The Answer is not 42

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atreyu

Guest
I’ve been reading the Epistle of Barnabas, and I came across something that just made me go “woah”. Here 'tis:
Barnabas 7:2
If then the Son of God, being Lord and future Judge of quick and dead, suffered that His wound might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our sakes.
The part that I have emphasised is what I want to discuss. Could this be the reason for Creation? If you put this together with the statement that one cannot know love if one has not suffered, then I think that this is a possible or even a probable reason for God making Creation in the first place. What do people think?

By the way, I have found the Epistle to be a wonderful read!
 
By 42 you are talking about that Hitchiking Galaxy movie. That was one of the dumbest if not the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen. In fact it was so dumb that I saw it again which doesn’t make any sense since I thought it was so stupid. But now you got that stupid dolphin song stuck in my head.
 
wjp984 said:
By 42 you are talking about that Hitchiking Galaxy movie.
Click to expand...
You’re killing me! 🙂

HHGG (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) was a series of books long before parts of the books were made into a movie. And within their own quirky niche of the sci-fi/comedy sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre, they were brilliant!
 
Atreyu said:
I… If you put this together with the statement that one cannot know love if one has not suffered, then I think that this is a possible or even a probable reason for God making Creation in the first place.
Click to expand...
One cannot know love if one has not suffered. meh!
I’ve heard that before, but I never bought it, at least at face value. Here’s why:

Deus Caritas Est! God is love, and the divine Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit certainly know love. As Pope John Paul said, God is in His deepest reality a family of love.

It seems to me more that creation is a, well, creative or generative outpouring of the love that God already knew. (Though I hate to use the past tense when speaking of God!)

Pax,
Joe
 
jprioli said:
You’re killing me! 🙂

HHGG (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Click to expand...
) was a series of books long before parts of the books were made into a movie. And within their own quirky niche of the sci-fi/comedy sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre, they were brilliant!And may God grant eternal rest and perpetual light on the soul of Douglas Adams, their author.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
jprioli said:
Deus Caritas Est! God is love, and the divine Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit certainly know love. As Pope John Paul said, God is in His deepest reality a family of love.
Click to expand...
Yes I considered that, and I didn’t really see how exactly it fit in with my theory.
 
jprioli said:
One cannot know love if one has not suffered. meh!
I’ve heard that before, but I never bought it, at least at face value. Here’s why:

Deus Caritas Est! God is love, and the divine Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit certainly know love. As Pope John Paul said, God is in His deepest reality a family of love.

It seems to me more that creation is a, well, creative or generative outpouring of the love that God already knew. (Though I hate to use the past tense when speaking of God!)

Pax,
Joe
Click to expand...
Just a thought, I’m not quite yet a theological scholar but I am working on it.😉 Yes the Trinity know love and there is no suffereing caused by, therefore experienced, within the Trinity itself. However, we believe that the eternal Trinity in it’s eternal present, knew of the creation and fall of man. Therefore the Holy Trinity knew that the Son would suffer greatly.

In this respect, there is suffering in the Trinity.
 
Atreyu said:
If you put this together with the statement that one cannot know love if one has not suffered, then I think that this is a possible or even a probable reason for God making Creation in the first place. What do people think?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this statement from? I, for one, disagree with it. One does not need to suffer to know love. A young child has infinite love for its parents and has not suffered. Suffering can certainly help our love to grow, but it is not necessary.
 
Interesting thought. I remember dimly reading somewhere an explaination of WHY Jesus had to become human to save us. (As opposed to some Christians who have taught that a donkey or a chickpea or anything could have been used for our salvation.)

Anyway, my memory is fuzzy at best (just ask my wife), but I recall the author saying something about God, in Nature, not being able to lose, or sacrifice, or something, because He is infinite. By dying on the cross, God became like us in this, too, so that a man, one who suffered and lost, made a perfect sacrificial offering which was able to atone for our sins.

