We suffered to save man?!

[dorothy_smith]

I am grateful that Jesus suffered to save man. But I can’t help thinking that our faith emphasises the point too much. I say this because of the millions of others who also suffered and gave their lives to save man. I don’t like to think of God as merely one of many (no disrespect to those who gave their lives).

I would rather think of Jesus as the One who showed us the way to save our own lives through His teachings in the NT.

I wish that the Heart of Jesus was in us all. (I guess that it will be in Heaven).

dorothy

 

[Pax]

Perhaps everything boils down to subject and context. Clearly, many people have given their lives for the fellow man. These people certainly deserve our love and respect. That is why we honor our veterans for their many sacrifices to keep us free. Their sacrifices have provided us with a type of temporal salvation from harm and possibly death.

Jesus has, on the other hand, provided us with eternal salvation which no one else could ever provide. In this sense we speak of Jesus quite exclusively and all of the emphasis is indeed place on him. This is right and proper.

There are many situations in life where we make distinctions. When we speak of honoring our elders we give special honor and love to our parents and grand parents. The honor we give to others that are senior to ourselves will be somewhat different. In the case of Jesus, the distance between what he did for us versus the temporal saving work of all other men is simply enormous. It is for this reason that we rightly place so much emphasis on Jesus as opposed to anyone else. Likewise, Jesus is both God and man. This immediately causes an inifinite separation from him and all other men.

I hope this helps.

 

[carol_marie]

Jesus didn’t just die though - Even though He was sinless, He took on all the sins of the world and died for all of us, so that we can live eternally with Him.
Plus he willingly died for those who hated Him… and upon His death, He asked God to forgive them.

Besides, we could never save ourselves. Without His death and God’s grace, no one would ever be “good enough” for heaven.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Jesus has, on the other hand, provided us with eternal salvation which no one else could ever provide. In this sense we speak of Jesus quite exclusively and all of the emphasis is indeed place on him. This is right and proper.

Thank you Pax. I certainly agree with you. But why do think that He chose death and suffering (other than His teachings) to save us?

dorothy

 

[Pax]

Unfortunately, sin by an finite being against that being’s infinite creator is punishable by death. The penalty would be loosely analogous to one of us killing a spider that had bitten us. Naturally, the distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and the spider and the penalty is therefore greater. Needless to say, the greatest and most appropriate penalty in our case would be death.

Man, a finite being, cannot provide an inifinite sacrifice to God in order to satisfy the requirements for redemption from original sin or any of our actual sins. Only Jesus could provide an inifinite sacrifice to the Father because Jesus was both God (infinite) and man (finite). The penalty of death was and is the most appropriate sacrifice. It is for this reason that the Father in his infinite love sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross. That is why Jesus is called “the one mediator between God and man.”

I hope this helps.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Pax

I think I understand. It is because we’re innately prone to sin and therefore unable to save ourselves. Only our Lord and Saviour can save us.

But then what about the doctrine of free will and choosing whether or not to save ourselves?

dorothy

 

[cecilia97]

Unfortunately, sin by an finite being against that being’s infinite creator is punishable by death. The penalty would be loosely analogous to one of us killing a spider that had bitten us. Naturally, the distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and the spider and the penalty is therefore greater. Needless to say, the greatest and most appropriate penalty in our case would be death.

Man, a finite being, cannot provide an inifinite sacrifice to God in order to satisfy the requirements for redemption from original sin or any of our actual sins. Only Jesus could provide an inifinite sacrifice to the Father because Jesus was both God (infinite) and man (finite). The penalty of death was and is the most appropriate sacrifice. It is for this reason that the Father in his infinite love sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross. That is why Jesus is called “the one mediator between God and man.”

I hope this helps.

In addition, God knows our human nature better than we do, and knew that it would be easier for us to believe if we had a strong physical sign like Christ’s death on the cross to remind us of His love. In ancient Rome, crucifixion was not just a method of torture and death…Criminals were crucified and left hanging up on crosses to act as “billboards” showing the power of Rome and warnings for other would-be criminals. God turned that on it’s head and used the cross as a sign of His power and mercy.

 

[cecilia97]

Pax

I think I understand. It is because we’re innately prone to sin and therefore unable to save ourselves. Only our Lord and Saviour can save us.

