The Suffering Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Psychotheosophy

Guest
As Catholics,
Why do we believe
God had to suffer
And die on the cross?

Does St. John of the Cross have any commentary on this?

My gifts are limited.
I need help with this.
But understand I will
Critique your responses.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
As Catholics,
Why do we believe
God had to suffer
And die on the cross?

Does St. John of the Cross have any commentary on this?

My gifts are limited.
I need help with this.
But understand I will
Critique your responses.
Click to expand...
Human life is defined as one of suffering and death.

God had to descend into suffering and death, in order to save and liberate us from suffering and death.
 
We don’t believe that God had to suffer and die. He was not compelled by something outside of his control. Rather we believe that he chose to suffer and die.
 
VociMike said:
We don’t believe that God had to suffer and die. He was not compelled by something outside of his control. Rather we believe that he chose to suffer and die.
Click to expand...
What precisely do you mean?

(1) God could have saved humanity from suffering and death even without experiencing suffering and death; or
(2) God did not have to save humanity from suffering and death, but he freely chose to save us from suffering and death (thus, choosing to experience suffering and death)?
 
VociMike said:
We don’t believe that God had to suffer and die. He was not compelled by something outside of his control. Rather we believe that he chose to suffer and die.
Click to expand...
👍
God did not merely “tell us” how to do it - He became one of us and did it for us. All He asks is that we follow him.
Let the critiques begin…
 
Siddhartha said:
What precisely do you mean?

(1) God could have saved humanity from suffering and death even without experiencing suffering and death; or
(2) God did not have to save humanity from suffering and death, but he freely chose to save us from suffering and death (thus, choosing to experience suffering and death)?
Click to expand...
Both. Choosing to save humanity was an act of pure love, and suffering in order to do it was another act of pure love.
 
Spirithound said:
Both. Choosing to save humanity was an act of pure love, and suffering in order to do it was another act of pure love.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying God could have saved humanity without suffering and dying?
 
Siddhartha said:
Jesus affirms that [it] was God’s plan for Him to suffer when He addressed His disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:26-27 “‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?’"
Click to expand...
“Necessary” is used here in reference to what the Scriptures say. The Old Testament definitely points towards a suffering Messiah to redeem mankind, but if God’s plan had been to accomplish it in a different manner, then the Scriptures would have reflected that.

“Necessary” cannot be used in an absolute sense because God the Son was already in his glory, without suffering, before he came to earth.
 
Spirithound said:
…if God’s plan had been to accomplish it in a different manner, then the Scriptures would have reflected that.
Click to expand...
If it were possible for God to save humanity without suffering and dying, then how would you explain this statement from Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, 26-27
The Apostle’s creed speaks of Jesus’ descent “into hell.” This descent not only took place in and after His death, but accompanies him along his entire journey. He must recapitulate the whole of history from it’s beginnings — from Adam on; He must go through, suffer through, the whole of it, in order to transform it. The letter to the Hebrews is particularly eloquent in stressing that Jesus’ mission, the solidarity with all of us he manifested beforehand in His baptism, includes exposure to the risks and perils of human existence: “Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (Heb 2:17-18).
Click to expand...
BXVI seems to saying that it is impossible for God to save humanity without God sharing in human suffering and death.
 
God chose to. He could have come another way, yet throughout the Bible we see promises from God to certain people, that He would send one to shepherd, save, redeem, and rule His peoples.

God could have chosen a different way, but He chose to come down to us as and through His Son in fulfillment of His word, His promises, and to give us the chance to see Him, know Him, accept Him, and trust Him. or not.

He gave everything not because He had to, but because He wanted to, and planned it that way.
 
grace_singh said:
He gave everything not because He had to, but because He wanted to, and planned it that way.
Click to expand...
I can see how God might have planned and foreseen how humans might suffer and die, and then God freely chose to suffer and die.

My question, though, is: could God have freely chosen to not suffer and die, and yet still save us from suffering and dying?

It seems that BXVI would respond in the negative.
 
