Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    It is to be understood in the light of the OT sacrificial system which
    was a foreshadowing of the true atonement that would be fulfilled by
    the Messiah.
    
    Mike

can you reiterate in plain english mike? thanks.

just what sacrifice are we talking about here? 

did jesus sacrifice HIS life and was subsequently raised to the status of 
"son of god" or did god conceive the whole idea of having his son die on the 
cross and of then having him resurrected?



andreas.

      My understanding is that God foreknew the sin problem and
      He realized what redemption would entail.  I believe the
      Father 'begat' the Son; that is, essence of divinity proceeded
      from the Father to be the Son.
    
      And as the essence of divinity is preexistent among other things,
      so Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is preexistent and all
      other divine attributes.
    
      So, how did the Father GIVE the Son?
    
      I believe Jesus was given to humanity in the sense that, at the
      incarnation, all of His divine attributes were laid aside and He
      walked as a man.
    
      AND MAN HE WILL ALWAYS BE.
    
      The condescension of God.  In order to redeem man, among other 
      things, God the Son unites Himself as a brother to humanity
      FOREVER.
    
      God by inheritance, but He laid aside His divine attributes.
      Forever.
    
      Thats what I believe and thats how, in a sense, the Son was given
      forever.
    
    						Tony
                                       

    Andreas,
    
    That is a great question.
    
    I don't know what the answer is but I do like the question.  The next
    time I read the book of John I will read it with that question in mind.
    
                          Patricia

Andreas,

This is one of the questions I have always had, also. It just never seemed 
like much of a sacrifice to me. My understanding is that in the old testament 
God asked his followers to make the same sacrifice (sacrifice of a son), 
without benefit of resurrection. Yet the tone of Christians in general is that 
this is the most incredible thing that God could have done to prove his love.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.3 
      My understanding is that God foreknew the sin problem and
      He realized what redemption would entail.  I believe the
      Father 'begat' the Son; that is, essence of divinity proceeded
      from the Father to be the Son.

Tony, 

If God knew that sin would become a problem, why didn't he correct it as a 
part of the creation of the human being? Otherwise it would appear to me that 
he deliberately created a flawed product.

Steve

    It's incredible because God Himself made the sacrifice.

.3>   I believe Jesus was given to humanity in the sense that, at the
.3>   incarnation, all of His divine attributes were laid aside and He
.3>   walked as a man.
    
.3>   AND MAN HE WILL ALWAYS BE.
... 
.3>   God by inheritance, but He laid aside His divine attributes.
.3>   Forever.
    
.3>   Thats what I believe and thats how, in a sense, the Son was given
.3>   forever.

thanks for replying, tony.

as i understand you, you say that god gave his son to humanity forever. 
that god's son laid aside his divine attributes and that he was man forever. 

this would mean that god's son became mortal, died and is still dead. 

this is god's sacrifice, correct?



andreas.

.6> It's incredible because God Himself made the sacrifice.


mike, which sacrifice are you referring to?


if god sent his son to humanity with a mission, and after the death of 
jesus, resurrected his son to have jesus return to god's side, this is 
not much of a sacrifice.

if god gave his son to humanity by turning his son into a mortal (forever),
by letting jesus suffer a human fate and by letting him die and be dead 
[until all of humanity, including his son, are resurrected eventually] then 
this sounds more like a sacrifice.


is it correct, in traditional christianity, to talk of "god's sacrifice" 
in the context of "god gave his only-begotten son"? if it is correct, what, 
in traditional christianity, is the nature of god's sacrifice?



andreas.

      Hi Steve,
    
        Love draws, it does not force.  Steve, you have a remarkable
        propensity for pointing out the areas where I cannot offer
        an acceptable answer for you!
    
        I believe Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways and yet
        I believe he sinned!  How do I explain it?  I can't!
    
        I guess I believe that by essence of being Love, God could
        only create beings whose service to Him is voluntary and 
        GIVEN THIS, this was the 'design defect' (if you will) that
        enabled Lucifer to somehow choose another course.
    
