Appeasement of a Monster God?

[TomL]

This argument just does not work, it's just a throwaway argument.

Were Abraham and Isaac divided just because Isaac was obedient to his father?

You need to understand what sacrifice really means—it actually costs God something.

Sorry your theology falsifies the doctrine of the trinity

There is but one God who consist of three persons who cannot be divided

 

[TomL]

This argument just does not work, it's just a throwaway argument.

Were Abraham and Isaac divided just because Isaac was obedient to his father?

You need to understand what sacrifice really means—it actually costs God something.

Seriously?
'
Do you really imagine the trinity can be likened to Abraham and Isaac?

your comprehension of it is quite lacking.

 

[armylngst]

I will agree 100% the wrath/ anger inflicted on Jesus came from wicked men who tortured and put Him to death. But that was not the Father doing that to the Son.

By God not stepping in and stopping it, is He not giving His approval? It doesn't say in Isaiah that the Father simply crushed Him, but that it pleased Him. That can equate to ALLOWING the situation. And, understand, I still believe it is what was dropped on the human nature, not on God Himself, as God is still Spirit dwelling within the fleshly body of Christ. Two natures, flesh/spirit, human/deity. What is inflicted on the flesh, should that automatically be equated as also being on the spirit, on the Word? That which is inflected on the humanity/flesh, should that automatically be equated as being on the deity?

Due to all of these extras, is there any reason not to accept the possibility that Jesus faced God's wrath at the human level, due to God's inability to have anything to do with sin? At the level of the flesh? All those things done to Jesus were inflicted upon the body. Upon the flesh.

The Father and the Son did not need to stop it for He laid down His own life willingly.

He could have stopped His wrath... Jesus accepted the wrath willingly. How do we know that He knew? He sweat drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. He knew what the Father had for Him, asked if the Father would let it pass, but, in full humility and surrender, followed the will of the Father.

And remember God was in Christ reconciling the world during His torture and death - atonement.

Another way to understand it is that God was behind Christ's crucifixion and by/through/in it was reconciling with the world. Jesus didn't die for us (I didn't say our sin), He died for God. He placated God, made atonement for us to God. That is the HIGH view. Jesus died for us that we might live, but when you look at it from as far as you can pull away, Jesus died for God, that God may reconcile with us.

Consider Isaiah 53. Also consider that many claim that the Septuagint is not perfect because the king who had it made brought in people who were not scholars, stuck them in rooms and had them translate the Jewish scripture into Greek, which some say goes against the law of God in the first place. (I don't know about all that, but it casts more doubt on the Septaugint then I already had. Such as, it is said that the Jews softened Isaiah 53 because it didn't match their view/belief of the Messiah.)

So given Isaiah 53, we see the dynamic that exists in what happened. Since we have this, and we have the crucifixion history in the gospels, something was happening. We may have difficulty understanding/accepting what that is, but we can know before God that something happened. We can also know that whatever that is, it doesn't violate God in any way, shape, or form. If we can't explain how, or why, then all we can do is accept that God knew what He was doing, and He would not violate Himself. Our translations of scripture mean nothing in light of what God KNOWS of scripture, given that He wrote it through inspiration. So if our understanding of scripture seems to violate God, then, obviously, our understanding is fundamentally flawed. Go with scripture. Our understanding is automatically fundamentally flawed = 10 simply because we are human. That number only goes down some when we replace our understanding with scripture. It only goes down a little because we are prone to interpret scripture through our fundamentally flawed understanding.

 

[Dizerner]

Seriously? Do you really imagine the trinity can be likened to Abraham and Isaac?

your comprehension of it is quite lacking.

I guess Paul's was "lacking" too since he said Isaac's return from the dead was a parable

There is no ontological break just because Jesus bears the wrath of our sins.

Anyone who keeps repeating that lie is "quite lacking" in comprehension.

It's as nonsensical as saying because Jesus died there was a "division" in the Trinity, a Muslim and atheist argument.

 

[civic]

I guess Paul's was "lacking" too since he said Isaac's return from the dead was a parable

There is no ontological break just because Jesus bears the wrath of our sins.

Anyone who keeps repeating that lie is "quite lacking" in comprehension.

It's as nonsensical as saying because Jesus died there was a "division" in the Trinity, a Muslim and atheist argument.

Nowhere on scripture does it say wrath was placed on the Son from the Father.

Why would you believe what the Bible never says ?

 

[armylngst]

And tell me one single place the penalty of sin is not wrath?

How can you possible disconnected the penalty of sin from wrath?!

Let's think clearly here.

The point is this. If one has difficulty understanding/accepting wrath for whatever reason, don't get stuck on it. Something happened, and we have scripture testifying to that. (Isaiah 53 is a great throw back). If you have difficulty understanding/accepting that, trust God. It happened, and it worked because God does not/will not violate Himself. So, if the Bible says that God poured out His wrath on his Son, then God poured out His wrath on His Son, full stop. If interpreting this causes you to believe that it did not happen, stop interpreting it. Accept what God said happened, even when you can't understand it. We don't matter. Our thoughts on it don't matter. Only the truth of what God has said matters. Trust God. He will not steer you wrong. The only thing that matters absolutely is the cross, and Christ crucified. If you don't lose sight of that and what it means, the rest falls into place.

When Jesus claimed to be God and then asked the people for what work they sought to kill him. He was teaching them a lesson. He knew why they wanted to kill him. They knew why the wanted to kill him. When all was said and done, what did Jesus say mattered? Accept/believe in the works. Why? His works testified to who He claimed to be, so, rationally, to accept/believe His works is tacitly accepting that testimony, even if one could not bring themselves to explicitly believing/accepting His words.

(I know it is a little (a lot?) more complicated then that, but the point is, if you have trouble understanding in and of yourself the wrath of God present at the crucifixion, let go of your understanding, and accept that whatever happened was according to God's will, so it doesn't matter what we think anyway. It can be difficult to impossible to picture exactly how it worked, but scripture says it happened, scripture was written by God, so trust God where your understanding falls short.

 

[Dizerner]

Nowhere on scripture does it say wrath was placed on the Son from the Father.

Why would you believe what the Bible never says ?

It's a clear deduction just like nowhere the Bible says "God is a Trinity" or "Jesus is God" or "Hell is eternal" or "Free will exists."

You are demanding something be stated in your own personally preferred way, instead of being stated in any way at all.

 

[Dizerner]

The point is this. If one has difficulty understanding/accepting wrath for whatever reason, don't get stuck on it. Something happened, and we have scripture testifying to that. (Isaiah 53 is a great throw back).

Eh, I appreciate your intent to help people, but I think you are compromising on the matter.

I agree people should accept that Jesus did pay the penalty for their sins even if they deny that means wrath, however I don't think that compromise should ever in any way be encouraged or approved of.

It's not like we just tell people to disbelieve anything in Christianity if they don't like it or struggle with it, so they can still call themselves "Christian."

It may be a forgivable offense to deny the wrath of God, but it should never in any way be condoned.

 

[civic]

It's a clear deduction just like nowhere the Bible says "God is a Trinity" or "Jesus is God" or "Hell is eternal" or "Free will exists."

You are demanding something be stated in your own personally preferred way, instead of being stated in any way at all.

Nothing clear about it and if it was important as you claim then why did Jesus and the Apostles forgot to mention something so necessary to one’s salvation ?

Next