Daniel_AnglumTM

I think that the so called Sacrifice works well like so many other things in fiction unless you start looking at it scepticly (which ruins the whole story) as is much of the NT.

winstonjen

Thanks, man! If you can beat them with scripture, they'll really feel like shit!

Answerer

Just curious, when did the christians start to view the stories in their holy book in spiritual way? I don't recall seeing this in my country.


<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

winstonjen

You mean they started? I thought that they always used it as a code of law (or at least attempted to).

winstonjen

And give me five of what he's smoking!

Xman

The objections raised here can be answered by simply elucidating various Christian doctrines, such as that of the hypostatic union: Jesus was both fully man and fully God, not a hybrid of the two.

First, the hypostatic union is not a logical contradiction: Jesus was both "A" and "B." The contradiction suggested above ("A and not A") would only pertain if Christians argued that Jesus was both God and not God, or man and not man.

Second, the hypostatic union assigns all of Jesus' human attributes to his human nature and all of his divine attributes to his divine nature. In his divine nature he was omniscient; in his human nature he was not. Thus, in his human nature, he didn't know what kind of pain to expect. This (having two natures) is beyond the scope of our experience, so what it would feel like to be in that situation cannot be intuited.

Regarding the "sacrifice," a better word might be "offering." In any event, Jesus did experience permanent loss, however minor you might consider it to have been. He lost, among other things, the temporary enjoyment of perfect fellowship with his Father, the time spent under the power of death, and various other things you might consider trivial. The important thing for Christians is that Jesus' death paid a penalty, a penal debt. Standard Christian doctrine is that the penal debt was exacted in infinite degree, not in infinite time. As we can all figure out by simple math, as long as any element of the sacrifice was infinite, then the whole thing becomes of infinite measure. By analogy, a box that is only 1 inch wide and 1 inch high can still hold an infinite content if it is infiintely long. Eternal suffering is not required to achieve an infinite payment; an infinite degree of punishment suffered for a finite time aslo satisfies the debt.

A proper understanding of the doctrine of the trinity might also help you see the Christian perspective. The trinity has traditionally been defined as God's existence in three persons and one essence. A "person," among other things, is a center of consciousness. In the crucifixion, the second person paid a debt to the first person. It is somewhat sloppy to reduce this to a statement that God repaid a debt to God; rather, within the godhead, the Son paid a debt to the Father.

Further, even if one were to argue that "God repaid a debt to God," there is nothing "illogical" about this. However counterintuitive one might find it, it does not violate any rules of logic. In fact, this kind of thing is done all the time through personal corporations. For example, and attorney may form a personal corporation from which he draws a paycheck (paying himself). He may also take out an officer's loan from the corporation to avoid paying taxes on the money before the end of the year (loaning to himself). He then repays this loan through a bonus at the end of the year (repaying the debt to himself). If the books are done this way, the taxman can get might angry. Illogical? No. Unprecedented? No. Unfamiliar or strange to you? Perhaps.

The relationship between sinners and Jesus is established by imputation, a legal transference of one's credit, whether positive or negative, to another. Perhaps a legal analogy will clarify a bit: In some states in America, when a man and woman marry, they become liable for each other's preexisting debts. So, if a man marries a woman who owes money to creditors, the man becomes legally rseponsible for those debts and can be sued by the creditors. In a similar way, when sinners are "married" to Jesus through faith, Jesus assumes liability for their "sin debts" (penalties due them for crimes against God's law). He pays these debts by subjecting himself to these penalties (God's wrath expressed). The blessings Christians receive come to them in a similar way to the aforementioned marriage: once the believer is united to Jesus by faith, Jesus shares the blessings he earned by his righteous life and death, including eternal life, forgiveness, etc., just as a man who owns a house might voluntarily put his new wife's name on the deed.

Regarding the pain of the crucifixion, the greatest torment was not the physical torture, but the unfathomable pain of suffering God's intense wrath.

Regarding eternal/infinite punishment in hell, it is true that finite sin does not merit infinite punishment. Let's Leave aside the question of whether or not human sin is an infinite offense. The doctrine of eternal punishment in hell does not state that an infinite time is experienced all at once. Rather, it speaks of a perpetual temporal existence. All that is required for a person to suffer for an infinite time under such conditions is that the person be sinful enough to get there in the first place, and remain sinful enough to remain there for the duration. In other words, those cast into help compound their sin while they are there, never repenting, always cursing God for their fate, etc. Much as a convict adds years to his sentence for committing crimes in prison, the condemned in hell add time and punishment to their sentences for their continued sins in hell. Since they lack the ability to cease sinning and to repent, and since no sacrifice remains for them, they necessarily suffer hell for eternity.

Well, enough for this post. I don't have the energy to answer all the objections above right now (and it would get too long to read if I did). Perhaps I'll do more later.

Xman

Error: In paragraph 6, that should be "If the books are not done this way..."

winstonjen

1) Just edit your post.

2) Sacrifice or offering, whatever you call it, you don't 'sacrifice' or 'offer' something with the expectation or knowledge that you're going to get it back. If you do, then it is not a sacrifice or an offering, more like a loan.

3) How can something be both permanent and temporary? No matter HOW painful it was, IT ENDED. And Jesus got his life back along with everything else. With a death penalty, the one who pays it is supposed to stay dead forever.

It's illogical to me, because he could just take the money and draw up a false receipt, which would also save on bank fees.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: winstonjen ]</p>

Xman

Sorry, I didn't realize there was an "edit" button. Thanks for the tip.

Regarding sacrifice, you seem to have missed the points I was trying to make. (1) You cannot get back lost time -- it is gone permanently, even if you are later restored to the relationship from which you were restricted. For example, if I am imprisoned for 20 years, I cannot relive those years with my loved ones in happier conditions, nor can I regain my lost youth. (2) Sacrifice is a legitimate word to apply to situations in which one experiences something unpleasant. For example, if my children are sick I may willingly "sacrifice" my health by tending to them, knowing full well that I will then catch the same disease. If I later recover my health, that does not make my actions any less sacrificial. Following the same reasoning, it is also a legitimate word to apply to temporary losses.

Regarding the debt, I think you mean something other than "illogical." There is no logical fallacy, no break of reasoning in the example I provided. Your willingness to violate the law in that circumstance does not somehow prove that it is a breach of sound reasoning to obey the law.

You seem to have in mind something more like "not expedient" or "foolish." But a lack of expedience does not establish grounds for a charge of falsity. Many things are true and logical that are not expedient. A charge of foolishness similarly does not impugn the veracity or the logical coherence of the idea.

winstonjen

No problem.

To an omnipotent, immortal God, 30 years alive and 2 days dead is a piece of cake. He would hardly notice it. I know I wouldn't, if I could live until the end of time.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: winstonjen ]</p>