        I wouldn't call it a design defect though.  Just the high 
        stakes of creating orders of beings whose service is voluntary
        and believing that THEREIN lies the reason some can choose
        another way.
    
        And how it is they can choose another way I don't know.  And
        I freely admit that!  (BTW, want to continue our correspondence?
        I think I owe you one!)
    
      Hi Andreas,
    
        It is you who require that _given_ must equate to being eternally
        dead.  Not me!
    
        I am satisfied that 'forever given' can equate to forever being
        man.  Even if alive.  But, I would include part of the gift being
        the cross, although Jesus was not eternally in the grave.
    
        And man can be alive, ya know.  He doesn't have to be eternally
        dead.
    
    						Tony
                                                                 

    I agree with Tony that God has given to humanity real freedom and real
    freedom implies to things,
    
          1.  God has voluntarily limited God's own powerful.  God is not
    all powerful if he gives up some of that power to humankind.
    
          2.  God does not know the future.  In giving real freedom to
    humanity, God does not know what decisions humanity will make.
    
    The tradeoff to giving real freedom to humanity is evil (i.e. pain,
    suffering, and diminishment)  The sacrifice of the Cross is that God
    feels all the pain that humanity feels.  God has given true freedom to
    humanity and that freedom has pain and suffering as the negative by
    products.  God sacrifices himself to feel all of humankinds pain and
    suffering.  The Cross is the symbol of how God shares with humankind in
    their worst sufferings.  The Cross is the symbol that God will suffer
    with humankind even until death, but then God overcomes death for all.
    
                                  
                                      Patricia 

.6 HEISER
    It's incredible because God Himself made the sacrifice.

This still does not make sense. As the omniscient creator of all, God KNEW 
that he would someday 'sacrifice' his son. He *set himself up* for this 
sacrifice. I see no difference between this and me manipulating circumstances 
so that I had to do something noble, and become a hero, to get out of what I 
set up. To me this is actually kind of sad...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.9 BARBIERI

        I wouldn't call it a design defect though.  Just the high 
        stakes of creating orders of beings whose service is voluntary
        and believing that THEREIN lies the reason some can choose
        another way.

Tony, 

Good to see you back in action! I could buy the above if God were not 
omniscient. He *knew* that some (most?) people would turn away from him (or 
not recognize him at all, in some cases :^) He has the ability to create folks 
with free will that do not turn away, such as the non-fallen angels. Surely he 
knows the difference between the two, but still he chooses to create evil. I 
cannot resolve this contradiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.10 FLANAGAN

          1.  God has voluntarily limited God's own powerful.  God is not
    all powerful if he gives up some of that power to humankind.
    
          2.  God does not know the future.  In giving real freedom to
    humanity, God does not know what decisions humanity will make.

Patricia,

Given those two beliefs your concept of God is at least logical, i.e. does not 
contradict the available evidence. (I still see no evidence for him, but 
that's a different discussion).

Steve

re .10

>              God sacrifices himself to feel all of humankinds pain and
>   suffering.  The Cross is the symbol of how God shares with humankind in
>   their worst sufferings.  The Cross is the symbol that God will suffer
>   with humankind even until death, but then God overcomes death for all.
    
                                  
patricia, you are equating jesus to god. 

staying with this divine unity, aren't you saying that god decends to earth, 
fraternizes with humans and is subject to a human fate as far as experiencing 
pain and suffering are concerned?

what pain and suffering are your referring to?

as far as i know, jesus did not suffer an awful lot in his life-time apart 
from a experiencing a slow and painful death. is this the suffering you are 
referring to or does simply living life as a human imply suffering?

if you refer to the death on the cross, then there are forms of dieing which
are equally bad and even worse.

if by suffering you mean living life as a human then isn't it only
just and fair that god should experience what it's like being a human?
after all, he created us this way and he expects us to go through life, 
doesn't he?

i would have thought that an omnipresent, omniscient god already feels
all of humankinds pain and suffering.

where is god's sacrifice to humanity?



andreas.

