Author Topic: was the cross really necesary?  (Read 2709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

blackwings

  • Guest
was the cross really necesary?
« on: May 16, 2008, 04:43:13 AM »
even as a universalist, i find it hard to believe in a God who would pour the sin of world on his son, to save humanity

imo, its a matter of perspective - is it not possible, to have jesus' 'work' completed without the torture and murder?

the book 'if grace is true' paints a different picture of the cross, basically extrapolating that the murder of jesus was mans ultimate refusal of Gods' grace, and, in the cant-keep-a-good-man-down line of thinking, his ressurection was God's way of refusing mans refusal of Jesus

any insight would be appreciated - thanks

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2008, 05:28:12 AM »
The crucifixion was a fulfillment of countless types, shadows, spiritual laws, direct prophecies, etc., that were in the Old Testament that gave us the anatomy of redemption -- how to recognize the Saviour when He came, what to expect, in addition to all of the things that would be dealt with in His death of sanctification, bodily healing, financial provision in order to carry out His will: essentially every detail of the human experience was taken into account with every detail of the crucifixion and each part of that played a very vital part in how we're saved from the evils of this present world, how we're equipped to deal with it for as long as Father wants us here, and it's the foundation upon which God's creating the new heavens and earth.  Every lash, every drop of blood, every splinter of wood, etc. was necessary to facilitate the bringing of all of us to absolute perfection in the fullness of time that God has prepared for the conformity of each of us to the Image of Jesus Christ. 

It says in Galatians 3:13-14 that the cross was necessary in order to break the curse: the curse upon disobedient Israel of Deuteronomy 28, but also the curse of the Genesis 12 Abrahamic Covenant where those who've cursed Abraham and his seed are cursed, and to remove the curse that came upon Creation with Noah's Flood, and to remove the curse of the blood of Abel, and the curse that came upon Creation in the Garden of Eden.  Every aspect of our future is rooted in an old rugged cross, so despised by the world :cloud9:

Quote
But we maintain that the power of Christ's Cross and of His death is so great, that it will be sufficient for the healing and restoration not only of the present and future ages, but even for those of the past.
~Origen
« Last Edit: May 16, 2008, 05:30:47 AM by martincisneros »

blackwings

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2008, 10:29:10 AM »
i appreciate your well thought out response, and dont dispute that christs' suffering was prophesied in the old testament, what im getting at is the necessity of jesus' murder itself - was there no other situation that could have accomplished this end result?

i dont think god was caught unawares, i just feel like if thats the solution GOD THOUGHT OF than its a pretty shady deal

as for your numerous new testament references, i question the validity of alot of the bible as MANS WORD ABOUT GOD and not so much the WORD OF GOD - i believe stories like adam and eve and the noahs ark have been proven false, and in that line of thinking, might they just be mans attempt to understand divinity?  or creation?  or a terrible flood?  (but not necesarily a worldwide one?)

there is alot in the bible that the writers (and readers) have taken liberty with, its not an all or nothing equation, there is a logic to it that is undeniable, but there are details that have been, are, and will be refuted, and we, as followers of christ (as much by faith as by evidence) need to adjust to new realities as they reveal themselves, without dogmatically sticking to our guns

that being said, i sit here and wonder what is wrong with MY thinking?

Offline Nancy

  • Snr
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Gender: Female
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2008, 12:02:03 PM »
Hi there blackwings,

I am finding it hard to accept that Jesus HAD TO DIE to save mankind otherwise God's wrath would kill us all!
What happened to people who died before the cross? Were they thrown into hell or oblivion?!
Also does that also mean that we haven't got to do ANYTHING AT ALL to work out our salvation anymore or that the law of reaping and sowing no longer applies to us because of Jesus' death.  Maybe it's me but i'd still like to think that i can't just live my life willy nilly and get away with it so to speak.
Godbless
Nancy

Mickiel

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2008, 08:58:47 PM »
i appreciate your well thought out response, and dont dispute that christs' suffering was prophesied in the old testament, what im getting at is the necessity of jesus' murder itself - was there no other situation that could have accomplished this end result?

