Question Concerning Christian Theology

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Tyler, Jan 30, 2009.

  1. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Okay, I know actual religious questions rarely get asked on this forum, but I'd like to give it a shot. This is something I've always wondered and never found a satisfying answer for. I asked a priest once and he thought it was a reasonable question and that the answer may be more due to human error than divine confusion. So, Christians (and any Biblical scholars that may exist here):

    What did God, or Jesus, sacrifice in the life and crucifixion of the Christ?

    This is a common refrain from Christians; that God sent his only (begotten) son to earth and sacrificed for mankind. That Jesus, as well, sacrificed for mankind by agreeing to his crucifixion. Allow me to address each by itself.

    God could not possibly have made a sacrifice, unless one considers simply seeing a single man(man/god) in pain to be a sacrifice. Still, especially compared to the Old Testament God, this seems rather mundane as a sacrifice. Frankly, if I could save the entirety of mankind by giving up my son, I would do it. I'd be sad, and feel bad for the rest of my days, but I would still do it without a moment's hesitation. I honestly believe most people would do the same. Moreover, questions of faith do not into play for God as he is, by definition, faith. So he knows with 100% certainty that his son's death will provide the possible salvation of every human being thereafter. How is this a sacrifice, then? Also, he did not lose Jesus in any real sense. After all, Jesus was (a) always a part of him (b) returning to him as soon as he died (c) bound to reappear on earth during the end of the world.

    Christ also cannot be said to be making much of a sacrifice. The usual argument is that Christ sacrificed his body and about a day or pain to save the entire race of man. Again, that seems kind of reasonable. If I had some phenomenal knowledge that allowed me to understand that my death would lead to the salvation of billions, I wouldn't hesitate. I think most people would feel the same way. If someone held a gun to your head and said "either I kill you or I kill the 2 billion plus people of Asia" would you really save yourself? I doubt it. I think most people - religious or not - would understand the magnitude of such a proposition and just let themselves die.

    The typical response is then "but Christ had his moment of doubt and could not be 100% sure that he was right." Why not? Isn't he Lord? Isn't the Lord omnipotent? Isn't that why Jesus told the disciples that they could not possibly understand his plans? Because he had divine knowledge that they did not? If Christ knew what would happen - which is implicit in him being Lord - then his decision seems fairly reasonable and something that most people would agree to themselves. In which case, where is the sacrifice?

    In short, if the sacrifice of God is that he let his son go through a bit of pain and death in order to save all of mankind, and Christ's sacrifice is to go through some pain and death in order to save all of mankind, it seems like the sacrifice element is actually a rather small element of the Christ story. It seems unimportant compared to every single other aspect of the story. And yet it is such an overarching theme in modern Christianity. (side note: any Christian history buffs know if this has always been the case in the Church?)

    ----------------------

    The priest responded with two answers.
    (1) That the Christ did not have omnipotent knowledge and therefore his surrender to fate was an act of remarkable faith. When I asked if this implied that the Christ could not be Lord - as the Lord necessarily is omnipotent - he responded that this may be the old "God is beyond our understanding" situation, whereby God can be both A and not A at the same time. Though both of us agreed this was a very lazy, unfruitful and boring way to conduct theology.

    (2) That, in fact, this focus on sacrifice and that of God and Christ themselves is a misinterpretation, though a telling one of human nature. He suggested that God and the Christ did not in fact sacrifice anything substantial, but that it is through human eyes that the event looks as one of sacrifice. For humans would have doubt and would have to do such an act merely on faith - rather than divine knowledge - and so for us to give up our lives with no certainty - which the Christ would have had - would be a sort of sacrifice. And so, in order to make the Christ a better symbol of betterment, we (Christians, at least) view him through our eyes and hold him to our highest standards. In short, we would have been sacrificing, so surely Christ was as well, and why not look at it this way as it sets a high bar for all of us.

    I asked if this was not dishonest; both to ourselves and, for a priest, to his congregation. The Christ should not need any beefing up - he's not a product you're trying to advertise on the open market with cheap commercials that lie about quality - and it seems wrong to give a false impression, even if it's a good one, about the Lord.

    To this he was unable to come to a satisfying answer and we left the (very pleasant) conversation at that point.

    So... Christians... do you have any more ideas for me? I've been wondering about this one for years and so few Christians are actually willing to discuss tricky questions. Help a brother out?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Yes, much of this complexity and confusion has arisen from the fact that Jesus never said anything about dying for the sins of mankind.