    
    
    Andreas,
    
    Your questions are wonderful questions.  The challenge me in the
    formation and articulation of my theology.  Which is exactly what good
    questions are suppose to do.
    
    
>              God sacrifices himself to feel all of humankinds pain and
>   suffering.  The Cross is the symbol of how God shares with humankind in
>   their worst sufferings.  The Cross is the symbol that God will suffer
>   with humankind even until death, but then God overcomes death for all.
    
                                  
>>patricia, you are equating jesus to god. 
    
    Yes I am.  There are contradictions with Christianity, within the
    Bible, and even within my personal theology.
    
    When I read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is clearly not God.  Jesus
    is fully human.  By the time of Matthew, there is more divinity like
    language than in Mark.
    
    When I read Paul i.e. Romans, Philippians, Corrinthians, the Jesus that
    Paul speaks of is not human at all.  Paul mentions almost nothing of
    the historic Jesus and discusses the post ressurrections, spiritual
    Christ who is often spoken of in the same language that old testament
    writers spoke of God.
    
    Relying on Paul's metaphor of the Power of the Cross, and the Process
    understanding that I am studying, I am holding that image of God on the
    Cross.

staying with this divine unity, aren't you saying that god decends to earth, 
fraternizes with humans and is subject to a human fate as far as experiencing 
pain and suffering are concerned?
    
    Using Paul's imagery, yes I am!

what pain and suffering are your referring to?

as far as i know, jesus did not suffer an awful lot in his life-time apart 
from a experiencing a slow and painful death. is this the suffering you are 
referring to or does simply living life as a human imply suffering?
    
    There is both joy and pain in living life as a human.  The suffering I
    was referring to is Jesus' death on the cross.

if you refer to the death on the cross, then there are forms of dieing which
are equally bad and even worse.
    
    Yes, there are.  But symbolically speaking, the crosses encompasses all
    the pain and suffering endured by all humanity.

if by suffering you mean living life as a human then isn't it only
just and fair that god should experience what it's like being a human?
after all, he created us this way and he expects us to go through life, 
doesn't he?
    
    Just as I prefer life to no life, I don't see it as a sacrifice to live
    as humans live.

i would have thought that an omnipresent, omniscient god already feels
all of humankinds pain and suffering.

    Omnipresent-  I like that word.  My image of God is an Omnipresent God. 
    An omnipresent God experiences all of humankind pain and suffering.
    
where is god's sacrifice to humanity?
    
    In voluntarily sharing our pain and suffering with us.   The Gospels
    for me are sacred literature and not historic truth.  It is the symbol
    and the metaphor of the sacrifice on the Cross that are powerful for
    me.  From a historic position, which I can also hold, the living person
    Jesus sacrificing his life for what he believed is the sacrifice.
    
    I don't claim to know what happens to us after we die.  The historic
    Jesus and the Incarnate God "Christ" are not the same reality.  To
    embrace Jesus Christ as fully human and fully divine we have to hold
    onto two conflicting images.  The historic Jesus was just as unsure(or
    sure) as each of us regarding what happens after death.  He gave his
    life as all heroes give their life in light of that uncertainty.  That
    is another view of the sacrifice.
    
                                      
    Ambiguity does not destroy my faith.  I acknowledge it.  I let each
    book of the Bible stand on its own.  I do not try to unify the
    many/many images of God in the Bible.
    
    In answering your question from John, I would maintain that only
    evidence from John and literature available to the author of John could
    be used.   I would reject using Hebrews, for instance, in finding
    meaning in the Gospel of John.
    
    
                                   Patricia



andreas.

  Hi Steve,

Re: Note 1115.11

�This still does not make sense. As the omniscient creator of all, God KNEW 
�that he would someday 'sacrifice' his son. 

 Yes.

�He *set himself up* for this sacrifice. 

 What do you mean Steve by "set Himself up"?  Do you mean that He carried
 out a redemptive agenda?  What's wrong with that?

�I see no difference between this and me manipulating circumstances 
�so that I had to do something noble, and become a hero, to get out of what I 
�set up. To me this is actually kind of sad...

 I see two possibilities.

