Why was it necessary for God to sacrifice His son, Jesus?

[retrorich]

Why was it necessary for God to sacrifice His son, Jesus?

 

[James the Persian]

Not all Christians think it was. We believe that Christ's Crucifixion was His self-sacrifice for us so that by His death and resurrection He could destroy the hold of death over man. We do not believe that He was some sort of sacrifice to God to appease His anger with man. That is a peculiarly western idea. Christ's entire Incarnation, of which the Crucifixion and Resurrection are parts, saves us for God, not from Him.

James

 

[muichimotsu]

However, one can look at God, even though he may not have been involved directly in it, as still very "savage" in his own way for this plan to involve such a great man to fall merely to eliminate sin. Of course, this is presuming that we believe Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, which is very nearly a paradox in itself. The concept of Jesus as a "sacrifice" or a "messiah" in the Christian sense of the word depends, it seems, really on how you view God in relation to the world.

This is one of the critiques of Christianity that makes sense. Roughly in the words of Nietszche, "Christianity condemns the sin, Buddhism sees the root of sin and confronts that with reason." In other words, in Nietszche's belief, I can say somewhat confidently that he certainly enjoyed Buddhist concepts much more, and this is also from my scant readings of him, which have also suggested he did contradict himself at times.

How does this tie in with Jesus, you ask? Well if Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of the world, then Christians must see sin as terrible, as opposed to Buddhists, who see "sin" as merely desire rooted in ignorance, which can be confronted without seeing the "sin" as a bad thing, merely a natural weakness of humanity.

 

[James the Persian]

However, one can look at God, even though he may not have been involved directly in it, as still very "savage" in his own way for this plan to involve such a great man to fall merely to eliminate sin. Of course, this is presuming that we believe Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, which is very nearly a paradox in itself. The concept of Jesus as a "sacrifice" or a "messiah" in the Christian sense of the word depends, it seems, really on how you view God in relation to the world.

This is one of the critiques of Christianity that makes sense. Roughly in the words of Nietszche, "Christianity condemns the sin, Buddhism sees the root of sin and confronts that with reason." In other words, in Nietszche's belief, I can say somewhat confidently that he certainly enjoyed Buddhist concepts much more, and this is also from my scant readings of him, which have also suggested he did contradict himself at times.

How does this tie in with Jesus, you ask? Well if Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of the world, then Christians must see sin as terrible, as opposed to Buddhists, who see "sin" as merely desire rooted in ignorance, which can be confronted without seeing the "sin" as a bad thing, merely a natural weakness of humanity.

What you describe is not the Christian view but a Christian view. For instance, Orthodoxy looks at sin as illness and provides us with medicine rather than looking at it as crime and condemning it, as western Christians tend to. For us, Christ is not a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins either, as I explained above. He was not born simply to be a sacrifice. His Incarnation was necessary, in our beliefs, to reconcile the human and the divine that had been driven apart by Adam's sin. His death on the Cross was not about 'being a sacrifice' but about sacrificing Himself so that He could rise from death in the body, shattering death's hold over man. It is quite a different way of looking at things and Nietsche's comment would hold no water as far as Orthodox Christianity is concerned, so his critique does not make sense. The second largest Church in the world cannot be described as he does, so he is at best critiquing a subsection of Christianity. And we are not the only ones whose approach is so different to that of the west - the Oriental Orthodox communion shares a very similar view to ours.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Christ's entire Incarnation, of which the Crucifixion and Resurrection are parts, saves us for God, not from Him.

And, given that God created both the rules and the entities subject to them, why an "intelligent design" such that this bloody "Incarnation" becomes the preferred (if not the only) mechanism for accomplishing this act? Is not the more reasonable explanation that the story employes the tired old theme of propitiating the Gods to rationalize the death of the cult leader?

 

[James the Persian]

And, given that God created both the rules and the entities subject to them, why an "intelligent design" such that this bloody "Incarnation" becomes the preferred (if not the only) mechanism for accomplishing this act? Is not the more reasonable explanation that the story employes the tired old theme of propitiating the Gods to rationalize the death of the cult leader?

Obviously I don't agree with your interpretation, though you're free to hold to it. Our position does make perfect logical sense within the framework of our theology, however. It also does so without any need for a vindictive, angry God who requires satisfaction for Adam's sin. Our view is that in the Fall, Adam turned from God, Who is the source of all life, and therefore his nature and that of His descendants became mortal as a consequence (not as a punishment). Man could not reach up to God by himself to regain what was lost and so God came down to man and, in Incarnating as one of us, reconciled the divine to the human. This is why it is absolutely essential that Christ was both fully God and fully man. It was the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion, then, that reconciled God and man and the Crucifixion was only necessary insofar as it fulfilled prior prophecies (which I know you dispute, but I am trying to explain our position). Any form of death followed by the Resurrection would have had the self-same effect of vanquishing death's hold over man.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion, then, that reconciled God and man and the Crucifixion was only necessary insofar as it fulfilled prior prophecies (which I know you dispute, but I am trying to explain our position). Any form of death followed by the Resurrection would have had the self-same effect of vanquishing death's hold over man.