    This is called the 'doctrine of atonement' and is derived from Paul's ideas about Jesus, not from Jesus himself.

    The earliest Gospel Mark gives the clearest explanation of Yeshua's original motivation...to usher in the Kingdom of God as fortold by the prophets. Not to pay a 'blood price' in atonement for sin on the cross.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Adstar Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,782
    The teachings of atonement where not a creation of Paul or NT authors it is deeply imbeded in the OT in the righting of the Prophets.

    Isaiah 53
    5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
    We have turned, every one, to his own way;
    And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
    7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
    Yet He opened not His mouth;
    He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
    And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    So He opened not His mouth.
    8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
    And who will declare His generation?
    For He was cut off from the land of the living;
    For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

    9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
    But with the rich at His death,
    Because He had done no violence,
    Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
    10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
    He has put Him to grief.
    When You make His soul an offering for sin,
    He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
    And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
    11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
    By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
    For He shall bear their iniquities.

    12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
    And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
    Because He poured out His soul unto death,
    And He was numbered with the transgressors,
    And He bore the sin of many,
    And made intercession for the transgressors.

    It is so clear it makes it seem like a waste of time to out effort into posting it.

    The OT is littered with references to atonement sacrifices. Denial of such should be a source of acute embarrassment
    .


    Tyler

    The very foundation of your thoughts are wrong. Firstly you calim what God did was no sacrafice. But them you confirm it as a sacrafice by stateing the following.

    Why would you feel sad if it was no sacrafice? for the rest of your days?


    And another point. You say that Jesus suffering death is not a sacrifice because He did not really cease to exist... Well no one when they die ceases to exist, you me and Carcano are all eternal. You seem to be struggling to reduce the payment Jesus had to make by trying to eliminate the concept of the word sacrifice from the English language.

    Read the Words of Jesus Himself. He knew He was going to be killed and He knew why.

    Matthew 21
    17 Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, 18 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.”

    Laster in the same Chapter He states.

    Matthew 21
    26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

    Thats Jesus talking, Not Paul.

    Jesus a Perfect being did pay a ransom when He gave his life Many.


    All Praise The Ancient Of Days
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    This is an extraordinarily dishonest quotation given the context has nothing to do with Jesus or even traditional prophecies of the Messiah.

    If you read it in full with the preceding chapter it refers to a proverbial servant of righteous and how he will be persecuted for adherence to the will of Yahweh.
     
  8. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Sure, but hes not talking about being killed for the sins of the world, merely the benefits of his life effort.

    You are forgetting that his final words on the cross indicate that he did not want or accept his death...the sacrifice of which he speaks is that of his life action, not the relinquishment of life itself.
     
  9. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Well, I'm mortal. I'm not a perfect being. I have room for such pettinesses as selfish desire. I had always assumed that God being a perfect being - and not suffering from any of our vices - would not sink so low as petty self-desire.
    I think there's a fair point to make in Christianity nullifying a certain meaning of sacrifice. I've also never understood why religious people were so sad when a relative died. They always say "well, he went to a better place" but they don't act like it.

    If I was 100% certain that death meant heaven, I would be happy and excited for any family member who died (and had accepted Christ beforehand). In fact, this seems to be a common thread among many Moslems, and something I understand much more on their interpretation of text than on the Christian understanding. Why be bloody sad? Didn't the greatest thing imaginable just happen to your loved one? Isn't that a cause for happiness and celebration??

    As for sacrifice, it can still exist but I don't see how it is even mentionable in terms of "sacrificing one's life". The word, typically, means giving something up in exchange for something less desired. Aren't heaven and the kingdom of God the greatest things imaginable? In which case, giving up your mortal life means giving up earthly existence for a far greater existence. Which is not 'sacrifice'. It is, instead, kind of like a promotion.

    (Note that 'sacrifice' is also used in English in the sense of "giving up one thing for another" irrespective of which one is greater. If this is the way in which one "sacrifices their own life" or "sacrifices" something else, then I don't see it as particularly commendable. For instance, if I have a rotten apple in my hand and you offer to trade me the rotten, worm-infested apple for a big, fresh, juicy orange, it could be said that I "sacrificed the rotten apple for a fresh, juicy orange" though we don't often use the word in that way. As earth is sinful and ungodly and imperfect, whereas heaven is perfect and Godly, I don't see how the world 'sacrifice' applies any more than in the rotten apple connotation.)
    Okay, so what did he sacrifice?

    Did he sacrifice his own mortal life in exchange for the possible redemption of all future peoples?

