The Grand Charade

[element]

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is the insistence that Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind. While the act itself isn’t really necessary for Christian dogma to continue, I think it’s a rather large part of it that is worth discussing.

Christianity teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary, as the punishment for sin is death. Jesus somehow took on the wage of all mankind’s sins, and was punished so that we would not have to be. Not only did Jesus and God (the father) not really sacrifice anything, but it was a show of overdramatics in the most extreme sense, and totally unnecessary.

If God’s goal was to offer mankind a way to escape Hell in the afterlife, he didn’t need to off Jesus to accomplish this. As an all-powerful being, God could have simply willed (or snapped his fingers) the goal to be accomplished, and it would have been. One must also ask, why such a brutal death? Surely, something quick and painless would have achieved the same end. Essentially, the crucifixion as it happened appears to be nothing more than a sick cry for attention.

First, the timing of implementing the effects achieved through the crucifixion are strange. God could have offered all mankind, from the beginning of their existence, the same luxury man is offered after the crucifixion. “Believe in me, and you’re saved.” Instead, God chose to wait.

Second, the dramatics of the crufixion. God determined that the punishment for sin was death, no one else. To avoid the entire charade, God could have simply not made the rule, made exceptions to the rule, or simply dropped the rule.

Third, if the goal of the crucifixion was to offer man an easier way into heaven, God could have simply offered the same deal without ever killing Jesus.

Fourth, Jesus could have been killed in any number of ways less brutal than Roman crucifixion. Allowing Jesus to endure such a horrible death seems like nothing more than an excuse to command pity and undeserved gratitude for the act from Christians.

Fifth, Jesus and God didn’t really sacrifice anything worth noting. Yes, Jesus gave up his human life, but he didn’t need to, and nothing was really lost anyway since he went on living and was able to retain a human appearance. Further, as an all-powerful being, Jesus could have retained his human body and human life at any time he wanted. Choosing not to is not a sacrifice. God did not sacrifice anything, as he did not have to part with Jesus or lose any part of himself.

I think all of these things are true without further arguments, as we’re dealing with the assumption that God is omniscient and omnipotent. None of these things are logically impossible, or outside of God’s grasp.

 

[Thal59]

Welcome aboard, Element.

I would like to give you some advice though. Rather than run off a list of what you believe which consists of many points, please consider asking one question at a time, or I can assure you the thread will digress many times to the point of being virtually useless.

Thal59

 

[Atreyu]

They may not be logically impossible, but that does not mean that it is logically impossible that your ideas are not true. It is definitely true to say that God could have saved humans from sin in any way He so desired. Now it just so happens that the way He so desired was to send His only begotten Son to Earth to become human and to die a terrible death for our sins. The fact that the death is terrible shows how much God loves us, and it is entirely appropriate that it be so terrible.

But the question you’re really after is, why did God choose to do things in this way? I’m sorry but this is a silly question. We can never and will never understand God. He is a mystery. However, we can determine that the way He chose to do things was very appropriate.

Now you could ask the question, why send anyone to hell, why not just save everyone? Well, free will is an amazing gift when you think of it. But hell is a consequence of free will. If everyone is saved from hell, then the ability to have free will is nullified. I mean, if you can do anything you want and you’ll still be saved, then what’s the point?

 

[JSmitty2005]

element:

why such a brutal death?

Go here: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/christiology/gibson-atonement1.htm

 

[adamlsp]

You are oversimplifying the crucifixion. May I suggest that you read Mel Gibson’s Passion and Philosophy: The Cross, the Questions, the Controversy edited by Jorge J. E. Gracia. It can expand upon what you have over-condensed. It offers no answers only a discussion of the Passion.

Adam

 

[Thal59]

element:

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is the insistence that Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind. While the act itself isn’t really necessary for Christian dogma to continue, I think it’s a rather large part of it that is worth discussing.

Christianity teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary, as the punishment for sin is death. Jesus somehow took on the wage of all mankind’s sins, and was punished so that we would not have to be. Not only did Jesus and God (the father) not really sacrifice anything, but it was a show of overdramatics in the most extreme sense, and totally unnecessary.

If God’s goal was to offer mankind a way to escape Hell in the afterlife, he didn’t need to off Jesus to accomplish this. As an all-powerful being, God could have simply willed (or snapped his fingers) the goal to be accomplished, and it would have been. One must also ask, why such a brutal death? Surely, something quick and painless would have achieved the same end. Essentially, the crucifixion as it happened appears to be nothing more than a sick cry for attention.

First, the timing of implementing the effects achieved through the crucifixion are strange. God could have offered all mankind, from the beginning of their existence, the same luxury man is offered after the crucifixion. “Believe in me, and you’re saved.” Instead, God chose to wait.

Second, the dramatics of the crufixion. God determined that the punishment for sin was death, no one else. To avoid the entire charade, God could have simply not made the rule, made exceptions to the rule, or simply dropped the rule.