Thank you. That was helpful.

Would it not be correct to say that prophecy is a form/manifestation of Divine inspiration? So, if I understand you corretly, God (the Holy Spirit?) inspired some righteous followers to prophesize the Crucifixian, thereby necessitating a crucifixian. It seems to me that you've failed to relieve God of culpability.

 

[gtrsgrls]

Why was it necessary for God to sacrifice His son, Jesus?

Because we as humans are too sinful to make it to heaven on our own merit.But Jesus came and died for us because he loved us enough to give us a chance to go to heaven.All we have to do is accept that sacrifice for us and live our lives as best as we can for God and that'll be enough.

 

[michel]

However, one can look at God, even though he may not have been involved directly in it, as still very "savage" in his own way for this plan to involve such a great man to fall merely to eliminate sin. Of course, this is presuming that we believe Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, which is very nearly a paradox in itself. The concept of Jesus as a "sacrifice" or a "messiah" in the Christian sense of the word depends, it seems, really on how you view God in relation to the world.

This is one of the critiques of Christianity that makes sense. Roughly in the words of Nietszche, "Christianity condemns the sin, Buddhism sees the root of sin and confronts that with reason." In other words, in Nietszche's belief, I can say somewhat confidently that he certainly enjoyed Buddhist concepts much more, and this is also from my scant readings of him, which have also suggested he did contradict himself at times.

How does this tie in with Jesus, you ask? Well if Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of the world, then Christians must see sin as terrible, as opposed to Buddhists, who see "sin" as merely desire rooted in ignorance, which can be confronted without seeing the "sin" as a bad thing, merely a natural weakness of humanity.

I have a slightly different slant on this from James; but i expect he will be fully aware of that: this is an area where we cordially wave hands at each other over "no-mans' land"...........

I believe in the Trinity; therefore to me, Jesus was actually 'a part of God' as if God could somehow detach part of himself and mould that part in a human being who was in fact born as Jesus. The sacrifice that Jesus (who was part God, as we all are) made was to free us from the inevitable punishment that we would have to face, from God, for sinning. Don't forget, man is incapable of not sinning; I am sure the Pope himself would admit to sinning every day..we are fallible humans, weak and doomed to sin.

Sins are not 'terrible' but they are 'apart' from perfection - which is the ultimate goal..........well, that is my take on this.

 

[James the Persian]

Thank you. That was helpful.

Would it not be correct to say that prophecy is a form/manifestation of Divine inspiration? So, if I understand you corretly, God (the Holy Spirit?) inspired some righteous followers to prophesize the Crucifixian, thereby necessitating a crucifixian. It seems to me that you've failed to relieve God of culpability.

I have no need to absolve God of 'culpability'. Christ was God Incarnate. He chose to sacrifice Himself in the way He did outside of time. (For some reason we can never truly understand this served a purpose, I suppose, that could not be served in another way). God inspired the prophets to prophesy how He would die, but as Christ is God, this is not a prophecy as to how God would sacrifice Christ, but a prophecy as to how Christ would sacrifice Himself. This is the fundamental distinction I would make between the usual Eastern view and the usual Western one. In the latter, God punishes, and sacrifices, His Son in the stead of a sinful mankind. In the former God (as the Incarnate Christ) sacrifices Himself for the love of an estranged and suffering mankind. I fail to see where culpability is even an issue within the Orthodox scheme of things.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(For some reason we can never truly understand this served a purpose, I suppose, that could not be served in another way).

The last refuge ...

 

[James the Persian]

The last refuge ...

I would be more worried if somebody claimed to know the mind of God. In any case, though, the part you have quoted is not the main thrust of my argument. The point is that if Christ is God and sacrificed Himself then the talk of cupability is an irrelevance. You simply do not talk of culpability with reference to somebody laying down their life for another, only with reference to somebody killing another. Regardless of your flippant remark to what was an incidental comment in my post, this point still stands unless you are willing to talk of culpability with reference to all those people who have ever sacrificed themselves to save another. In such circumstances culpability lies with the killers, not the killed (and as we believe in free will, not predestination, the killers of Christ were free agents with no compulsion to do what they did to Him.) I would also note that prophecy certainly requires foreknowledge on the part of God, but that knowing what would happen when He became Incarnate does not in any way imply that He was the cause of said end. The aside on which you commented is related to when God chose to become Incarnate. It could just as easily be that the benefits of Incarnating at that time outweighed the negative of the Crucifixion that would follow as a consequence, but this would be pure speculation. I, for one, do not claim to know the mind of God and am perfectly happy to admit as much.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point is that if Christ is God and sacrificed Himself then the talk of cupability is an irrelevance. You simply do not talk of culpability with reference to somebody laying down their life for another, only with reference to somebody killing another. Regardless of your flippant remark to what was an incidental comment in my post, this point still stands unless you are willing to talk of culpability with reference to ...