If ANYONE has any idea what I read, and a clearer understanding of it, please let me know. My knowledge of the theology of the atonement is weak, and my memory weaker. I just thought I’d contribute a little.
 
Atreyu said:
I’ve been reading the Epistle of Barnabas, and I came across something that just made me go “woah”. Here 'tis:Barnabas 7:2If then the Son of God, being Lord and future Judge of quick and dead, suffered that His wound might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our sakes.The part that I have emphasised is what I want to discuss. Could this be the reason for Creation? If you put this together with the statement that one cannot know love if one has not suffered, then I think that this is a possible or even a probable reason for God making Creation in the first place. What do people think?

By the way, I have found the Epistle to be a wonderful read!
Click to expand...
Actually many theologians in history and even contemporary believe that the incarnation was the purpose of creation. Scott Hahn was my professor for biblical studies this semester(I am trying to get a masters in theology) and we were talking about the creation and he mentioned a statement of Aristotle that the final object in a series is always the first in thought(or something like that, I don’t have my notes at hand). It made me think of the idea of the incarnation being intended from the beginning so I mentioned it to him and asked him if it was an acceptable belief. He told me that, in fact, it was the assumption of the statement of the Immaculate Conception of Pius IX. It was assumed to be a fact that even if man did not sin, God would have become incarnate.

Edit: After reading again what you said I am not exactly sure what you are reffering to. Are you reffering to the incarnation or to the death on the cross? I was refering to the incarnation. God did not intend to die on the cross from the very beginning. That only became a part of the plan after man sinned. But some think that even if man never sinned, God would have still become man. Theosis would have still been an objective. Even though man was sinless and possessed some qualities of the ressurrection, he would have still progressed to a more perfect state of communion with God.
 
Mijoy2 said:
Just a thought, I’m not quite yet a theological scholar but I am working on it.😉 Yes the Trinity know love and there is no suffereing caused by, therefore experienced, within the Trinity itself. However, we believe that the eternal Trinity in it’s eternal present, knew of the creation and fall of man. Therefore the Holy Trinity knew that the Son would suffer greatly.

In this respect, there is suffering in the Trinity.
Click to expand...
I would make a slight adjustment and say that there is sacrifice within the Trinity but not necessarily suffering. Suffering would imply that there is something that is not complete or that is weak in God.
 
I liked the epistle of Barnabas as well. You should read the epistle to Diognetus as well, it is very good.
 
wjp984 said:
By 42 you are talking about that Hitchiking Galaxy movie. That was one of the dumbest if not the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen.
Click to expand...
WJP,

This is definitely a case of “de gustibus non est disputandum.” Definitely the HHGG movie was dumb, but it was funny dumb. It was also considerably better than some of the books.

If I remember correctly, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy started as a BBC radio series; I remember hearing it on the shortwave around 1980. The books started later, followed by a TV series.

“The answer is 42” is found in all of the genres. I believe that only the books actually give the question to life, the universe, and everything, which is “What do you get when you multiply six by nine.” This works out properly if you do your figuring in base 13, meaning that what is usually the tens digit corresponds to thirteens. “42” in base 13 is four thirteens plus two ones.
  • Liberian
 
jimmy said:
God did not intend to die on the cross from the very beginning. That only became a part of the plan after man sinned. But some think that even if man never sinned, God would have still become man. Theosis would have still been an objective. Even though man was sinless and possessed some qualities of the ressurrection, he would have still progressed to a more perfect state of communion with God.
Click to expand...
God knowing all, how could he not know that man would sin? How could he not know that his son must die on the cross for our salvation?

I believe his love for us was so great, that His Will was/is to bring man to salvation.
 
CRW said:
God knowing all, how could he not know that man would sin? How could he not know that his son must die on the cross for our salvation?

I believe his love for us was so great, that His Will was/is to bring man to salvation.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that God did not know man would sin. What I said, or atleast what I meant to say was that even if man never sinned Christ would have still become man according to some theologians and some Christians throughout history. God definately knew what would happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top