Third, if the goal of the crucifixion was to offer man an easier way into heaven, God could have simply offered the same deal without ever killing Jesus.

Fourth, Jesus could have been killed in any number of ways less brutal than Roman crucifixion. Allowing Jesus to endure such a horrible death seems like nothing more than an excuse to command pity and undeserved gratitude for the act from Christians.

Fifth, Jesus and God didn’t really sacrifice anything worth noting. Yes, Jesus gave up his human life, but he didn’t need to, and nothing was really lost anyway since he went on living and was able to retain a human appearance. Further, as an all-powerful being, Jesus could have retained his human body and human life at any time he wanted. Choosing not to is not a sacrifice. God did not sacrifice anything, as he did not have to part with Jesus or lose any part of himself.

I think all of these things are true without further arguments, as we’re dealing with the assumption that God is omniscient and omnipotent. None of these things are logically impossible, or outside of God’s grasp.

A major problem you are having is that you do not understand how Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled the Old Testament scriptures and prophecies. It would take a while to explain, but I would be willing to help if you are willing. Feel free to chat with me via personal e-mail.

Thal59

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

element:

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is the insistence that Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind. While the act itself isn’t really necessary for Christian dogma to continue, I think it’s a rather large part of it that is worth discussing.

Christianity teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary, as the punishment for sin is death. Jesus somehow took on the wage of all mankind’s sins, and was punished so that we would not have to be. Not only did Jesus and God (the father) not really sacrifice anything, but it was a show of overdramatics in the most extreme sense, and totally unnecessary.

If God’s goal was to offer mankind a way to escape Hell in the afterlife, he didn’t need to off Jesus to accomplish this. As an all-powerful being, God could have simply willed (or snapped his fingers) the goal to be accomplished, and it would have been. One must also ask, why such a brutal death? Surely, something quick and painless would have achieved the same end. Essentially, the crucifixion as it happened appears to be nothing more than a sick cry for attention.

First, the timing of implementing the effects achieved through the crucifixion are strange. God could have offered all mankind, from the beginning of their existence, the same luxury man is offered after the crucifixion. “Believe in me, and you’re saved.” Instead, God chose to wait.

Second, the dramatics of the crufixion. God determined that the punishment for sin was death, no one else. To avoid the entire charade, God could have simply not made the rule, made exceptions to the rule, or simply dropped the rule.

Third, if the goal of the crucifixion was to offer man an easier way into heaven, God could have simply offered the same deal without ever killing Jesus.

Fourth, Jesus could have been killed in any number of ways less brutal than Roman crucifixion. Allowing Jesus to endure such a horrible death seems like nothing more than an excuse to command pity and undeserved gratitude for the act from Christians.

Fifth, Jesus and God didn’t really sacrifice anything worth noting. Yes, Jesus gave up his human life, but he didn’t need to, and nothing was really lost anyway since he went on living and was able to retain a human appearance.

He did not appear human - He was, is, wholly and entirely human. And is also God.

Further, as an all-powerful being, Jesus could have retained his human body and human life at any time he wanted. Choosing not to is not a sacrifice. God did not sacrifice anything, as he did not have to part with Jesus or lose any part of himself.

This overlooks the perfect obedience of the Word Incarnate to the Father, which is also the perfect obedience of the man Jesus to God. This obedience is perfect, because it is entirely unreserved - what man ought to give God (IOW, all he is, has been, has and might be), Jesus gave the Father. This unlimited self-giving is what love is. Love is self-sacrificing, or it is not totally self-giving.

The Life of the Word is not one of avoiding harm - by becoming a man to accompany us, who live in a fallen and damaged world, God is making His own Love Incarnate, & so, vulnerable to being hurt. And God’s vulnerability, His Love, goes as as far as being crucified. The crucifixion is the greatest evidence we could have of God’s Love for us, because the crucifixion and death of Christ shows us - if we have eyes to see - that the Love of God will go to any lengths to save us; even if this includes death (which it does). His death is something at the very heart of Christian faith - it is not an optional extra. The only Christ on offer is a crucified, dying, dead, and resurrected Christ. That’s why the Cross can’t be avoided - we cannot have the joyful Life of the Resurrection, unless we first go down into death with Christ by dying to ourselves: which is why the Church gives us the season of Lent, to set these great realities before us, so that we enter into them more and more fully.

Jesus overcomes death, not by avoiding it, but by going down into it, and by proving too big a mouthful for it. That’s one of the reasons His death gives us life: He destroys death by dying, so that there is no death left for those who are “in Him”, who are made one with Him, to die.

I think all of these things are true without further arguments, as we’re dealing with the assumption that God is omniscient and omnipotent. None of these things are logically impossible, or outside of God’s grasp.

Precisely since God is omniscient and omnipotent, we are not exactly qualified to find fault with the Incarnation and Atonement.