An interesting idea
After a short hiatus, Sojourn is back.
So, after reading a critique on Dawkins' The God Delusion by Terry Eagleton, I hit upon this question(This question has nothing to do with the article, but it's an interesting article nonetheless)
As a Christian, I understand that the death of Jesus was sacrificial in purpose. Jesus assumed the role of a sacrificial lamb, and took all of the sins of humanity upon himself. We as Christians believe that Jesus died on a cross at Golgotha, and that his death acts as justification in the eyes of God for those who accept it. However, was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross? Would a death of natural causes have been sufficient to fulfill God's plan and act as the proper atonement for all mankind?
So, after reading a critique on Dawkins' The God Delusion by Terry Eagleton, I hit upon this question(This question has nothing to do with the article, but it's an interesting article nonetheless)
As a Christian, I understand that the death of Jesus was sacrificial in purpose. Jesus assumed the role of a sacrificial lamb, and took all of the sins of humanity upon himself. We as Christians believe that Jesus died on a cross at Golgotha, and that his death acts as justification in the eyes of God for those who accept it. However, was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross? Would a death of natural causes have been sufficient to fulfill God's plan and act as the proper atonement for all mankind?
posted by Matt at 2:14 PM
1 Comments:
I don't know about the necessity of the cross, but I think that his identification with our suffering (a facet of atonement outside of penal substitution) would have been decidedly minimal, had Jesus died of natural causes. The most malevolent forms of evil and chaos in the world (according to a Christian ethos) are those which are caused by human beings.
Post a Comment
<< Home