Life threatening situation

[AndyF]

John 15,13 There is no greater love than this; to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Shortly after this discourse, Christ goes out alone for a moment, just at the instant a chariot is about to run over a blind man. To save his life he must lose his.

What would he do?

Andy

 

[vern_humphrey]

AndyF:

John 15,13 There is no greater love than this; to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Shortly after this discourse, Christ goes out alone for a moment, just at the instant a chariot is about to run over a blind man. To save his life he must lose his.

What would he do?

Andy

First of all, he was in a house when he said that, which means in a city. Chariots were not allowed to drive on city streets and there were blocks to prevent them. So there would have been no chariot.

Secondly, you can’t put such limitations on God as " To save his life he must lose his."

 

[AndyF]

vern humphrey:

First of all, he was in a house when he said that, which means in a city. Chariots were not allowed to drive on city streets and there were blocks to prevent them. So there would have been no chariot.

Secondly, you can’t put such limitations on God as " To save his life he must lose his."

humphrey:

You should really read the post before entering debates. I said he stepped outside after his discourse. I didn’t say it was a street either, and the Romans who’s nature was to murder and plunder could indeed run amuck on the roads of their empire.

*Losing a life to save another *is a chance for every individual on this planet at that time and this, and in this hypothetical it’s Christ’s turn.

I would also suggest you vent elsewhere, no one here is attacking anyone. If you wish to cool down and actually come up with anything theologically constructive, please come back.

Andy

 

[vern_humphrey]

AndyF:

humphrey:

You should really read the post before entering debates. I said he stepped outside after his discourse. I didn’t say it was a street either, and the Romans who’s nature was to murder and plunder could indeed run amuck on the roads of their empire.

F:

You really should read some history before starting debates like this.

The Last Supper was in Jerusalem. Even when He stepped outside, He was still in Jerusalem.

And if it wasn’t a street, where was it? On a rooftop?

And finally, the law against chariots in cities was a ROMAN law.

*Losing a life to save another *is a chance for every individual on this planet at that time and this, and in this hypothetical it’s Christ’s turn.

It’s not a reasonable hypothetical. Do you think the Christ who raised Lazarus from the dead is bound by your rules?

AndyF:

I would also suggest you vent elsewhere, no one here is attacking anyone. If you wish to cool down and actually come up with anything theologically constructive, please come back.

Andy

When you have something theologically sound, please let me know.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Jesus calmed the raging storm. Surely something as simple as a charging horse would be no problem.

The OP didn’t mention if the blind man was a friend of Jesus.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

This is perhaps the strangest thread I’ve ever come across; nonetheless, I must respond . . .

To the OP:

Did Our Lord not keep His own commandment when He was, umm, CRUCIFIED? This is specifically what He was referring to when making that statement.

Have a nice day.

 

[jax8686]

first of all, to everyone, LIGHTEN UP!!!
hypothetical does not mean it has to be at all reasonable.
but yeah, id have to agree with David… a horse is nothing compared to a storm. but under the hypothetical situation He couldnt use His God given abilities, He would definitely give His life for the other person, no matter if it were His biggest enemy… gotta love an unconditionally loving God

 

[AndyF]

UKcatholicGuy:

This is perhaps the strangest thread I’ve ever come across; nonetheless, I must respond . . .

To the OP:

Did Our Lord not keep His own commandment when He was, umm, CRUCIFIED? This is specifically what He was referring to when making that statement.

Have a nice day.

 UK:

 Thanks for the response and for taking it further along. Your point is exactly what I was hoping someone would come to.

Your quite right, if his purpose here was redemption for all by offering his life as sacrifice, he could not find himself in such a situation, as that would obviously bring the mission to a premature conclusion.

  Consider.

If we allow for the Father’s involvement, then He could have set up barriers that would prevent a premature death. He could have done this by preventing randomness of events that would realize the risk of death for the sake of saving just one person,. It would be paramount to seperate events that would bring Christ and the other parties in proximity and influence. Destinies would have to be tampered with in order to ensure they are kept well apart.

If we accept this, then that leaves the conclusion that Christ was the only person where predestination was predictable in it’s true meaning, but, with the exception differing from every other man, and that is it is never to be altered.

   That puts into question the normalcy of Christ's human fate while on this planet. 

    We are left with either....

A human Christ who is exempt from random fate, who’s course of events and influences are predestined, or pre-planned by his Father’s assurance. Only actions and events used, or do not interfere with, the purpose to meet the desired result are permitted, all others are prevented from being realized.

A human Christ as human as you or I, destined and/or susceptible to any calamity and good fortune that the random influences affecting all of us would present, subject to being the object by others for their use, *expected to perform good works instantly when the duty calls, *finding shelter in other locations when his life is in peril,etc.

    Doctrine assures us it is the latter, a human Christ just like us, one who would die on the cross and *suffer just like any one of us* would. So be it. It finds no argument from us, but it still leaves us with the *latter* Christ and the Church allows that this event I post could very well take place. It also makes the statement a random event that a renegade Pharasee could let lose an arrow at Christ. In our case, now he is a microsecond from saving a child from the wheels of a chariot, the options are save one, or save all.

    Thanks for the post.

    Andy

 

[AndyF]

DavidFilmer:

The OP didn’t mention if the blind man was a friend of Jesus.

DavidFilmer:

I believe Jesus meant *friend* to be a metaphor for every human.

Thanks.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

jax8686:

He would definitely give His life for the other person, no matter if it were His biggest enemy… gotta love an unconditionally loving God

jax8686:

Yes, that would be in keeping with the loving Christ we know, but then there would be no one to crucify as Christ would be killed here, instead of on the cross, and we would still be waiting for redemption.

Andy