    If so, I maintain this is not a very impressive sacrifice. I'm pretty sure you would do the same. Again, I pose the question; if someone said "I will kill you or launch a holocaust on all the people's of Asia" which would you choose? (Keeping in mind that no holocaust could, I assume, come close to the horrors of hell which Jesus' death allowed people to avoid.)

    It may, in fact, fit the use of the word 'sacrifice', I'll grant that. Just not a very impressive one. Certainly not such that I would imagine people basing so much of their love, admiration and devotion on this fact. Certainly not so much that it would become one of the principle calls to arms of the Christian nation.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am a little hesitant to believe that.
     
  11. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Really??? You find that hard to believe??

    If we took a time machine back to 1938 and God himself came down and said "look, either I take you, or I put the jews, gypsies, homosexuals and such through this ridiculous holocaust you learned about in history class" you seriously think you would say "ph! screw them! I don't wanna die! Let the suckers burn."

    I really don't see that as likely. I'm sure there are some people who are exactly that selfish, but I don't believe it's many. In fact, every day we see soldiers dying for causes they believe in much less phenomenal than the holocaust and certainly less phenomenal than the salvation of all future human beings everywhere. If a mere soldier is willing to let himself die for the good of a humanitarian cause (witness troops who tried to broker peace in Rwanda in the '90s), or a mother to save her children, what makes you think most people wouldn't give up their lives to save the entire human race?

    Again, I think it's pretty obvious. A lot of people have given up their life over much less noble causes than the salvation of all humanity. I'm pretty sure most of us would acquiesce to such a request.
     
  12. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Wait... From the Christian perspective, that question should be rephrased.

    God says you have two choices:
    (1) I take you up to the greatest place imaginable where you will sit by my side and live in all glory and peace and knowledge and understanding of the universe with ever lasting joy and happiness, and also I will spare the victims of the holocaust.

    (2) You must wait an extra 60-odd years before you get to join in my joyous kingdom, and I will allow the ruthless torture and slaughtering of 6 million plus people at the hands of one of the greatest mortal evils the earth as ever known.


    You really think you'd pick number two? You think I would? You think most people would?
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    in reference to post #8:

    It is easy to say that or even believe while sitting in front of your computer. plus you changed the scenario.
     
  14. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Okay, so switch 6 million to 2 billion.

    And yeah, it's damn easy. As I said, many, many, many, many people have given up their lives for much, much, much, much less than the salvation of all humanity. They gave up more (an uncertain seat in the kingdom - as opposed to Christ's certain seat in the kingdom), for less (say, a humanitarian cause like Rwanda - as opposed to the salvation of all humanity).

    As such, I don't think what Christ did was particularly spectacular. It was the right choice, given the alternative. But it wasn't surprising or God-like in stature. It was a choice that men and women have made all throughout history and will continue to make. It was, I believe, a really easy choice.

    And unless you're pure evil and pure selfishness, I don't believe you actually think you wouldn't agree to the situation. I don't believe you would tell Person X to go slaughter all the people's of Asia just to save your own skin. I have a hard time believing you could possibly be so evil and cold.

    You really would let something 200 times worse than the Holocaust happen just to save yourself?

    I guess you would have been a draft dodger in WWII.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    And what are the chances of that happening?
     
  16. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    None.

    What does that have to do with my point? And why do you refuse to answer any question I ask?
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am not the one playing internet martyr.
     
  18. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    I'm not asking you to. You're avoiding questions for no good reason. You're making poor responses and not addressing the issue at hand. It's quickly descending into meaningless conversation and, frankly, a boring one at that.

    You insist it's not such an easy decision. I've proposed that people have made such decisions an uncountable number of times in the past. Then I asked you if you believe you, or I, would not live up to what countless other people have done in the past. You refuse to answer this question.

    Either way, it doesn't need to be about me. I could be the great satan himself and be happy to slaughter 100 billion people in exchange for my own life. It still wouldn't change the fact that a phenomenal number of human beings have given up their life for causes much smaller than the salvation of the entirety of humanity. And they did so without the certainty the Christ had of a place in the kingdom. They gave up more for less in return.

    This is not to say Christ did a bad thing. He did a good thing. But it's just not so spectacular that I can understand why Christians would base so much love on such a small, comparatively normal occurrence.

    You may not be willing to play "internet martyr" (whatever that means... I assume it just means you're not willing to answer questions), but I hope you are not such an evil, cold and selfish human being that - were these phenomenal situations to surround you - you would choose your own life over billions of others.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    why would i answer such a stupid question that would never happen?
     
