[W:110] Was dying on the Cross necessary or a random method chosen by God ?

[The Baron]

No, you have no rebuttal to that which I posted. What I said was accurate. You fell back on dogma not scriptural narrative.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mulefoot]

Jesus's "sacrifice" did in no shape or form conform to the methods in which sacrifices were to be given and received. First and foremost, human sacrifice was practically eliminated when Yahweh stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son. A ram (I think, some similar animal) was provided in his place. From then on, sacrifices were of animals or sometimes even plant material, not humans. There is no indication in the Hebrew scriptures that the method of sacrifice would be changed (at least while still on earth). It appears that the Greek writers of the NT were not too familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, but knew enough to spin a narrative.

Of course, so much more of the supposed death on the cross was outside of prescribed sacrifice that it really could not be from the same Hebrew god.

The OT methods were insufficient, and so the cross went beyond the original prescription. That's actually the point.

 

[FreeStorm84]

The OT methods were insufficient, and so the cross went beyond the original prescription. That's actually the point.

Insufficient? So now this gospel of grace (Christ dying for sins, rising from the dead) is now sufficient? What if people don't believe it? What's the next solution?

 

[Mulefoot]

Insufficient? So now this gospel of grace (Christ dying for sins, rising from the dead) is now sufficient? What if people don't believe it? What's the next solution?

There's always Aristotle.

 

[The Baron]

Ok. Now explain these verses:
Mark 1:4 (KJV)

Luke 3:3

No blood spilling in these verses. No mention of any crucifixion or even Jesus.

Repentance alone does not bring forgiveness. Forgiveness requires the spilling of blood.

 

[Gordy327]

Repentance alone does not bring forgiveness. Forgiveness requires the spilling of blood.

Which makes absolutely no sense in the context of a god who can supposedly do anything.

 

[Ivan Denisovich]

There is no real dogma on whether God "could only do something in the way he did do it", what we know is the way God chose to allow us to defeat sin and death and further theosis. Beyond that the core question of whether it could have been done another way is the sort of dangerous speculation that seeks to define God, which generally is not a good approach.

 

[Gordy327]

Beyond that the core question of whether it could have been done another way is the sort of dangerous speculation that seeks to define God, which generally is not a good approach.

Why not? If one is going to claim there's a god or declare what god can or cannot do, it's first necessary to define god. And yes, there is a much better and less messy way god could have done it.

 

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why not? If one is going to claim there's a god or declare what god can or cannot do, it's first necessary to define god. And yes, there is a much better and less messy way god could have done it.

A better approach is what is called Apophatic theology, sometimes called negative theology" It seeks to define God by finding things we agree may not be said about God.

Trying to assert knowledge about God's divine nature, his motivations, even worse "could he have done things in a better way", is the wrong way to look at God. As Saint Cyril says:

For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge.

Apophatic theology - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

 

[Gordy327]

A better approach is what is called Apophatic theology, sometimes called negative theology" It seeks to define God by finding things we agree may not be said about God.

Trying to assert knowledge about God's divine nature, his motivations, even worse "could he have done things in a better way", is the wrong way to look at God. As Saint Cyril says:

Apophatic theology - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

The problem is, many theists claim or act like they know God or understand exactly what God wants. But they can't even agree on their own mythology. But God is commonly defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But that also leads to logical paradoxes, making that kind of God impossible by those definitions.

 

[Questerr]

Crucifixion was the standard Roman method for imposing a death sentence. What is now Isreal was then a Roman province (though the Jews staged some truly spectacular uprisings). Jesus taught us how to pray. He moved us away from the 613 Commandments in the Hebrew Torah and simplified religion. And He removed Original Sin from the souls of humanity. To accomplish this He had to suffer and die. The suffering and death was carried out in accordance with the laws of that place and time.

It was not “the standard method” for Roman executions. Hanging was.

Cruxifixction was reserved for what the Romans considered the most heinous crimes. Like rebelling against the empire.

 

[BabyAugustine]

If God is all powerful, why did God need to become a man and die on the Cross to forgive sins ?
Secondly, how exactly does becoming a man and dying on the Cross remove sin from humanity ?
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with the other.

The reason I struggle with the Christian doctrine is it's not based on any logical sequence of necessities.
If God had no other way than through Jesus, that means there's something that God is subservient to.
And even if God chose Jesus as a method randomly, the act of dying on the Cross and forgiving those who sinned that believe it happened is not a logical sequitur. It's simply random links created by God without any true rhyme or reason.

I will stop with correcting your made up data.
1) Nowhere in Christian theology does it say God 'needed' to do anything. If He was free as Creator why would He be unfree once Creation exists ???
2) You invert the timeline of Redemption completely !!!
Romans 5:8 - But God demonstrates his own love for us in this While we were still sinners Christ died for us
3) I would think before you said something so stupid you would do a jerk's try at research
It was not just to forgive sin !!!!! SIlly
Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."
The Bible teaches the exact opposite of your assumption
The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet.1:4) “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” (St. Irenaus) “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” (St. Athanasius) “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 460.
4) Why would you even 'think' of non-sequitur when all that is, literally, was created by God, the laws, the natures, the inter-connection of the entire universe. What does it mean to say God is involved in a non-sequitur !!!!
Are you saying God created things He knows nothing about.
5) Your last sentence is a monstrous stupidity. IS God free or not. There was literally absolutely nothing until God created things, so what does Reason mean to you? Something outside God that serves as a cause. That is STUPID
anything that could be a 'cause' is utterly to its sub-atomic level due wholly to God

 

[AmNat]

If God is all powerful, why did God need to become a man and die on the Cross to forgive sins ?
Secondly, how exactly does becoming a man and dying on the Cross remove sin from humanity ?
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with the other.

