How can sins be redeemed by a sacrifice?

[alexey]

I've recently heard it said that Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. While that particular framing is a bit strong, I do see it providing an interesting perspective.

How can brutal killing of Jesus redeem people of their sins? I am having a hard time making sense of how that works.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

There is nothing we can do to be worthy of God's Grace. It is given freely. But that still leaves us in an unbalanced state with God. Jesus' sacrifice essentially balances that equation. He was sinless but took on all the sins of the world - past, present, and future - and was made the sacrifice. Then by conquering death, he paved the way for us to enter a state where we shall be worthy of God's grace. (This is somewhat butchered, but that's the general idea).

Here is the way to think of it: The God of Israel was in a constant give and take with his people. You do x,y, and z, and I will reward you. You do a, b, and c, and I will punish you. Jesus ends that. There is no longer a give and take in any real world sense. All that can be given has been given. The brilliance of Christianity (and what so often gets corrupted) is that we don't really have to do anything but accept Jesus's gift to us. Once you do that, the rest is actually quite easy. (The thing that I've always had a problem with Baptists about is I feel that they trivialize the accepting of Jesus' sacrifice while making the living afterwards part exceptionally difficult. I find the accepting part to be hard. Living as a Christian is fairly easy once you clear that hurdle. I say this because I've jumped back and forth over that hurdle a lot in my life).

I've just finished up my RCIA classes and am now a full member of the Catholic Church. The one line that sticks with me is that you can't be Christian until you pass through Calvary. That doesn't mean you have to physically go there or that you have to sacrifice yourself. You just have to accept that incredible act of love.

[FanboyOf91]

[alexey]

There is nothing we can do to be worthy of God's Grace. It is given freely. But that still leaves us in an unbalanced state with God. Jesus' sacrifice essentially balances that equation. He was sinless but took on all the sins of the world - past' date=' present, and future - and was made the sacrifice. Then by conquering death, he paved the way for us to enter a state where we shall be worthy of God's grace. (This is somewhat butchered, but that's the general idea).

Here is the way to think of it: The God of Israel was in a constant give and take with his people. You do x,y, and z, and I will reward you. You do a, b, and c, and I will punish you. Jesus ends that. There is no longer a give and take in any real world sense. All that can be given has been given. The brilliance of Christianity (and what so often gets corrupted) is that we don't really have to do anything but accept Jesus's gift to us. Once you do that, the rest is actually quite easy. (The thing that I've always had a problem with Baptists about is I feel that they trivialize the accepting of Jesus' sacrifice while making the living afterwards part exceptionally difficult. I find the accepting part to be hard. Living as a Christian is fairly easy once you clear that hurdle. I say this because I've jumped back and forth over that hurdle a lot in my life).

I've just finished up my RCIA classes and am now a full member of the Catholic Church. The one line that sticks with me is that you can't be Christian until you pass through Calvary. That doesn't mean you have to physically go there or that you have to sacrifice yourself. You just have to accept that incredible act of love.[/quote']

Looks like there are two things that I am having a hard time with.

One is, how can a brutal killing provide a path into God's grace? You write that all which can be given has been given. What has been given and who gave it? Would we be worse off should Jesus not been killed?

My second problem has to do with accepting the sacrifice as the necessary and sufficient condition for redemption. There are people who have done very, very bad things. People who caused a lot of unnecessary suffering to other people. What happens when they accept the gift? Suffering they caused to other people still took place. It cannot be undone.

[SnyderShrugged]

:munchout:

[twa]

LKB ,it is only as easy as you make it...or as hard

Alexy....it is love and self sacrifice for us that swayed God to tolerate us....just pretend we are ******* in-laws

simply dying wouldn't be enough

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

One is, how can a brutal killing provide a path into God's grace? You write that all which can be given has been given. What has been given and who gave it? Would we be worse off should Jesus not been killed?

The glory of Easter is that Good Friday is not the end of the story. The resurrection is the end of the story. So, it's not a killing that is the path, it's the resurrection. What has been given is freedom from sin and the one who gave it is Christ.

My second problem has to do with accepting the sacrifice as the necessary and sufficient condition for redemption. There are people who have done very, very bad things. People who caused a lot of unnecessary suffering to other people. What happens when they accept the gift? Suffering they caused to other people still took place. It cannot be undone.

Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? I don't think anyone has the answer to this. The only comfort is that there is no sin so great that God cannot forgive it. I don't know if this is a comfort, but the other thing to consider is that it's not our concern. We can't judge the soul of another. We can judge their actions, but none of us know what is going on inside someone's heart and how God ultimately sees them.

I think we get too hung up on things like "Could Hitler have recanted on his death bed and gone to Heaven?" Mainly because I think we view Heaven as some kind of Country Club in the sky where we will know all the members.

Anyway, that's a tremendous question and I don't think you will ever get a satisfactory answer to it.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 12:08 PM ----------

I guess I didn't answer the question as to whether we would be worse off if Jesus had not been killed.

I don't quite know how to answer that. Historically, there would not be a Christianity as we see it. "Christians," presuming the sect survived, would have been some kind of Radical Jewish sect I imagine. Remember: Jesus was born as a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died as Jew. I imagine "Christians" would still be practicing the Jewish faith but with quite a few different rules. Where that leaves non-Jewish me, I don't know. Probably Muslim, because I assume that much of lower Europe would have been conqured by the Ottomans.

By the way, I think there are other valid paths to God. I'm certainly not going to say that Jews or Muslims are wrong. I was born and raised a Protestant; I'm now a Catholic. I don't think I was wrong before or right now.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 12:09 PM ----------

PS

I have the sneaky suspicion this is going to turn into a series of "But...why?" questions. Don't let it become one of those threads, please. Those threads suck.

[Prosperity]

Looks like there are two things that I am having a hard time with.

One is, how can a brutal killing provide a path into God's grace? You write that all which can be given has been given. What has been given and who gave it? Would we be worse off should Jesus not been killed?

My second problem has to do with accepting the sacrifice as the necessary and sufficient condition for redemption. There are people who have done very, very bad things. People who caused a lot of unnecessary suffering to other people. What happens when they accept the gift? Suffering they caused to other people still took place. It cannot be undone.

There is no salvation except through repentance. God cannot make you live in Paradise, just as God cannot make you a good person. That would contradict the free will of humanity. You have to choose it. One of the necessary steps in choosing salvation is repentance for evil acts. The question is, how can a sadist repent? Well, I think even Hitler could theoretically repent. But God can't make Hitler repent by forgiving him. That is something the individual must do freely.

I've never bought into the idea that you can be saved by faith alone. It does not make sense. Unless somehow faith entails repentance.

But that is a different issue than Jesus' Atonement. Jesus' atonement makes salvation possible, but it does not guarantee salvation.

The issue with the atonement is the conflict between Justice and Mercy. Humans committed injustice by failing in their duties. If the Father were to have mercy he would be allowing the injustice. If the Father were to have justice there would be no mercy. An analogous situation would be between a creditor and a debtor.

A debtor freely borrows money on terms that he can not ultimately afford.

If the creditor forgives the debt, he is merciful but commits and injustice by allowing someone by not collecting what he is owed.

However, this issue is resolved by the beneficence of a mediator, who loans enough money to cover the cost of the debtor's debt. The second loan is not a gift, but it is made on terms that the debtor CAN afford.

Jesus Christ essentially fulfills the role of the mediator.

Jesus Christ chose to pay through his own suffering, the spiritual debt that was owed to God (because of humanities failings). Now we owe Jesus, but we can "repay" him, through living by the gospel. Which is not impossible (as opposed to living perfectly in harmony with God's laws, which is pretty much impossible because we kind of suck).

[alexey]

Well' date=' that's the challenge, isn't it? I don't think anyone has the answer to this. The only comfort is that there is no sin so great that God cannot forgive it. I don't know if this is a comfort, but the other thing to consider is that it's not our concern. We can't judge the soul of another. We can judge their actions, but none of us know what is going on inside someone's heart and how God ultimately sees them.

I think we get too hung up on things like "Could Hitler have recanted on his death bed and gone to Heaven?" Mainly because I think we view Heaven as some kind of Country Club in the sky where we will know all the members.

Anyway, that's a tremendous question and I don't think you will ever get a satisfactory answer to it.