But then what about the doctrine of free will and choosing whether or not to save ourselves?

dorothy

I think we can choose to allow God to save us, we don’t choose to save ourselves.

cecilia

 

[rwoehmke]

Pax

IBut then what about the doctrine of free will and choosing whether or not to save ourselves?

dorothy

All the good actions we undertake in this world using our freewill could not “earn” our salvation. Only Jesus was able to save those who managed to live by God’s law. Without Jesus, Noah, Isaiah, Moses, etc. could not enter heaven. Alone, no matter how good and holy, we cannot reach that far. Of course we can use our freewill to spit in Jesus’s face and unrepentant find ourselves in hell under our own power.

 

[wjp984]

As already explained, Jesus is the reason we have eternal life and his sacrifice is beyond anything anyone can do. Jesus could have forced everyone to like him or destroyed and punished his enemies. He is God. None of us can do that. We can willingly choose to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others but that is just it. It is either sacrifice yourself or not sacrifice yourself. Therefore, Jesus chyoosing to willingly not use his power and suffer and die like a man for us was the ultimate sacrifice that no one else could do.

There are numerous saints and martyrs and people who are given their fair share of honor and respect for what they did. The saints and the sufferings of people offered up to God through prayer are also great ways to get more people into Heaven and lead them towards God. However, to give equal attentin to them as Jesus would be to say they are equal to God, which no one is. God deserves the honor we give him and much much more.

 

[Valke2]

Unfortunately, sin by an finite being against that being’s infinite creator is punishable by death. The penalty would be loosely analogous to one of us killing a spider that had bitten us. Naturally, the distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and the spider and the penalty is therefore greater. Needless to say, the greatest and most appropriate penalty in our case would be death.

Man, a finite being, cannot provide an inifinite sacrifice to God in order to satisfy the requirements for redemption from original sin or any of our actual sins. Only Jesus could provide an inifinite sacrifice to the Father because Jesus was both God (infinite) and man (finite). The penalty of death was and is the most appropriate sacrifice. It is for this reason that the Father in his infinite love sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross. That is why Jesus is called “the one mediator between God and man.”

I hope this helps.

Sounds very feudal. The greater the lord that was insulted, the greater the penalty. But that reasoning does not apply to Republics, for instance. In the USA, the greater the person injured, does not result in a greater punishment (at least not on the books).

 

[Pax]

Sounds very feudal. The greater the lord that was insulted, the greater the penalty. But that reasoning does not apply to Republics, for instance. In the USA, the greater the person injured, does not result in a greater punishment (at least not on the books).

I’m not sure I see your point…I can be rather dense at times. I would comment, however, that we are talking about God in contrast to man instead of how man relates to man. That having been said, you should be aware that we do make distinctions in the USA between crimes against various men. Increased penalties are applied in cases of assault against police officers and particularly against federal officers, including the President of the United States. I’m not sure that this kind of thing has much to do with the questions of the OP but there you have it.

 

[Mijoy2]

As a previous poster said, it’s in the context.

“Jesus paid a price he didn’t deserve for a price we couldn’t pay”.

 

[ddmason]

The one who died for all of man kind willingly did so to overcome death and defeat Satan, he had to so we can rejoice with him in our death. It was the will of the Father. In order for us to overshadow death we must follow the one who defeated it and proclaim him- Jesus Christ. I am not sure what more I can add to this point.

 

[Valke2]

I’m not sure I see your point…I can be rather dense at times. I would comment, however, that we are talking about God in contrast to man instead of how man relates to man. That having been said, you should be aware that we do make distinctions in the USA between crimes against various men. Increased penalties are applied in cases of assault against police officers and particularly against federal officers, including the President of the United States. I’m not sure that this kind of thing has much to do with the questions of the OP but there you have it.

I guess i’m saying that man uses what he knows to define relationships. So using a feudal system to describe the relationship between man and God would make sense. I’m looking at this from a non-religious perspective. In other words, I’m assuming that man was responsible for the religion – not God.

In a feudal system, the mode of punishment/reparations that would be due would depend on the difference between the person offended and the person offending. If I am a Duke and I offend another Duke, the punishment would be different than if I offended someone below or above my station.

When man sinned against God, the difference in station was so great that we were unable to pay the “fine”. So God, in His mercy, sent his son to be sacrificed – the only thing great enough to pay the fine.

This is what I mean when I suggested that Christanity was based on a kind of feudal system.