i dont think god was caught unawares, i just feel like if thats the solution GOD THOUGHT OF than its a pretty shady deal

as for your numerous new testament references, i question the validity of alot of the bible as MANS WORD ABOUT GOD and not so much the WORD OF GOD - i believe stories like adam and eve and the noahs ark have been proven false, and in that line of thinking, might they just be mans attempt to understand divinity?  or creation?  or a terrible flood?  (but not necesarily a worldwide one?)

there is alot in the bible that the writers (and readers) have taken liberty with, its not an all or nothing equation, there is a logic to it that is undeniable, but there are details that have been, are, and will be refuted, and we, as followers of christ (as much by faith as by evidence) need to adjust to new realities as they reveal themselves, without dogmatically sticking to our guns

that being said, i sit here and wonder what is wrong with MY thinking?



I think the death of Jesus can be viewed twofold, on the one end it was a shady deal, on the other it was the deal of the century. And I don't think its wrong to take a look at it on either end. I think its healthy to look at the positives and the negatives of the things God has done. In Rev. 1-4, John was allowed to see a very interesting event. God had already decreed certain things to take place with humanity, and he was not going to change his mind. What he was going to do, he had written down and sealed in a book. There was and is absolutely nothing anyone in heaven or earth could do to change Gods mind. There really was no question as to the things God wanted done being changed, the only question was who was going to do the things God wanted done. An Angel even was assigned by God to ask those in heaven who would do these things. And no one in heaven or on earth was able to do the things God required. John started crying because he could sense the seriousness of the moment.

Part of the requirements was the death of an eternal being in heaven to cover the sins of humanity. The other requirements was to carry out everything that God wanted done to humans and the earth itself. The requirements are lethal and deadly, as was the required death of an eternal. They include War, Famine, Deception, Death and so on. So the whole picture is quite shady and depressing. But it was NEVER a question of could it be done in any other way possible, it was only WHO was going to do it. And Jesus stepped up to the task. Now I think a much better question would be, not why Jesus had to die, but what would have happened IF Jesus didnot step up?  Now that would have been interesting.  Peace.

Mickiel

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2008, 09:01:25 PM »


I am sorry, that scripture should have been Rev. 5:1-4.

jabcat

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2008, 09:23:47 PM »
From The Christian Bible (extremely literal translation from the Koine Greek ["everyday language"]

Romans 3:25   For God determined to have Him be a shelter of mercy by His blood by means of faith, to display God's rightness [and justness], because of His passing over of the penalties for wrongdoings that had been occurring previously during His tolerance; 26 with a view towards displaying His rightness [and justness] during the current time period, to show that He Himself is just [and right], and that He is the Justifier of the person who has faith in Yesu. 

God's blessing, James.

blackwings

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2008, 09:55:10 PM »
thanks for all of your responses, one thing you have shown me is that i am spiritually immature - the bad thing about that is that trying to understand things through God's 'lens of love' compared to what the church traditionally teaches is exhausting, and, believing in universalism, that i may be punished at the end of my life but that ultimately jesus will be my substitute, its not that i dont care to learn, i cant explain it

i feel secure, like, im just investigating the details, but the big picture is already taken care of

and, id rather err on the side of 'mercy for jesus' than on that of a wrathful god

Offline 97531

  • Restricted
  • *
  • Posts: 2280
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is Freedom
    • Father's Love Forum
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2008, 10:55:44 PM »
thanks for all of your responses, one thing you have shown me is that i am spiritually immature - the bad thing about that is that trying to understand things through God's 'lens of love' compared to what the church traditionally teaches is exhausting, and, believing in universalism, that i may be punished at the end of my life but that ultimately jesus will be my substitute, its not that i dont care to learn, i cant explain it

i feel secure, like, im just investigating the details, but the big picture is already taken care of

and, id rather err on the side of 'mercy for jesus' than on that of a wrathful god
Hi BW

Just to encourage you, we are all on different parts of the path to the same destination - if you feel spiritually immature, chill.  We were all where you are one time or another.  You have entered into a new realm of a deeper relationship and that is key.  Like you say the big picture is taken care of, well I assume that is for you personally but realise this - the big pic is taken care of for all.  Seems once the myths are removed, even an agnostic can embrace this "unseen" yet real God we serve.