 1)God never creates of an order that serves Him out of love.

 2)God does create of an order that serves Him out of love even though 
   knowing the sin problem that will arise and the redemptive solution 
   He will need to carry out.

 Kind of sad to ultimately have a creation that reflects perfect love and
 that voluntary serves Him simply for the good that He is?

 Kind of sad if the only alternative is a universe devoid of any creative
 beings who can appreciate good?

 I don't think its kind of sad at all and what you call "manipulating
 circumstances to become a hero", I call carrying out the plan of redemption.
 The plan which demonstrates, among other things, that divinity would relin-
 quish eternal existence in the hope that the love revealed would draw even
 one sin-sick soul to Him.

 (Yes, I know Jesus was not eternally lost, but I believe that at the cross,
 He could not see beyond the tomb and in His heart He made this kind of 
 choice.  And the character trait which exhibited this was divine through 
 and through.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.9 BARBIERI

        I wouldn't call it a design defect though.  Just the high 
        stakes of creating orders of beings whose service is voluntary
        and believing that THEREIN lies the reason some can choose
        another way.

�Good to see you back in action! 

 Thanks Steve!

�I could buy the above if God were not 
�omniscient. He *knew* that some (most?) people would turn away from him (or 
�not recognize him at all, in some cases :^) 

 He knew, but could He prevent it?  I believe that by creating an order of
 beings with the capacity for free choice, God relinquished the total authority
 of His will.  (I believe He willed that all be saved.)

�***He has the ability to create folks with free will that do not turn away,***

 This I do not believe!!!

 �such as the non-fallen angels. 

  I believe the non-fallen angels made their choice to remain with God.
  God willed that ALL angels remain non-fallen (I believe).

 �Surely he 
 �knows the difference between the two, but still he chooses to create evil. I 
 �cannot resolve this contradiction.

  I believe He created evil in the sense that He knew some would choose to
  turn away from Him.  Thus the basis of His responsibility lies with His
  desire to have a created order which has free choice and serves Him
  voluntarily.

  I think you suggest that God *made* Lucifer fall.

  I think the crux of the disagreement here is that you maintain that beings
  given free choice can always have it such that they MUST NOT fall.  (That
  God could have made things this way.)  Can you furnish proof for this 
  premise?

							Tony

>mike, which sacrifice are you referring to?
    
    The only one that matters.  God taking on human flesh and paying the
    price of the atonement just as it is outlined in the Scriptures.

>if god sent his son to humanity with a mission, and after the death of 
>jesus, resurrected his son to have jesus return to god's side, this is 
>not much of a sacrifice.
    
    the alternative is no more God because He would still be dead and in
    the grave like Buddha, Mohammed, Ghandi, and a host of others.

    Mike

"did god make a sacrifice to save humanity?"


i am beginning to see what the answers to this question boil down to.
across the board, from patricia to mike, you equate jesus with god and
since jesus sacrificed his life you see this as god's sacrifice.

unless i am misreading, this seems to be the view shared by all the 
christian respondents.




andreas.

personally, i find the idea of unity of god/jesus to the extent that one 
equates to the other, artificial and not very credible. is this idea of 
such perfect unity between jesus and god a human construction? did jesus 
ever say that he was god? all i know is that jesus referred to god as his 
father, no more. though i look forward to hearing from you on what basis 
you equate jesus to god.




andreas.

    
    Hi Folks,  I'm very busy but wanted to let you know, Andreas, that
    Jesus called Himself God, received worship, forgave sins, etc.  Jesus'
    divinity is unquestionable according to His testimony, demonstrations,
    and followers' testimonies.
    
    jeff 

    Andreas,
    
    I agree with you that according to the synoptic Gospels where Jesus' own
     words are recorded, Jesus is clearly not God.  Jesus is the annointed
    of God who is annointed with a mission from God.  He calls himself the
    "son of God", "Son of Man", "Messiah" "Teacher"  He never refers to
    himself as God.  The Gospel of John is much more abstract.  There are
    three references in the Gospel of John that are used by trinitarians to
    show that Jesus and God are the same.  There are scholars that refute
    all three reference.  Raymond Brown is one such Scholar.  I have a note
    in her on my paper on the Prologue to John which discusses that issue.
    