The reason I struggle with the Christian doctrine is it's not based on any logical sequence of necessities.
If God had no other way than through Jesus, that means there's something that God is subservient to.
And even if God chose Jesus as a method randomly, the act of dying on the Cross and forgiving those who sinned that believe it happened is not a logical sequitur. It's simply random links created by God without any true rhyme or reason.

Mankind lost God's grace through the fault of the first man. God could've extended His grace by fiat, but it was more fitting for it to be earned for us by one of our own kind. Thus Christ is called "the new Adam", because His obedience replaces Adam's disobedience as mankind's answer to God.

 

[Lutherf]

Interesting that this topic was "resurrected".

It might surprise some to know that not only was the sacrifice of Christ on the cross necessary but that it was declared in the very first word, in Hebrew, of Genesis.

 

[BabyAugustine]

Interesting that this topic was "resurrected".

It might surprise some to know that not only was the sacrifice of Christ on the cross necessary but that it was declared in the very first word, in Hebrew, of Genesis.

You really lose any sense of logic when you talk about necessity in God.
God can't change His Nature , is that 'necessity'? NO but it does mean a necessityh for you

The logic is airtight both as to why you framed the question wrong and why God being God means YOU have to change

"—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks {8} of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven. "

 

[Gordy327]

Mankind lost God's grace through the fault of the first man. God could've extended His grace by fiat, but it was more fitting for it to be earned for us by one of our own kind. Thus Christ is called "the new Adam", because His obedience replaces Adam's disobedience as mankind's answer to God.

Actually, that was God's fault. He set up the circumstances and allowed it to happen. Very poor planning on gods part.

 

[BabyAugustine]

Actually, that was God's fault. He set up the circumstances and allowed it to happen. Very poor planning on gods part.

Okay but then you are in the stupid corner, you are saying there can't be any sin becuse sin is what God doesn't want and yet 'it was God's fault and He let it happen"
See, This is what we call competing premises. EIther God gets full blame and there is no sin (by definition) and then you have no point at which to criticize
OR
There is really such a thing as sin , what God does not want but allows.

And finally you made the famous mistake every showoff makes , and St Augustine catches you
You say this is impossible but how can you if God controls everything

“For the Almighty God, Who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil.” ST AUKGUSTINE

GOTCHA GOOD (or rather St A did)

 

[ataraxia]

The crucifixion was a symbolic way of conveying that animal sacrifice was no longer required.

That's a lot of drama to make that point. He could have just said so.

 

[Lutherf]

You really lose any sense of logic when you talk about necessity in God.
God can't change His Nature , is that 'necessity'? NO but it does mean a necessityh for you

The logic is airtight both as to why you framed the question wrong and why God being God means YOU have to change

"—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks {8} of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven. "

If God deems something to be necessary then wouldn't that make it necessary?

 

[ataraxia]

I am not even sure how it's any kind of sacrifice for your son to "die" but then get up again after a few days. That's more like a long nap.

That's a far cry from the anguish of a real human father who knows they will never see their child again when the child really dies.

The whole story just doesn't make any sense.

 

[BabyAugustine]

That's a lot of drama to make that point. He could have just said so.

Okay so you are both wrong. And wrong by your own lousy reasoning.
He is wrong because how can it be symbolic without being symbolic of something. Jesus conveyed that sacrifice of animals was no longer required because what they foretold was here.
But you are more wrong. You admit He didn't say so . So why are you saying it's true. HE DIDN"T SAY SO, so the normal adult would say "So why do accept it as if He did say it?"
Do you two ever read the drivel you post

 

[ataraxia]

If God deems something to be necessary then wouldn't that make it necessary?

But this story just doesn't make any sense at all. It's almost like saying that for God to not throw you into eternal helffire, you have to rub your belly and tap your head at the same time, while singing "supercalifragilisticexbealidocious", because God has no other way to spare you from hellfire.

 

[ataraxia]

Okay so you are both wrong. And wrong by your own lousy reasoning.
He is wrong because how can it be symbolic without being symbolic of something. Jesus conveyed that sacrifice of animals was no longer required because what they foretold was here.
But you are more wrong. You admit He didn't say so . So why are you saying it's true. HE DIDN"T SAY SO, so the normal adult would say "So why do accept it as if He did say it?"
Do you two ever read the drivel you post

So if he didn't say so, where are you coming up with it? You just made it up yourself?

 

[BabyAugustine]

But this story just doesn't make any sense at all. It's almost like saying that for God to not throw you into eternal helffire, you have to rub your belly and tap your head at the same time, while singing "supercalifragilisticexbealidocious", because God has no other way to spare you from hellfire.

and that shows 1) your evil and 2) your lack of wits.
Did everybody before Jesus go to Hell in your view? Do unbaptized children go to Hell in your view? Obviously you limit Jesus work only to those who came after Him and knew of Him but that violates the whole Gospel
And why do you always hdege What the heck is 'almost like saying?" so it isn't saying but it's almost saying. That is just cowardly hedging.
also you invert 3 things said specifically in Scripture

1) “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4
2) Romans 5:8 In-Context8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. -- You explicitly deny that.
3) As someone once said (and this is your inversion at its worst) YOU CANNOT EARN HEAVEN BUT YOU CAN LOSE IT>
why would you say it is all one way or the other?

Don't worry, I am done with you purely on logical grounds. You fabricate Bible teaching and then mock what you fabricated.

 

[BabyAugustine]

So if he didn't say so, where are you coming up with it? You just made it up yourself?

HE meaning Jesus, don't try to be cute and wiggle out of it.