It takes time to unlearn myths and traditions and few are prepared to toss everything and start anew - it is actually the fastest route IMO.

Many folk I talk with, really do not have their foundation in the Father and rely heavily on group think and what the mainstream believe.  In UR there is no group think although there are some they would like to advocate something similar.  In a nutshell, your walk with the Lord is a one-One relationship and only HE can reveal all TRUTH to you, from us we can merely express our POV which we may perceive as revealed truth - well at least I can admit to that honestly.

Blessings in your personal walk and I sense a humble spirit in you.

Blessings in the Father's Love
My Blog       Father's Love Forum - New
IHWLAMAHOB
Christian Milkshake: Pressed down, shaken together and more than we can hope for

jabcat

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2008, 12:11:57 AM »
God loves you...so much that He gave His only born Son for you.  Just be alert to what God is telling you, and stay in scripture. There are many voices speaking in error, both within tradition and without...stay focused on what God says in your heart about His Word, and He will lead you.  God's blessing, in His love, James.   
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 12:46:57 AM by jabcat »

Offline sparrow

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • I watch, & am as a sparrow alone upon the rooftop.
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2008, 05:51:03 AM »
even as a universalist, i find it hard to believe in a God who would pour the sin of world on his son, to save humanity

imo, its a matter of perspective - is it not possible, to have jesus' 'work' completed without the torture and murder?

the book 'if grace is true' paints a different picture of the cross, basically extrapolating that the murder of jesus was mans ultimate refusal of Gods' grace, and, in the cant-keep-a-good-man-down line of thinking, his ressurection was God's way of refusing mans refusal of Jesus

any insight would be appreciated - thanks

Gosh, this is just EXACTLY how I have come to see the cross. So I can absolutely identify with this.
This is something that was always in the back of my mind I think.... but only recently has it become  so completely full of life to me. This belief has, over the last few months been placed on absolute stable secure ground for me. I'm so grateful..
"I knelt to drink,
And knew that I was on the brink
Of endless joy. And everywhere
I turned I saw a wonder there."

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2008, 07:29:46 AM »
Hi Blackwings,

I am not sure I have any great insight but the issue to me is that I do often ask similar questions simply because I like thinking about all kinds of things.

But, my desire, even though I have a long long long ways to go is I want to believe scripture deep in my soul and heart.


Whether the cross was necessary or not, to me, is not the ultimate issue, it simply is how God did it. 

Verses like Isaiah 45:7 " Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things."  Stick in my throat at times as I do not like it.

I can try to rationalize that God didn't really create evil to make myself feel better, but the scriptural truth is there.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 "For everything there is a stated time, And a season for every event under the heavens:"

1Timothy 2:4 "Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth."


Just in 3 verses there is a contrast that doesn't seem to fit into our thinking, but then that is the point.  A God who is Love and is sovereign must have a great wonderful purpose for all the things that happened.

I wonder if in our human thinking and ability what we would miss out on if we got things our way?









Mickiel

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2008, 09:45:17 AM »


Where death is concerned, one may ask if death is really necessary, then asking God that is different than asking a human that question. We know God is Life, for God to require Death, I think shows the seriousness of God. He's very serious about the Life of his creations, but then to require that we all must die, is really a reflection of his seriousness about our future condition. If you think about this topic, which I think is interesting, God is putting an Eternal stamp on this matter. Its a matter of personal relationship and Gods unceasing Love for us. He is requiring that we die for him. Interesting; He gives Life, then requires death, only to give the Life again, yet at a more greatly advanced Level. The death he is requiring is not a punishment, its a Covenant, which is sealed in Christ blood.

This may sound strange, but the life of humanity is simular to a " Prelude to Marriage", but the bride is destined to marry the son of God. What God truly requires of his children is to do justice, to love kindness and walk humbly with him. And these ways will be unchanging within us, as Gods Love is unchanging for us. Life Eternal, sealed in a pack of Death and Blood.

God certainly could have never brought Evil into existance, he could have never even created flesh and death as a result of the flesh. But the flesh, death, sin and evil were things God had in HIS mind, he knew about them, has perfect knowledge of them, and he wanted his own children to know what he knows. I am often saddened to think about God knowing everything, it has to be a great responsibility. Just my limited knowledge in my memory banks is enough to often bother me. Is asking God why Jesus had to die, " Putting our Lord to the Test?" As if he did something he didnot have to do? Well no, we are expressing our dismay at our great King Jesus being treated as he was and then killed.

Somewhere in Gods great knowledge, he wanted us to be aware of Evil. And also aware that he will forever extinguish it, along with death and suffering. There are three areas that God is eternally blessing humanity in. We will be his own offspring. We will have experienced sin and evil. And we will have experienced Death. These are GREAT manifestations, that NO ONE in Heaven knows about but God, Jesus, and now us. We will have touched things that heavens population has never touched, never felt, never experienced. We will have certain things about us that even God and Jesus will never have. We all have sinned. We all have fallen short, we all have experienced being without God.

In Gods mind, he had to do these things, because they are building a great, great glory, perhaps that we simply cannot fully comprehend.

When Life uses death as a building block, a great thing is being built.  Peace.

jabcat

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2008, 11:22:35 PM »
Paul and Mickiel... :goodpost:(plural)...it really is joyful to see your faithfulness to God's working in your lives and sharing His revelations to you within scripture, to the renewing of your hearts and minds and to the benefit of His body.  "If I be lifted up I will draw ALL men to me", Jesus.

God's blessing, James.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 12:47:18 AM by jabcat »

Offline AbbasChild

  • 300
  • *
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
  • Father Judges No One
    • Abba's Child
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2008, 10:22:46 PM »
Just recently I found this writing and it affirmed some of the things Father has been showing me latley concerning the Atonement.


The Father's Undivided Heart
By C. Baxter Kruger
The ideas that God, the Father needed to be appeased in order to accept us, and that Jesus became human in order to suffer the wrath of his Father on the cross so that we could be accepted, always struck me as terribly wrong. But, growing up in the deep South in the USA, such notions were all one ever heard, and heard repeatedly, and still do. In this atonement theory, the Father is in two minds about us, or, at the very least, there are two sides of the Father, the one being the righteous, just and holy side, the other being the graceful, merciful and loving side. The one thing we knew for sure about God was that he could not simply forgive us and accept us as his fallen creatures. The truth, we were told is that He could not even look upon us vile sinners. His holiness and justice and righteousness demanded satisfaction before forgiveness could become a reality. And so on the cross Jesus bowed as the Father's holiness, justice and righteousness formed into wrath against our sin and was poured out upon him instead of us.

Of course, it is far more complicated than this, or so we were told, but the more I tried to sort through the complications, the more troubled I became. Apart from the fact that in this theory there is no forgiveness at all, only justice, as my friend David Upshaw says, we are left with a divided Father, and a Son who is remarkably different in character and freedom from the Father he reveals. After all, while Father is too pure to look upon sin, his Son is free to become flesh, embrace sinners, eat with them and even become sin for us (2COR 5:21). So, if Jesus' becoming flesh, embracing sinners and becoming sin is not a revelation of the Father, how did we develop our notions of the Father? What happened to, "he who has seen me, has seen the Father" (John 14:9), or "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), or "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3)?

All of this is to say that on a cold March afternoon in 1980 I found St. Athanasius' beautiful little book, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, and as I read a single sentence rocked my inherited, legalistic, quasi-trinitarian world. "As, then, the creatures whom He had created…were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good to do?" (§ 6) What struck me, and still thrills me every time I read this sentence, is Athanasius' assumption about the Father's heart. There is no indifference here, no ambiguity or division in the Father. He loves His creation with an single heart, and is passionate about its blessing. The holiness, justice and righteousness, and the love, grace and mercy of the Father are not opposed to each other, but form an undivided heart, determined to bless us at all costs. Thus, it is unthinkable, Athanasius says, for God to turn his back upon His creation, and to allow us to be destroyed, because it would be "unfitting and unworthy of Himself" (§6).