[/quote']

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

My difficulty with this question is exacerbated because I focus on victims rather than perpetrators. The suffering of victims is real. Once it happens, nothing can undo it. There is no "better" version of heaven for the victims. If they are going to hell, their hell is not going to be better compared to what it would have been otherwise. I don't really care what happens to Hitler. Things he did cannot be undone.

I guess I didn't answer the question as to whether we would be worse off if Jesus had not been killed.

I don't quite know how to answer that. Historically' date=' there would not be a Christianity as we see it. "Christians," presuming the sect survived, would have been some kind of Radical Jewish sect I imagine. Remember: Jesus was born as a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died as Jew. I imagine "Christians" would still be practicing the Jewish faith but with quite a few different rules. Where that leaves non-Jewish me, I don't know. Probably Muslim, because I assume that much of lower Europe would have been conqured by the Ottomans.

By the way, I think there are other valid paths to God. I'm certainly not going to say that Jews or Muslims are wrong. I was born and raised a Protestant; I'm now a Catholic. I don't think I was wrong before or right now.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 12:09 PM ----------

PS

I have the sneaky suspicion this is going to turn into a series of "But...why?" questions. Don't let it become one of those threads, please. Those threads suck.[/quote']

It is great that you are so open about this. In my experience people tend to downplay the relationship between the cultural context and religion.

To address your point - I understood that once the gift has been offered, other ways to God got closed (no one comes to the Father but through me), but this is not a big deal for me.

[DRSmith]

I've recently heard it said that Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. While that particular framing is a bit strong, I do see it providing an interesting perspective.

How can brutal killing of Jesus redeem people of their sins? I am having a hard time making sense of how that works.

One has to do back to Adam, through Adam's action he condemned mankind to sin and death, Adam was created perfect so if Adam does not sin he does not alter his nature and thus pass on to his children his defect.

Since God's justice is always balance eye for eye tooth for tooth life for life something of equal value of what Adam lost had to be paid so since a perfect man condemned man and perfect man would be need to provide the ransom sacrifice. Hence why Paul calls Jesus the last Adam

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've never bought into the idea that you can be saved by faith alone. It does not make sense. Unless somehow faith entails repentance.

I agree with this. Sorry if what I wrote came across differently. This is the sort of thing that takes a lot of thought and precision when writing, and frankly neither of those words should be used regarding this board.

I like your debtor analogy, but I would take it a step further. In the analogy, humans are incapable of every repaying any loan. We ultimately deserve none of God's grace, but it's there for us. I would not say that Jesus is the mediator so much as he is the co-signer. And yes we have to make a separate agreement through him by repenting.

The central idea of Jesus' sacrifice is our unworthiness of it.

[Conn]

Some really interesting stuff in here. Not a believer, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

This is off-topic and maybe even slightly inappropriate, but LKB, I never would have guessed you were a devout Christian (one who's "jumped the hurdle" each way multiple times or not). Maybe I've just never noticed you in the religion threads.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

To address your point - I understood that once the gift has been offered, other ways to God got closed (no one comes to the Father but through me), but this is not a big deal for me.

I'm just not comfortable making that call for anyone. As a Christian, I believe that the path to the Father lies through the Son. I would encourage others to take that path. I'm just not going to be so arrogant as to condemn all other paths. Doing that seems to lead to true ugliness.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm just not comfortable making that call for anyone. As a Christian' date=' I believe that the path to the Father lies through the Son. I would encourage others to take that path. I'm just not going to be so arrogant as to condemn all other paths. Doing that seems to lead to true ugliness.[/quote']

This is where I am too. Honestly, I sometimes get uncomfortable when my church pushes evangelism. I feel the best path towards respect for my beliefs is to show equal respect to others, even when I dont share them.

[PeterMP]

I'll add even as a Christian, I find the "sacrafice" by Jesus explanation relatively and unfullfilling answer.

It is difficult for me to imagine that short term pain is an equivalent sacrafice to essentially an infinite amount of sin (and the pain that causes God).

This is especially true because I think part of the nature of the dread of physical pain is the fear of the actual result.

I think beyond childhood pain is not as fearful in situations where you know the final result.

Given that Jesus knew he was going to rise from the dead in 3 days and then ascend to heaven, it does not seem like a big deal in the large scheme of things.

I have two thoughts on this topic:

1. It wasn't really the crucifiation. It was the idea of death, which to an omnipotent being might be very painful/scary.

