Fr.Andrew

Thus we have a God who punishes Himself in order to be able to forgive those who offend Him.

trillian

To make this story plausible, I think it MUST be that Jesus is only part of God and not God himself (God's "son" just like he says). They cannot be one in the same or you run into a holy host of problems like:
When Jesus died, where was God? If Jesus was God and he died and God didn't die, then Jesus didn't die either, because he's God. If God died, then who resurrected him? Can God be killed? Are not all things possible with God? and on and on.....

The only answer is the ol' "God is mysterious in all his mysteriousness"

Is his dying really the "ultimate sacrifice" when Jesus got to come back then go to Heaven instead of dealing with the persecution and torture for YEARS as his disciples did? When you get resurrected and your followers are having difficulties, should you leave them and go home? Must have been "testing" them so they could suffer too.

By the way, is cleansing by blood rituals still the norm for Christians today?

Mageth

No, God came to earth in the flesh to preach the Gospel and the way to eternal life to people and to die on the cross in order to pay for our sins. Did God know he would be crucified for his ministry? Yes. Did God crucify himself? No, humans did by their own free will.

Note that Butters said God "had himself crucified." He didn't say god crufcified himself.

Jesus died on the cross because only the perfect sacrifice could wipe away the sins of humans. Since no Human on earth's blood is perfect enough to wash away sins. God came to earth to do it because He was perfect enough.

And who set up the rather odd system that requires blood to wash away sins, and not just any old blood, but God blood? God, right?

Had God not come to earth to pay for our sins, we would all be headed for Hell with no hope whatsoever, because by God's own nature of righteousness, he HAS to punish those who sin, and nothing we do can ever bring us up the standards of God's holiness.

That's right; in God's system, which he set up, without blood being shed, God blood, we all go to hell.

Thats what Jesus was for. By being in the flesh he lowered himself to God and could walk among sinners. By being God, he was perfectly Holy and his flesh and blood could pay for our sins.

OK; in god's system, which he set up, god had to die; his blood had to be shed to pay for our sins.

So god died on the cross to pay for our sins. Under the system, which I must assume he set up, he had to die for us. And why? So that we won't get sent to hell, which he must do if our sins aren't paid for, because of his nature of righteousness.

So, god came to earth and became GodMan in order to be crucified so his blood would save us from hell (well, some of us, anyway), where we were all otherwise doomed to go because he is a righteous god, not to mention the fact that that's the way he set things up. He was crucified to save us from himself, from his own nature, which he couldn't change even though he could become GodMan for a while, die, and raise himself from the dead. And all under a blood-for-sin system which he set up in the first place.

Where do we end up? As Butters said, God had HIMSELF cruxified to appease HIMSELF. Right?

I'm sure glad I've escaped this primitive blood cult. Ugh, it's so friggin' ridiculous.

Treacle Worshipper

Magus, you've responded to very few of my posts, but I hope you will respond to this one, because this is an honest question.

What would have happened if the humans, acting out of their own free will, had chosen not to crucify Christ, but to leave him alone?

TW

Butters

Ouch! Now that's a head scratcher! What? No blood sacrifice?

Magus55

Not sure if this helps but here is explanation of why God had to die to save us from Himself.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/God_die.htm

Treacle, I guess He wouldn't have been crucified then. It was in God's plan for it to happen though, so obviously the Romans would have never chosen not to do it, and its been done so why dwell on ifs?

Hedwig

Man, God seriously needs therapy.

Tabula_rasa

(emphasis mine)

Ahem. Since the Romans were bound to their decision because it was in god's plan, they did not act of their own free will. god willed it so.

Therefore, god went further than offering himself up for sacrifice, he ordered the execution. And, since he kept the Romans' free will in check, he performed the execution. Yep, just another murder under god's belt.

Tabula_rasa

Mageth

Good point, Tabula_rasa.

Treacle, I guess He wouldn't have been crucified then. It was in God's plan for it to happen though, so obviously the Romans would have never chosen not to do it, and its been done so why dwell on ifs?

You do realize that this logic would also apply to every other human action, don't you? We can never choose not to do what god already knows. So much for free will, then. (this is the exact argument many make against free will; omnipotence precludes free will, as one can never do anything that god doesn't know you are going to do, and are thus constrained to doing only what god knows you are going to do).

WinAce

I actually use a different version of that argument to avoid the 'foreknowledge doesn't preclude free will' defense. (I.e. the one that says 'we cause God's knowledge of the future, his knowledge doesn't cause our actions')