Okay, I know actual religious questions rarely get asked on this forum, but I'd like to give it a shot. This is something I've always wondered and never found a satisfying answer for. I asked a priest once and he thought it was a reasonable question and that the answer may be more due to human error than divine confusion. So, Christians (and any Biblical scholars that may exist here):
What did God, or Jesus, sacrifice in the life and crucifixion of the Christ?
This is a common refrain from Christians; that God sent his only (begotten) son to earth and sacrificed for mankind. That Jesus, as well, sacrificed for mankind by agreeing to his crucifixion. Allow me to address each by itself.
God could not possibly have made a sacrifice, unless one considers simply seeing a single man(man/god) in pain to be a sacrifice. Still, especially compared to the Old Testament God, this seems rather mundane as a sacrifice. Frankly, if I could save the entirety of mankind by giving up my son, I would do it. I'd be sad, and feel bad for the rest of my days, but I would still do it without a moment's hesitation. I honestly believe most people would do the same. Moreover, questions of faith do not into play for God as he is, by definition, faith. So he knows with 100% certainty that his son's death will provide the possible salvation of every human being thereafter. How is this a sacrifice, then? Also, he did not lose Jesus in any real sense. After all, Jesus was (a) always a part of him (b) returning to him as soon as he died (c) bound to reappear on earth during the end of the world.
Christ also cannot be said to be making much of a sacrifice. The usual argument is that Christ sacrificed his body and about a day or pain to save the entire race of man. Again, that seems kind of reasonable. If I had some phenomenal knowledge that allowed me to understand that my death would lead to the salvation of billions, I wouldn't hesitate. I think most people would feel the same way. If someone held a gun to your head and said "either I kill you or I kill the 2 billion plus people of Asia" would you really save yourself? I doubt it. I think most people - religious or not - would understand the magnitude of such a proposition and just let themselves die.
The typical response is then "but Christ had his moment of doubt and could not be 100% sure that he was right." Why not? Isn't he Lord? Isn't the Lord omnipotent? Isn't that why Jesus told the disciples that they could not possibly understand his plans? Because he had divine knowledge that they did not? If Christ knew what would happen - which is implicit in him being Lord - then his decision seems fairly reasonable and something that most people would agree to themselves. In which case, where is the sacrifice?
In short, if the sacrifice of God is that he let his son go through a bit of pain and death in order to save all of mankind, and Christ's sacrifice is to go through some pain and death in order to save all of mankind, it seems like the sacrifice element is actually a rather small element of the Christ story. It seems unimportant compared to every single other aspect of the story. And yet it is such an overarching theme in modern Christianity. (side note: any Christian history buffs know if this has always been the case in the Church?)
----------------------
The priest responded with two answers.
(1) That the Christ did not have omnipotent knowledge and therefore his surrender to fate was an act of remarkable faith. When I asked if this implied that the Christ could not be Lord - as the Lord necessarily is omnipotent - he responded that this may be the old "God is beyond our understanding" situation, whereby God can be both A and not A at the same time. Though both of us agreed this was a very lazy, unfruitful and boring way to conduct theology.
(2) That, in fact, this focus on sacrifice and that of God and Christ themselves is a misinterpretation, though a telling one of human nature. He suggested that God and the Christ did not in fact sacrifice anything substantial, but that it is through human eyes that the event looks as one of sacrifice. For humans would have doubt and would have to do such an act merely on faith - rather than divine knowledge - and so for us to give up our lives with no certainty - which the Christ would have had - would be a sort of sacrifice. And so, in order to make the Christ a better symbol of betterment, we (Christians, at least) view him through our eyes and hold him to our highest standards. In short, we would have been sacrificing, so surely Christ was as well, and why not look at it this way as it sets a high bar for all of us.
I asked if this was not dishonest; both to ourselves and, for a priest, to his congregation. The Christ should not need any beefing up - he's not a product you're trying to advertise on the open market with cheap commercials that lie about quality - and it seems wrong to give a false impression, even if it's a good one, about the Lord.
To this he was unable to come to a satisfying answer and we left the (very pleasant) conversation at that point.