  20. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  21. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    I have brought forth this question from time to time and like anything which actually causes xtains to consider their religion, they have no good answers.

    Everyday there are people who sacrifice as much or more and under go far worse tortures.

    But you should remember the setup.

    God is supposedly all powerful and omniscient, but his best angle that he makes himself, lucifer, rebels against him and takes a lot of angles with him. The pinnical of his creation "man" is made incomplete so he has to make woman and then he bothes the job again and they are sinners.

    But he knows he is botching the job each time, has the power and knowledge to do otherwise, knows he will have to kill himself later, but goes ahead and does it any way!

    This bozo is supposed to be the creator?

    I'm surprised your priest didn't pull out the "innocent" card. The key point is supposedly JC was an innocent victim and before you mention children and babies remember xtians consider them damned by original sin.
     
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Oh ye of little faith.
     
  23. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    You don't even need to answer the question. In fact, originally it wasn't a question, it was a proposition. You turned into a question by proposing that I wouldn't actually act in the way I claimed, and that I wouldn't act in the way that so many countless people have acted before me.

    But the question is irrelevant. We don't need a hypothetical. We can look at real history (and current events). There has been a phenomenally huge number of people willing to surrender their lives for what they believe to be a greater cause, or to save more human lives. No hypothetical is needed: It has already happened thousands upon thousands of times in human history.

    And so now I ask the non-hypothetical question which was the point of this thread; what is remarkable or even notable about the supposed sacrifice - that is, exchanging one wicked thing (earth) for one perfect thing (heaven) - of Jesus Christ?

    This is not a hypothetical question, and as far as I can see, is a perfectly reasonable theological curiosity. If you think I'm so stupid, then educate me. In fact, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do. It would seem that to avoid doing so would be a contradiction of God's commandment to spread the Word.
    I'm never really frustrated by no good answers coming forth. It's the lack of will to attempt that really makes me unhappy.

    I have a certain understanding of Jews and Moslems. To some extent, and in some light, they are reasonable.

    Jews simply take the one fundamental truth that God exists and the Torah is his word as a matter of faith, and then everything else is debatable. (Even the most orthodox of Rabbi will admit that this fact is not knowable, only a matter of faith. I once asked a Rabbi if he was 100% certain there was a God and the Jewish God in specific. His response was along the lines of "Of course not! What kind of arrogance would that require? To think that I have divine knowledge as if I were a prophet myself? No. Such foolishness is only fit for children. It's a belief, and like any belief it could be wrong. I am not the Messiah, I do not know these things.") Arguing with a religious Jew over Talmudic interpretation and law is great fun, if one likes the process of legal debate. Though it's certainly not the standard opinion, I can recall a friend telling me a Rabbi at his school witnessed two students smoking marijuana. Someone asked the Rabbi why he was not more stern with the students (that is, why criticize them only for breaking the laws of the land, rather than breaking Jewish law). The Rabbi's response: "I don't remember where the Torah says Thou Shalt Not Smoke Weed." This sort of reasonableness and ability to argue - as soon as you get past the one leap of insane faith - is to me quite manageable. And Jews are well known for their love of endless debate.

    Moslems have a traditionally different view of the texts. In a sense, I understand fundamentalists much more than I understand the lax believer. A fundamentalist simply believes the Quran is the word of God and so his or her goal is to do every single thing that book says. A reformist seems to believe he himself (or she herself) has a special relationship with God, such that he is able to know - better than others - which parts God really meant to say, and which parts just got in their by accident. I'm not sure how anyone short of a prophet (to steal the words of the Rabbi) could claim to have such knowledge.

    But Moslems will argue over interpretation just as openly as Jews most of the time. Once the single jump of faith is ignored, the interpretation is up for grabs. It's not the same character as Jewish arguments - that is, it's not a strictly legalist argument - but it's still a debate of sorts.

    Christians, on the other hand, confound me. Maybe it's something particular about the New Testament (i.e. The implicit message that accepting Christ alone is enough to win the kingdom, rather than rigorous study of the Word), maybe it's something about the culture the Church developed in (England rebelling against an "oppressive" Rome with too many rules), I don't know what the prime causes are. But daily Christians (as opposed to priests, clergy and the like) don't seem to take any joy from theological discussion. They just don't like being questioned. They pick on interpretation, run with it, and then never think about the question again.

    It's bizarre. And makes them much less fun to talk to.
     

Share This Page