2. There's something missing. Some level of detail that God didn't think we were capable of handeling.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is off-topic and maybe even slightly inappropriate, but LKB, I never would have guessed you were a devout Christian (one who's "jumped the hurdle" each way multiple times or not). Maybe I've just never noticed you in the religion threads.

I'm not devout; I'm not exactly sure what that word means. I was born and raised a Christian. I don't think I ever stopped being a Christian even though I never went to Chuch passed by mid-20s. I certainly tried to live the way a Christian should (while generally failing). In the last two years - mainly because we are starting to think about a family - my wife and I started going to church again. She's a cradle Catholic and even though she hasn't gone in years, it's really difficult to get cradle Catholics to be comfortable anywhere else. I started going and realized that there was not a whole lot I disagreed with. There are certain things I'm not comfortable with, but I would be uncomfortable with those things in any Church.

And here is the funny thing about me: Despite being extremely liberal politically, in my heart, I'm a traditionalist. I want my religion to have principles, even if I disagree with some of them. I told my RCIA sponsor, the question for me going in was am I going to find a dealbreaker here. There are some things that came close, but what I love about the Church outweighed the things I did not like. And to be honest, I'm Italian-American and therefore grew up among a zillion Catholics. I don't know a single one that accepts everything the Church teaches. There is a reason that every Hispanic couple in my church has six children while every white couple has no more than two.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 02:16 PM ----------

This is where I am too. Honestly, I sometimes get uncomfortable when my church pushes evangelism. I feel the best path towards respect for my beliefs is to show equal respect to others, even when I dont share them.

That's one of the things I liked about the Catholic Church. If I had walked into my church at my age as an outsider, I would have been overwhelmed by people trying to convert me and convert me immediately. The worst anyone did was invite me to a Knights of Columbus meeting and then mentioned as an aside that I could not join until I converted.

The other thing I like is that RCIA was hard work. I went to class every Tuesday for a year. I had to attend Mass every Sunday and we were dismissed for another class prior to Eucharist (since we are not permitted to participate). I had to fill out quite a bit of paperwork and supply my birth certificate, baptism certificate, and marriage certificate. I had to attend several rites. I had to participate in a few "social justice" projects. I had to make my first Reconciliation. Catholics make you work for it.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 02:24 PM ----------

Given that Jesus knew he was going to rise from the dead in 3 days and then ascend to heaven, it does not seem like a big deal in the large scheme of things.

Two thoughts.

1. Jesus was fully human as well as fully God. He felt fear, pain, and (I assume) anger. He simply did not sin. I love Matthew 26:39: "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." It certainly seemed like big deal to him.

2. Jesus was fully God as well as fully human. He did not have to let this happen. He did not have to be humilated. He did not have to scourged. He did not have to suffer on a cross. The fact that he did is amazing.

[Conn]

I've never heard the phrase "cradle Catholic". Interesting. And I think it must be the liberal views on politics that threw me off, in comparison.

[PeterMP]

1. Jesus was fully human as well as fully God. He felt fear' date=' pain, and (I assume) anger. He simply did not sin. I love Matthew 26:39: "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." It certainly seemed like big deal to him.

2. Jesus was fully God as well as fully human. He did not have to let this happen. He did not have to be humilated. He did not have to scourged. He did not have to suffer on a cross. The fact that he did is amazing.[/quote']

I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal to him. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to me that the pain of the crucification part of it should be a big deal to him.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal to him. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to me that the pain of the crucification part of it should be a big deal to him.

It's a mystery.

(I've gotten good at this Catholic stuff).

[Jumbo]

This matter is just one of a number of key aspects (another is the "must follow this path" thingy, including other possible and arguably solid interpretations) of Christianity's claims/beliefs that I find to be so nonsensical, or unacceptable in other ways, that they play a major role in my not "being" a Christian, at least under the provisions normally labeled as requirements since I was 12. But I always recheck my positions on such matters and work to keep an open mind.

There are times I describe having a spiritual "side" to my existence beyond simply being an atheist or agnostic, though I use "agnostic" as the closet of the popular pigeon-holes. Such is part of why I first separate myself or someone else's belief/non-belief in "God" (especially if having arrived at it later in life, and from a position of atheism or agnosticism) into stages like: "If yes, what's that God's form/structure or nature/role and what do you envision as to any details of that concept, and to what depth? If "yes", is it the God of any major religion?