So... Christians... do you have any more ideas for me? I've been wondering about this one for years and so few Christians are actually willing to discuss tricky questions. Help a brother out?
What did God, or Jesus, sacrifice in the life and crucifixion of the Christ?
This is a common refrain from Christians; that God sent his only (begotten) son to earth and sacrificed for mankind. That Jesus, as well, sacrificed for mankind by agreeing to his crucifixion. Allow me to address each by itself.
God could not possibly have made a sacrifice, unless one considers simply seeing a single man(man/god) in pain to be a sacrifice. Still, especially compared to the Old Testament God, this seems rather mundane as a sacrifice. Frankly, if I could save the entirety of mankind by giving up my son, I would do it. I'd be sad, and feel bad for the rest of my days, but I would still do it without a moment's hesitation. I honestly believe most people would do the same. Moreover, questions of faith do not into play for God as he is, by definition, faith. So he knows with 100% certainty that his son's death will provide the possible salvation of every human being thereafter. How is this a sacrifice, then? Also, he did not lose Jesus in any real sense. After all, Jesus was (a) always a part of him (b) returning to him as soon as he died (c) bound to reappear on earth during the end of the world.
Christ also cannot be said to be making much of a sacrifice. The usual argument is that Christ sacrificed his body and about a day or pain to save the entire race of man. Again, that seems kind of reasonable. If I had some phenomenal knowledge that allowed me to understand that my death would lead to the salvation of billions, I wouldn't hesitate. I think most people would feel the same way. If someone held a gun to your head and said "either I kill you or I kill the 2 billion plus people of Asia" would you really save yourself? I doubt it. I think most people - religious or not - would understand the magnitude of such a proposition and just let themselves die.
The typical response is then "but Christ had his moment of doubt and could not be 100% sure that he was right." Why not? Isn't he Lord? Isn't the Lord omnipotent? Isn't that why Jesus told the disciples that they could not possibly understand his plans? Because he had divine knowledge that they did not? If Christ knew what would happen - which is implicit in him being Lord - then his decision seems fairly reasonable and something that most people would agree to themselves. In which case, where is the sacrifice?
In short, if the sacrifice of God is that he let his son go through a bit of pain and death in order to save all of mankind, and Christ's sacrifice is to go through some pain and death in order to save all of mankind, it seems like the sacrifice element is actually a rather small element of the Christ story. It seems unimportant compared to every single other aspect of the story. And yet it is such an overarching theme in modern Christianity. (side note: any Christian history buffs know if this has always been the case in the Church?)
----------------------
The priest responded with two answers.
(1) That the Christ did not have omnipotent knowledge and therefore his surrender to fate was an act of remarkable faith. When I asked if this implied that the Christ could not be Lord - as the Lord necessarily is omnipotent - he responded that this may be the old "God is beyond our understanding" situation, whereby God can be both A and not A at the same time. Though both of us agreed this was a very lazy, unfruitful and boring way to conduct theology.
(2) That, in fact, this focus on sacrifice and that of God and Christ themselves is a misinterpretation, though a telling one of human nature. He suggested that God and the Christ did not in fact sacrifice anything substantial, but that it is through human eyes that the event looks as one of sacrifice. For humans would have doubt and would have to do such an act merely on faith - rather than divine knowledge - and so for us to give up our lives with no certainty - which the Christ would have had - would be a sort of sacrifice. And so, in order to make the Christ a better symbol of betterment, we (Christians, at least) view him through our eyes and hold him to our highest standards. In short, we would have been sacrificing, so surely Christ was as well, and why not look at it this way as it sets a high bar for all of us.
I asked if this was not dishonest; both to ourselves and, for a priest, to his congregation. The Christ should not need any beefing up - he's not a product you're trying to advertise on the open market with cheap commercials that lie about quality - and it seems wrong to give a false impression, even if it's a good one, about the Lord.
To this he was unable to come to a satisfying answer and we left the (very pleasant) conversation at that point.
So... Christians... do you have any more ideas for me? I've been wondering about this one for years and so few Christians are actually willing to discuss tricky questions. Help a brother out?
