Longfellow
Well-Known Member
deleted
I need to learn to look at the date of the OP before I respond to a thread.
I need to learn to look at the date of the OP before I respond to a thread.
Did he die for our sins?
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
For G!d the kid hardly left home...
What? You were gone? You went to earth and did that thing?
What? You were gone? You went to earth and did that thing?
Mmm .. Orthodox Christianity is incoherent, imo.
He is part of God, yet he is not God.
Unitarian, Jehovah's witness and others have a more logical explanation.
There are many examples of a person sacrificing his own life. Does it mean that person wants to die? It's a very hard choice.
You simply have no proper grip on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Why don't you actually read the new testament instead of repeating the same old ineffective arguments?
@Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi
If I wanted to go forums with the sole purpose of trying to rubbish your beliefs, should I not first read your scriptures and get some understanding of your own religion -- so I would know what I was talking about?
Last edited:
No more incoherent than Islamic revelation, if you think about it.
You have two options: reach out and try and figure out what God is saying/doing, or
Rationalise God to make it fit to one's own comfortability.
Jesus Christ forgives sin. Does any other 'messenger' forgive sin? The final blood sacrifice.
The original concept of sacrificing the lamb was to give to God a perfect and valuable animal from the flock. It was never about the blood. It was about giving to God a most valuable possession. The practice had become corrupted. Christ's sacrifice on the cross has ever deeper levels of meaning. The dogma is the shell of the nut. It is dry wood. The dogma protects the living essence.
IMO
From the Muslim point of view ...
Last edited:
Because He was also human. He is Emmanuel, God with us — wonderful counsellor. Like any human person he was afraid. He knew what was to come.Nevertheless he went through with it. Nobody wants to die on a cross, but He accepted it, for all men, and for all time
Not to you. God doesn't have to explain.
Well it's a faith statement, really. Most believing Christians accept it as just that, as most believers in any faith accept their dogmas as just that.
To explain the theological background is necessarily long and drawn out and, from previous experience, I know you'll declare it hokum somewhere along the way.
Personally I like the recapitulation theory.
The groundwork was done by Irenaeus (c115-202), working from St Paul:
"Unto the praise of the glory of (God's) grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace ... In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him." (Ephesians: 6-7, 10)
"The summing up of all things in Christ” was for Paul a recapitulation.
What Christ did – what man himself cannot do – was to reverse or recapitulate the evil brought about by the fall. This is one way to look at the mystery of the Resurrection. He heals, remakes and renews that which was lost in the Fall. In one sense the faith He lives in and through the Passion 'rewrites' that failure of faith of the Primordial couple.
Irenaeus places great import on "The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45).
It should be noted that Substitution Theory does not simply mean this man pays the price of that mans' sin (all of us). It's not quite that, that's an oversimplification. Rather, Christ as God and Logos does what man cannot do.
The Incarnation recreates / rewrites / restores man in the unblemished image and likeness of God. Sanctification – Love and Mercy – holds priority over guilt and justice.
Irenaeus also sees, as Christ heals the disobedience of Adam, Mary rectifies the disobedience of Eve. Again, her fiat 'be it done unto me according to thy will' restores Eve's reaching for the fruit ...
"an inversion of the process by which ... the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty" (AH, III, 22.4).
Irenaeus saw:
Where Adam and Eve brought about disobedience and fall, Christ and Mary effected obedience and rise.
Where Adam and Eve engaged in disobedience via a tree, Christ displayed obedience on a tree (the cross).
Where Adam was tempted, not being hungry, Christ was tempted while hungry.
Whereas Eve was made (created) from virgin (untilled) earth, Mary gave birth from a virgin womb.
Adam and Even were tempted & defeated by the devil, whereas Christ was tempted but conquered the devil.
Adam had no physical father. Christ had no physical father.
Adam plunged all into death by sin. Christ elevated all to life by obedience.
Adam sinned on 6th day of the week, while Christ was crucified on 6th day of the week.
Eve was a virgin who disobeyed, whereas Mary was a virgin who obeyed.
Whereas Eve brought death via her sin, Mary brought life via her obedience.
Whereas Eve bound all by unbelief, Mary released all via faith.
Whereas Eve was deceived by an angel, Mary received good news via angel.
I don't see how. We all still have to "toil and struggle" here on this earth for an appointed time.
..and I understand that the Messiah [Christ] is a man.
God can't "die on a cross" . It makes no sense whatsoever.
You could be wrong, of courseCorrect .. not to me.
Nor does the double-slit experiment. But that’s the way God fixed it to be. The fact you don’t get it, doesn’t invalidate it
This world is this world. I happen to think this world was always like that. What is offered is what was lost, a divine way of living in the world.
God in man. A hypostatic union.
Straw man. Christians don't believe that. You say we do, then say it's silly. We say we don't, you're not interested in understanding ... and so it goes.
It's easier to offer a silly non-argument and refute it, than understand the actual argument, especially when you can't refute that.
Here's another conundrum for you:
Assuming the Trinity for a moment, when Jesus walked the earth, was the Second Person of the Trinity absent from heaven?
Answer: No.
..the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single common operation of all three divine persons, in which each manifests what is proper to it in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."
- wiki Trinity-
I am very much interested in "understanding" ..
"through the Son", I have no problem with, but "dying for sins", I have.
..as do I thinking about "a single common operation of all three divine persons" .. it isn't rational that one divine person prays to another divine person, but it is a single common operation.
It is just gobdigook.
I consider myself an unorthodox Christian. I can't believe in irrational concept.
Who rejects the death on the cross and the resurrection, and the entire Pauline and Johannine writings. Doesn't leave much really, and even that little is regarded as corrupted. Obviously being a Muslim comes first ... yes?*
*No problem with that personal choice, but we need to be honest?
Last edited: