The narrative of salvation is a problem if we consider these words of Jesus: 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew 26 : 39 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27: 46
Jesus died so man could partake in theosis once more, as Adam was was meant to since the beginning. Christ took away the sin of Adam, which was the sin of the world: death and corruption.
There is a problem with the "Christ came to die for us, to save us" theology. Why? Christ makes two statements which are contradictory with this purpose: Before the cross: Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me, but not my will but yours be done. ("my will"??); On the cross: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (But wasn't dying on the cross the reason for Christ's coming, to save us? ). Does Christ limit himself to fulfilling the Father's will, against his own will? But then what was the purpose of coming to Earth? Only God the Father really wanted to save men? There is something here that is not right! We still lack a lot of information.
It seems to me that at least part of what it means for sinners to deserve death is that they ought to die. But if sinners ought to die, and if sinners aren’t deserving of Christ’s sacrifice, then doesn’t it logically follow that sinners ought not attain eternal life though acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice? How is it not a contradiction to maintain that sinners ought to die, and that they ought *_not_* die (through substitutionary atonement) at the same time?
@Hi There It works because Christ was worthy to die for us to fulfill the law that without the shedding of qualified blood (implied) there is no remission of sin. Jesus the Christ was qualified because He was fully God and fully man and we know His sacrifice on our behalf was accepted because He was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God in the most Holy Place not made by human hands where He intercedes for the church His body. So now we are reconciled to God through Christ, and God is propitiated to us through Christ that we are able to draw near to God and Him to us. When we are called by God into rebirth at that moment we are counted as worthy to be justified in Him and receive that gift of faith to build upon to the saving of the soul. If I was remiss in anything please let me know.
It was man who committed the sin in Paradise that brought about the curse and death. Why would Christ pay for our sins to secure Salvation? Not to mention how can God die even for 3 days since God / Christ is eternal? They will tell me, man cannot do it. But it is enough for ONE to achieve it. It is enough for one to achieve an act of holiness close enough to the infinite dimension that is the dimension of God! How can it be? We can use the mathematical analogy: what is the limit of a function of the type f(x) = a / x when x -> 0? It is infinite, of course, although taking finite values along the way. Man, as opposed to God, does not have infinite but finite dimensions. But nothing prevents him from triggering a process that tends to infinity. And that magnitude already contains the justice and glory that will allow him to pay for the (finite) sin he committed in Eden. The complexity doesn't stop there, but I went as far as I thought was reasonable.
Jesus was crucified and denounced because Jesus taught a new doctrine, and for this Jesus suffered death. Where then is the freedom of speech, thought and opinion? Jesus' teachings were felt to be seditious! Jesus' teachings upset religious authorities, who wanted to remain in power. Religious authories believed Jesus was revolutionary, and thought Jesus wanted their power; but they were wrong. Jesus had no use for earthly power! No desire whatsoever for any of the things most people crave and mistakenly believe will make them happy. Jesus knew better! Jesus knew that happiness could never exist where Love was not. Jesus came to teach Love, not to grab for power; not even spiritual power. Jesus also did not come to build a "church" or create a "religion," but to correct the distortions within the Scriptures. This is Jesus' intent today, as many of the teachings are misunderstood and are distortions of the message of Love.
The narrative of salvation is a problem if we consider these words of Jesus:
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Matthew 26 : 39
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Matthew 27: 46
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." --- Voltaire
🕊💞💓💕💗💞
Jesus died so man could partake in theosis once more, as Adam was was meant to since the beginning. Christ took away the sin of Adam, which was the sin of the world: death and corruption.
Which is why Jesus is called the Second Adam. Good explanation.
There is a problem with the "Christ came to die for us, to save us" theology. Why? Christ makes two statements which are contradictory with this purpose:
Before the cross: Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me, but not my will but yours be done. ("my will"??);
On the cross: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (But wasn't dying on the cross the reason for Christ's coming, to save us? ).
Does Christ limit himself to fulfilling the Father's will, against his own will? But then what was the purpose of coming to Earth? Only God the Father really wanted to save men?
There is something here that is not right! We still lack a lot of information.
It seems to me that at least part of what it means for sinners to deserve death is that they ought to die. But if sinners ought to die, and if sinners aren’t deserving of Christ’s sacrifice, then doesn’t it logically follow that sinners ought not attain eternal life though acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice? How is it not a contradiction to maintain that sinners ought to die, and that they ought *_not_* die (through substitutionary atonement) at the same time?
Ever hear the song "How deep the Father's love for us"? Listen to the last stanza, maybe that will help.
@Hi There It works because Christ was worthy to die for us to fulfill the law that without the shedding of qualified blood (implied) there is no remission of sin. Jesus the Christ was qualified because He was fully God and fully man and we know His sacrifice on our behalf was accepted because He was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God in the most Holy Place not made by human hands where He intercedes for the church His body. So now we are reconciled to God through Christ, and God is propitiated to us through Christ that we are able to draw near to God and Him to us. When we are called by God into rebirth at that moment we are counted as worthy to be justified in Him and receive that gift of faith to build upon to the saving of the soul. If I was remiss in anything please let me know.
It was man who committed the sin in Paradise that brought about the curse and death.
Why would Christ pay for our sins to secure Salvation? Not to mention how can God die even for 3 days since God / Christ is eternal?
They will tell me, man cannot do it. But it is enough for ONE to achieve it. It is enough for one to achieve an act of holiness close enough to the infinite dimension that is the dimension of God! How can it be? We can use the mathematical analogy: what is the limit of a function of the type f(x) = a / x when x -> 0? It is infinite, of course, although taking finite values along the way.
Man, as opposed to God, does not have infinite but finite dimensions. But nothing prevents him from triggering a process that tends to infinity. And that magnitude already contains the justice and glory that will allow him to pay for the (finite) sin he committed in Eden. The complexity doesn't stop there, but I went as far as I thought was reasonable.
Jesus was crucified and denounced because Jesus taught a new doctrine, and for this Jesus suffered death. Where then is the freedom of speech, thought and opinion?
Jesus' teachings were felt to be seditious! Jesus' teachings upset religious authorities, who wanted to remain in power.
Religious authories believed Jesus was revolutionary, and thought Jesus wanted their power; but they were wrong.
Jesus had no use for earthly power! No desire whatsoever for any of the things most people crave and mistakenly believe will make them happy.
Jesus knew better! Jesus knew that happiness could never exist where Love was not.
Jesus came to teach Love, not to grab for power; not even spiritual power.
Jesus also did not come to build a "church" or create a "religion," but to correct the distortions within the Scriptures.
This is Jesus' intent today, as many of the teachings are misunderstood and are distortions of the message of Love.
I disagree.