    Raymond Brown does state that the way in which the Bible relates Jesus
    to God is in the things that he does and the way persons refer to him. 
    It is in the hymns that find there way into the gospel where the
    evidence is displayed.  i.e. the prologue to John  "And the Word became
    Flesh"  and the hymn in Philippeans."  There is appropriate discussion
    on the usage of the term "Lord/lord".
    
    The orthordox trinitarian position is that Jesus and God are one.
    
    I have been a staunch Unitarian, which holds that Jesus is not God, but
    have been moving more toward a trinitarian position as I find more
    liberal and therefore more demytholigized definitions of the Trinity.
    For instance there is a position called panentheism(see topic 13 on
    process theology and also discussion on Creation Spirituality)  Matthew
    Fox and Charles Hartshorne both support the panentheistic position that
    God is both Transcendent to the world and Immanent in the World.  I
    personally relate the theory of Immancence to Jesus.  God is said to be
    incarnate in Jesus.  To me that means that God lives within Jesus. 
    Since Jesus is stated to be the firstborn of a large family and the
    first fruits of God, I define God as being immanent in each one of us. 
    God is incarnate in each one of us.  Each one of us shares in the
    Divinity of Christ.  We all participate in the  body of Christ.  Since
    much of this theology is dependent upon the works of Paul, the fact
    that it is clearer in Paul that the distinction between God and Christ
    is blurred.  The Christ Paul talks about is different than the Jesus
    defined in the synoptic Gospels.  What the contradictions tell me is  
    that there is a mystery about God that no human can fully define.  All
    we have is approximations.  The main questions,  What is the nature of
    God, What does it mean to be the Son of God, What is divinity?  What
    does it mean to be human are all questions that deserve our best
    attempts at answering, but are also questions that will never be fully
    answers.
    
    The image of Christ on the Cross raises for me questions about the
    nature of suffering.  Why do we suffer?  Why does God allow suffering? 
    How does God mitigate human suffering?  How does God stand with us as
    we suffer?  For me the image of Christ on the Cross is a powerful
    image,even as I do not have fully adequate answers to exactly what that
    means.  In a sense, that is the beauty of the image.  It can mean
    exactly what each one of us needs it to mean, at different moments in our
    lifes.
    
                                Patricia
    

.15 BARBIERI

 What do you mean Steve by "set Himself up"?  Do you mean that He carried
 out a redemptive agenda?  What's wrong with that?

Tony, it's more than simply fixing a problem. He created the problem to begin 
with, then fixed it, then declared himself a hero for doing so. I know that 
the point of contention here is that God did not create the problem, I'll get 
to this later.

 I see two possibilities.

 1)God never creates of an order that serves Him out of love.

 2)God does create of an order that serves Him out of love even though 
   knowing the sin problem that will arise and the redemptive solution 
   He will need to carry out.

I can see a LOT more than two possibilities 

here, after all, we are dealing with an omnipotent being. For example, he can 
create the order but deal with those that choose not to follow him by exile, 
rather than allowing them to kill those that do choose to follow him. This is 
only one of an infinite number of possibilities.

  �***He has the ability to create folks with free will that do not turn  
  away,***

  This I do not believe!!!

Then you do not believe God is Omnipotent, and my argument becomes moot.

  I believe the non-fallen angels made their choice to remain with God.
  God willed that ALL angels remain non-fallen (I believe).

This seems contradictory to me. If God willed it, then they had no choice.

  I think you suggest that God *made* Lucifer fall.

Not quite. I suggest that God made Lucifer, i.e. he created every last atom in 
Lucifer's being. He knew that Lucifer would fall. That he *could* have chosen 
to create Lucifer differently, so that he wouldn't fall, would still have 
free will, and would have chosen to serve God out of love. That he *chose* not
to do so.