Christians and Muslims for instance can tell you a whole whopping bunch about "His" nature, deeds, thinking, and much else in much detail. Where some other folk may see "it" (God) as some fairly undefined force open to a "build-your-own" type of process---like The Force's Midi-Chlorians. :cool:

These discussions reflect others that lead me often to state that in the end, while there are always benefits to intellectual exercise, you're best as a "believer" in always coming back to "faith" in its classic precise definitions as your core connection to your belief. Well, and similar forms of expression like: " I can just feel it in my heart"; "I can feel it in my soul"; "It just feels right to me"; "I can't understand how someone can not feel it"; that aren't attempting to "prove it's real" via emotionally detached forms emphasizing critical reasoning (though you can certainly take those a very long way with enough skill and knowledge).

For almost five decades (this was an early serious interest for me) I have enjoyed some very erudite discussions involving all "sides" of the matter in some very heady circles that occurred in my life, or in history, where such attempts to argue such beliefs (or specific contentions within a bigger belief system) via logical debate or similar analytical forms were made.

But even the best of those with people of great learning who offer great effort and admirable execution of form to keep advocation of such belief in the realm of logical, rational, and even factually supported arguments, breaks down eventually (maybe inevitably) in my experience and in the end you're best left with "faith" and "what's in your heart" (or "soul") as the reason.

And all that's fine and dandy :pfft: with me, in and of itself, for those who find themselves believing, those who don't, and those still thinking about it, for whatever reason.

[mcsluggo]

I think one thing that is really hard for ANYONE to grasp (from both directions) is the TRUE Godliness of being God (or Jesus) and the TRUE humanity that God wrapped around himself to become Jesus.

Implications are that God really really really really knows if you have truly repented. We think of the human analogy of judgement in its incarnation of courts of law, or simply we as humans judging or forgiving. We aren't actually capable of all that, truly. but HE is... You don't have a sleazebot Defense Atty manipulating the rules trying to eke out a catch 22 in the rules... God actually knows if you truly have repented for the bad things that you have done. And God actually has the strength to FULLY accept that "apology" and accept you into his arms. Humans are NEVER capable of doing that.

On the other hand God becoming human was truly incomprehesible. You have pure knowledge/wisdom/power/love, basically everything that is NOT human, and then you take that and give it all of the frailities and weakness that ARE human, and he did it in order to finish the circle and make us (humans) one with his Godliness. This is huge. Taking on fraility (basically removing omnipotense) in order to fully know and be part of our sufferning and weaknesses in order that we could all be joined back together, and so that we (essentially unworthy humans) could eventually be welcomed into the fold, and would able to do so seeing eye-to-eye.

Adam and Eve cursed humanity by bringing forth sin, and the knowlede of good versus evil. But this ALSO made measly humans more Godlike. We have true free will. We can CHOOSE to be Godlike (love) or not. We have the knowledge of what it is to be good (love), and the ability to choose whether to act on it. but only god has the truest form of love to actually accept our imperfect offerings in this regard (repentence for our sins). No matter how good we try to be, we still basically are filled with some truly unsavory aspects/thoughts/intentions/feelings/memorys/pasts... etc... God is able to get past that REALLY get past that, and FULLY bring us into the fold. What is more, God gives us the power of free will so that we ARE somewhat Godlike enough to actually be somewhat worthy of asking for grace. Without the free will to choose, we would basically just be housecats. He could care for us, but could never really welcome us into the fold as part of the Godliness.

anyway... this is my own interpretation, and how I try to come to grips with it.

I will tell you, when my mom died, I took the fundamentally Catholic line of thought to really

[Conn]

Here's a thing that doesn't match up for me: I've heard Christians of the non-Catholic variety say that "God is good, God is generous, etc." because he in effect sacrificed his son to pay for all of the past, present, and future sins of humanity.

But if God IS Jesus, and Jesus IS God, then where is the sacrifice? If Jesus was supposedly a manifestation of God in some form or another, "wrapped up in humanity" as you say mcsluggo, and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knew that what he was sacrificing wasn't really anything at all--it was his "son", born for the specific purpose of sacrificing himself for humanities sins...it was always meant to happen and always would happen, and wasn't really his "son" anyways if Jesus=God.