So the coming of Jesus flows out of the Father's undivided heart, and the lengths to which Jesus goes—willfully bowing to suffer, not the Father's, but the human race's rejection and curse, as we poured our wrath out upon him—reveals the Father's uncomplicated, single-minded love for us. On the cross, the holiness, righteousness, and justice of God are not at odds with the mercy, grace and goodness of God, but form into one self-sacrificing love, which is prepared to, and actually does, suffer dis-honor and grotesque shame in order to reach us and bless us beyond our wildest dreams. The death of Jesus is not about appeasing an angry God. It is about the Triune God doing the impossible—reaching the human race in its terrible darkness and corruption, where the undivided heart of the Father is unimaginable.

"He who has seen me, has seen the Father."


For more on my views of reconciliation, see Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, and Across All Worlds, and "Bearing our Scorn: Jesus and the Way of Trinitarian Love," all available on our web site.
It is much more possible for the sun to give out darkness than for God to do or be, or give out anything but Blessing and Goodness.- William Law

Man can certainly flee from God... but he cannot escape him. He can certainly hate God and be hateful to God, but he cannot change into its opposite the eternal love of God which triumphs even in his hate. --Karl Barth

Gizmo

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2008, 02:31:52 AM »
is it not possible, to have jesus' 'work' completed without the torture and murder?

In my understanding, God does not need the cross.  He is love and keeps no records of wrong.  Mankind is the one whose guilt felt the need to sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin etc.  God came down to end all that system so He could be with His people.

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2008, 02:45:47 AM »
The cross is the only thing that makes our salvation the least bit good, according to St. Paul.  Sorry.  St. Paul was so emphatic on this point that he made the extra-firm statement that he was determined to know nothing amongst us except for Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, but Christ and Him crucified is the wisdom of God and the power of God.  This was the mystery which he spoke among the mature that wasn't according to the wisdom of this age or of it's rulers who are coming to nothing.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.  He's taking the foolish things of this world -- i.e. crucifixion -- and bringing to nothing the wisdom of this world; the weak things of this world, and the things which are not to bring to nothing the things that are -- SO THAT no flesh should glory in His sight.  He goes on to explain that THIS IS the mind of Christ.


Lest this thread wander further out into the type of unBiblical speculations as the forum had previously wandered into that Gary Amirault was hoping to reclaim it from, I'm locking this thread at this point.  This is one of those things that the New Testament is particularly plain about in John's Gospel, Paul's epistles, Peter's epistles, etc.

For those wanting more information, there's a topic in the Member's Lounge regarding why at this link http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=2732.0
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 03:51:09 AM by martincisneros »

jabcat

  • Guest
Re: was the cross really necesary?
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2008, 05:38:45 AM »
is it not possible, to have jesus' 'work' completed without the torture and murder?

In my understanding, God does not need the cross.  He is love and keeps no records of wrong.  Mankind is the one whose guilt felt the need to sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin etc.  God came down to end all that system so He could be with His people.

Where is the scriptural support for this, either the written and/or revealed Word?  I don't see it, in fact I see quite the opposite, including in this one scripture alone I posted earlier;  Romans 3:25   For God determined to have Him be a shelter of mercy by His blood by means of faith, to display God's rightness [and justness], because of His passing over of the penalties for wrongdoings that had been occurring previously during His tolerance;

The cross is the only thing that makes our salvation the least bit good, according to St. Paul.  Sorry.  St. Paul was so emphatic on this point that he made the extra-firm statement that he was determined to know nothing amongst us except for Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, but Christ and Him crucified is the wisdom of God and the power of God.  This was the mystery which he spoke among the mature that wasn't according to the wisdom of this age or of it's rulers who are coming to nothing.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.  He's taking the foolish things of this world -- i.e. crucifixion -- and bringing to nothing the wisdom of this world; the weak things of this world, and the things which are not to bring to nothing the things that are -- SO THAT no flesh should glory in His sight.  He goes on to explain that THIS IS the mind of Christ.

Scripture is abundant in support of this.  There may be some things about this concept that don't necessarily feel good to my flesh, but that's why my flesh needs to be be continually being renewed by the Spirit and the Word.  God's blessing, James.