossibility if he does not “go” – the development may have happened while Jesus was on earth (I am not sure) – but, none the less – He says “the Holy spirit” would “Not come to us” unless he WENT

That was prophecied by the prophet Joel, I think, where God said he will pour his “spirit” out on all flesh. This spirit which is somehow “life” and “breath” itself.
As a contradiction to lies – he is the “spirit” (breath) of truth – the very thing man lacks inside himself.

Most of the bible is a long dialogue on these topics in various ways, with various objections raised by man. The fullness, I expect of which I will have to wait to understand – although I love to probe the issue.
 
Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well.

If Adam and Eve were created, and the first person they met was Jesus who led them straight to heaven, we wouldn’t appreciate God for all He did for us.

Look at it this way. Does one learn Calculus by simply learning Calculus. Or does one first learn basic math, add a little algebra, mix in some geometry and a dash of Trigonometry. Shake and stir for, oh…, about 12 years, and then begin to learn about Calculus.

Or how about this way. We had to crawl through the Genesis era, so that we could walk through the Exodus years, so that we could jog through the Joshua through Maccabees centuries, in order to win the race with Jesus.

Actually, despite my complete ineptitude in explaining this point, I think you and I are on the same page.
I think we’re on the same page also.
And after reading this post I think I see where we’ve been misunderstanding each other.
We’ve both been answering the basic question “Why…”. But there’s been a subtle difference in what followed after the “Why”.

I’ve been asking from the viewpoint of God’s heart - what in Him is the reason for desiring to create and redeem man this way. Answer always ends up being “Love for us and a desire to reveal it’s depth to us”.

You’ve been asking more from the viewpoint of man’s heart - why was it important for man (mind and heart) that God choose to create and redeem us this way. Answer always ends up being “Needed in order for us to understand the degree of God’s love.”

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top