I just don't see the sacrifice, if God knows the outcome, God IS Jesus, and then it all happens...

Is this a difference between Catholics and other denominations of Christians? Would Catholics never describe God as being "good/generous", etc. for sacrificing his "son" because they have a fundamentally different belief in regards to the God/Jesus relationship? I honestly don't know. I'm asking you guys. I realize its a confusing question. Do non-Catholics see Jesus and God as two separate entities entirely, in comparison to Catholics?

[PeterMP]

Here's a thing that doesn't match up for me: I've heard Christians of the non-Catholic variety say that "God is good, God is generous, etc." because he in effect sacrificed his son to pay for all of the past, present, and future sins of humanity.

But if God IS Jesus, and Jesus IS God, then where is the sacrifice? If Jesus was supposedly a manifestation of God in some form or another, "wrapped up in humanity" as you say mcsluggo, and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knew that what he was sacrificing wasn't really anything at all--it was his "son", born for the specific purpose of sacrificing himself for humanities sins...it was always meant to happen and always would happen, and wasn't really his "son" anyways if Jesus=God.

I just don't see the sacrifice, if God knows the outcome, God IS Jesus, and then it all happens...

Is this a difference between Catholics and other denominations of Christians? Would Catholics never describe God as being "good/generous", etc. for sacrificing his "son" because they have a fundamentally different belief in regards to the God/Jesus relationship? I honestly don't know. I'm asking you guys. I realize its a confusing question. Do non-Catholics see Jesus and God as two separate entities entirely, in comparison to Catholics?

I don't think Catholics have much of a different view of God, Jesus, or the relationship between them than other Christians.

Just because Jesus was God doesn't mean he didn't also have free will the respect to the crucification.

I also don't know of any reason to believe that Jesus (not the copreal body, but the actual being) was created just for the crucifiction or forgiveness of sins.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Is this a difference between Catholics and other denominations of Christians? Would Catholics never describe God as being "good/generous", etc. for sacrificing his "son" because they have a fundamentally different belief in regards to the God/Jesus relationship? I honestly don't know. I'm asking you guys. I realize its a confusing question. Do non-Catholics see Jesus and God as two separate entities entirely, in comparison to Catholics?

I'm not going to speak for all denominations but I grew up in the Church of Christ (Discples of Christ) and I am now Catholic, and in both faiths I was taught that God and Jesus are the same. When I was Protestant, every Sunday we sang "God in Three Persons - blessed Trinity." The line in the Nicean Creed about Jesus being "consubstantial" with the Father was a response to the Arian heresy that God essentially begat Jesus. So, this has been a settled Catholic matter since 376. And no Protestant faith that I've been involved with has differed from this belief.

This is incredibly difficult to wrap one's brain around. I had a priest give a pretty good way of understanding it as God is the Father, Jesus is the Son, and the love they share is the Holy Spirit. But even that doesn't quite work.

And it gets really complicated when you then get into Jesus being divine and mortal simultaneously.

I tend to skip over that just focus on Jesus' humanity. He was human. He could feel pain. And he did not necessarily want to die. Even if dying for him was some kind of three-day nap, it certainly was not a "nothing" event.

In reading the Bible, I often wonder sometimes if Jesus' humanity kept him from completely understanding the details of God's plan. That's probably heretical, but as you read the Gospels, you do get a sense of a Jesus growing in knowledge and power. Why else would the Transfiguration occur? Why else would he be dreading what's coming in Gethsemane? Why else would he be worried about Mary's future care while hanging on the cross?

(They loved me in RCIA because I grew up in a Bible-reading church while most Catholics acknowledge that reading the Bible has not always been the core of the church. That seems to be changing a lot though, which is another thing that attracted me. There was a moment in one class where a nun who was teaching told a story how a priest once told her, "Don't read so much of the Bible. It will only confuse you.")

It's a fascinating question.

[twa]

I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal to him. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to me that the pain of the crucification part of it should be a big deal to him.

The sins of the world were imbued in him and God turned his back upon himself....which is indeed a great deal more than physical pain.

in many ways it is a pictorial of God's love overcoming his disgust for our actions(keeping in mind it is God himself that allowed us the option...and set the penalty)