Siddhartha said:
If it were possible for God to save humanity without suffering and dying, then how would you explain this statement from Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, 26-27

BXVI seems to saying that it is impossible for God to save humanity without God sharing in human suffering and death.
Click to expand...
If God created the universe once, could he not re-create it in the same manner?
 
Siddhartha said:
Are there some acts that God can not do?
Click to expand...
Only the illogical ones, which it turns our, are not acts at all. Dang…I lost the game…

One possible consequent of this is that the Pope may be wrong. He states in the introduction that he is writing only as a private theologian, and any are free to disagree with him.
Joseph Ratzinger:
The Apostle’s creed speaks of Jesus’ descent “into hell.” This descent not only took place in and after His death, but accompanies him along his entire journey. He must recapitulate the whole of history from it’s beginnings — from Adam on; He must go through, suffer through, the whole of it, in order to transform it. The letter to the Hebrews is particularly eloquent in stressing that Jesus’ mission, the solidarity with all of us he manifested beforehand in His baptism, includes exposure to the risks and perils of human existence: “Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (Heb 2:17-18).
Click to expand...
The second option is that he is also speaking of conditional necessity. Take the last sentence, “because he himself has been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” It seems that the very reason he allowed himself to be tempted was in order to help others. God simply willing perfection back to humanity is not really “help”, it’s doing it for us.

“He must recapitulate the whole of history in order to transform it.” Again, ‘transform’ seems to be a process, not just a one-time deal.
 
Spirithound said:
“Necessary” cannot be used in an absolute sense because God the Son was already in his glory, without suffering, before he came to earth.
Click to expand...
If God is Perfect Happiness
How could God be suffering
At any time.

Couldn’t He only suffer in the flesh,
But not in His divinity?
Spirithound said:
Only the illogical ones, which it turns our, are not acts at all.
Click to expand...
So,
Sins do not exist?

Since sin is a separation from Perfect Happiness,
And sin has been the cause of suffering,
Then since suffering exists,
Doesn’t sin also?
Spirithound said:
The second option is that he is also speaking of conditional necessity. Take the last sentence, “because he himself has been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” It seems that the very reason he allowed himself to be tempted was in order to help others. God simply willing perfection back to humanity is not really “help”, it’s doing it for us.

“He must recapitulate the whole of history in order to transform it.” Again, ‘transform’ seems to be a process, not just a one-time deal.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
 
That’s right. Sin is not a “thing”. The Hebrew and Greek words for sin mean to “miss the mark”. “Missing the mark” is not a “thing”, it is the “absence of a thing”.
 
seeing as God can do anything He wants to, i don’t see why not.

but one also has to understand that God is working with and through history, and human nature. He could easily compel everyone to believe and to “get it”, but He has also given us free will, the capacity to willfully reject something, and the right to be wrong.

thus, He chose to become incarnate as the Son, and through Him. to become a Man like us so that by seeing God in flesh and hearing His words, and understanding what He has done for us on the cross, that we may come to believe, and be saved. or not.

the scenario we have today is that God did become a Man in history, as and through the Messiah Jesus. He could have done things a million other ways, but He did not. because He chose to do things a certain way, Biblically we have His act in history to chose, or a host of other teachings, ideas, and beliefs (and people) which are not from Him or of Him, even if they sound logical, reasonable, beneficial, etc.

there are many ways to be wise, ascetic, moderate, disciplined, and kind to others. but Scripture tells us that in history, God chose to come down. thus it is no longer about the many ways we devise to try to get closer to Him, but about the One Way through which He has come down, and become available, been broken on the cross, and risen from the dead. it is indeed a narrow and historically-bound message, and this is part of why many people reject the Christian message.
Siddhartha said:
I can see how God might have planned and foreseen how humans might suffer and die, and then God freely chose to suffer and die.

My question, though, is: could God have freely chosen to not suffer and die, and yet still save us from suffering and dying?

It seems that BXVI would respond in the negative.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top