  I think the crux of the disagreement here is that you maintain that beings
  given free choice can always have it such that they MUST NOT fall.  (That
  God could have made things this way.)  Can you furnish proof for this 
  premise?

God is omnipotent, he can do anything. If you accept this, than that is all 
the proof required. If you believe that God is not omnipotent, then I would 
concede that your view of God is at least consistent with known facts.

Steve

patricia,


thanks for providing so much information! your note is food for thought.

>   Since Jesus is stated to be the firstborn of a large family and the
>   first fruits of God, I define God as being immanent in each one of us. 

i haven't heard of this yet, that jesus is stated to be the firstborn of 
a large family. does it say so in the bible?




andreas.

    Yes, those are biblical references.  I will try to find them if someone 
    does not off the top know them.  I believe the firstborn of a large
    family may be Romans 8?
    
                                Patricia

    ...Firstborn of the family of second-born only.
    
    jeff

      Hi Steve,
    
        Yeah, given your definition of omnipotent, I believe God is not.
    
        I don't think exile would have worked.  God's ultimate aim is
        the resolution of issues within the minds of His creation.  Those
        that choose to remain with God would have feared Him had they not
        intelligently understood the ultimate fruit of sin and love and
        also would not have understood the love of a God that exiles.
    
        Ultimately, pain is required in order for God's universe to come
        to an intelligent understanding of the goodness of good and the
        evilness of evil.  Exile would not have satisifed either.
    
      Hi Andreas,
    
        I don't want to suggest there are not other reasons, but the 
        following is some explanation for the divinity of Christ.
    
        God foreknows a fall.  He realizes the need for a plan of
    	redemption.  He needs man to have an example of obedience.  He
        also needs to demonstrate that God Himself cannot circumvent the
        reality implicit within sin, righteousness, and sinful flesh.
        He also is of such a character that only He would be the ultimate
        sacrifice; He would have no created being do so.
    
        (Now, I am not here getting into WHY the sacrifice, but I assure
        you, the reason I hold to is probably not what you think.)
    
        So the Father begets the Son, who being essence of divine essence,
        is divine (i.e. God).  
    
        The plan of redemption requires He who dies to need to enter into
        the stream of humanity and to walk as man walks, i.e. to need to
        depend on 'God' 100% by faith.
    
        So the divine Son, begotten of the Father, is incarnated.  He is
        EMPTIED of all divine attributes.  He truly walks AS A MAN.  His
        only resource is complete dependence on the Father (faith).  He
        comes to realize who He is by revelation received by faith.  That
        is He comes to believe by faith - not by any prior knowledge 
        (which was laid aside).
    
        And He carries out His redemptive mission.  As a man, but also 
        being God by inheritance.
    
        Only God would be the sacrifice, but while being man, He must 
        be emptied of all divine attributes.
                                                  
    							Tony

	We know that in everything God works for good with those who love
	him, who are called according to his purpose.  For those whom he
	foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his
	Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
	And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he
	called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also
	glorified.
					Romans 8:28-30 (RSV)

weird. i would have interpreted this as jesus having at the time radically 
redefined the approach to god by seeking/knowing god on a personal level and 
by having 100% faith. it seems that before jesus, it was not common for 
normal individuals to interact with god directly. this was the domain of the 
high priests. in this light, by bringing god so close, jesus would have been 
the son, the first-born of many, of all who'd follow his example. 
...and, as patricia said earlier on, this would suggest that the divine is
in everyone (or at least in those who follow the example of jesus).




andreas.

Mike, there is a conference rule that notes should not be over 100 lines
long.

To my surprise there doesn't seem to be an existing base note on the
trinity.  Maybe you could break up .27 into several smaller notes and
enter them as replies to a new base note.

				-- Bob

      I echo Bob's sentiment.  No way I'm reading a 569 line
      anything!

.24 Barbieri

Tony,

If God is not omnipotent, then the contradictions I see go away. I may not 
understand why he is doing things as he does, and I may believe that I see 
better ways, but at least it *can* make sense this way.

Steve

    I deleted the lengthy note and will split it into a new topic per the
    moderators request.
    
    Mike