Actually, I'm willing to drop the term 'culpability' altogether as inappropriate and replace it with the term 'responsible'. But none of this seems relevant to our discussion ...

JamesThePersian

Christ's entire Incarnation, of which the Crucifixion and Resurrection are parts, saves us for God, not from Him.​

Deut. 10:19

... given that God created both the rules and the entities subject to them, why an "intelligent design" such that this bloody "Incarnation" becomes the preferred (if not the only) mechanism for accomplishing this act? Is not the more reasonable explanation that the story employes the tired old theme of propitiating the Gods to rationalize the death of the cult leader?​

JamesThePersian

It was the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion, then, that reconciled God and man and the Crucifixion was only necessary insofar as it fulfilled prior prophecies (which I know you dispute, but I am trying to explain our position). Any form of death followed by the Resurrection would have had the self-same effect of vanquishing death's hold over man.​

Deut. 10:19

Would it not be correct to say that prophecy is a form/manifestation of Divine inspiration? So, if I understand you correctly, God (the Holy Spirit?) inspired some righteous followers to prophesize the Crucifixian, thereby necessitating a crucifixian. It seems to me that you've failed to relieve God of [responsibility].​

So, once again: why an "intelligent design" such that this bloody "Incarnation" becomes the preferred (if not the only) mechanism for accomplishing this act?

 

[James the Persian]

Deut,

Of course God (Christ) is responsible, but I don't see any problem in that. I actually wonder that you do, or are you just trying to bait me? Christ is responsible for His own self-sacrifice. If He were not, it would hardly be a self-sacrifice would it? Being responsible for laying down your life to help others is hardly a bad thing is it? He is also responsible for His taking on our humanity and, in doing so, healing it. This was the Incarnation and this the most important aspect (along with His Resurrection) of it. He's also responsible for His Resurrection, by the way. There is nothing bad in any of these things and whilst His death was undoubtedly important (for without it the Resurrection would have been impossible), the manner of His death is less so. I still don't understand what difficulty you have with the idea of God healing us by His Incarnation, though I would share your views with regard to the idea of substitutionary atonement as taught in the west.

James

 

[muichimotsu]

Nietszche made many more comments than merely about Christianity, and I'm certain he noted aspects of Orthodox Christianity that I have yet to note. If I recall, Buddhism doesn't see death as the end of physical life, as physical life is a cycle of rebirths to overcome the hold that desire has upon us. Christianity, Orthodox or not, has God as inherently connected to us, when Buddhists see humans as solving their problems through inner intuition. They are NOT claiming to be perfect, but each Buddhist sees enlightenment differently, so they can debate as much as Christians do on the nature of Christ.

The point is is that Buddhism could give Christians a perspective that removes God and confronts the human issues of sin, be they original or caused by inherent desire rooted in ignorance. It still confronts the sin, but sees the physical aspects as more important than Christians do, who refer to their spiritual selves as the more important aspect. If I am wrong, correct me or tell me otherwise...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I still don't understand what difficulty you have with the idea of God healing us by His Incarnation, ...

Why the necessity of a crucifixian?

 

[Blood Stone]

Why the necessity of a crucifixian?

It was the style at the time. I guess if it were simply taking a suicide pill it woulnd't have the same effect or inspire people. It certainly wouldn't have made it public so it would be hard to spread the word of his death around. Also what he suffered on the cross was only the start.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why the necessity of a crucifixian?

I do not see the Crusificxition as Necessary.
Necessary for what?
That it took place is certain, that it was foretold seems true.

I know we teach that he Died for our sins.
That is a very simplistic though not inaccurate view.

I do not believe that he died so that we would no longer sin, as we are all sinners.

To me his death on the cross signified how much he loved us.
That he was prepared to go as far as this, to show that what he had spent his life teaching us, were not Just empty words.
It was an example of how far we should be prepared to go in following his teachings.
He showed us our constant sinning was not the end for us.
That God loved us anyway, that he was prepared to forgive us.

Terry_____________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That it took place is certain, that it was foretold seems true.

Not in the least, but that's a different topic.

 

[Fluffy]

I do not view the sacrifice as necessary. If it was necessary then it totally undermines and devalues the point of the act. God chose to suffer for us, not because it was needed, but because he wanted to put our needs ahead of his own.