Monday, March 1, 2010

Christ's Atonement

I just had a quick thought while I was getting ready for school this morning, and it's this: How much more does it mean that God offered his Son as a sacrifice, than if he - as most of Christendom believes - was really also Jesus and was just offering himself as a sacrifice? Would it actually mean less if he was his own sacrifice? It's a big deal, saying you'll be sacrificed for mankind.. But why do Latter-day Saints not believe in the trinity? Aside from all the scriptures and restored doctrine... But that's not the point of my early-morning thought.
My thought is this: It does mean more that God would offer his son as a sacrifice for all mankind, and I made a comparison to Abraham and Isaac. How much would it mean if it were Abraham who was asked to sacrifice himself, and how much less would it mean when the angel came and stopped him?

Just a thought.


Onhech said...

If you were asked to die for the person you loved most, most would. But if you were asked to let the one you love most die so that YOU can live, it would be harder. (hopefully)

p.s. Interestingly in some accounts it says that Abraham actually did sacrifice Issac but that he was brought back to life. This is an interesting thought when you are talking about "How Much more/less would it mean". How much more would it mean to Abraham if he killed his son, and not just was willing to. Thoughts?

Tephrochr said...

Interesting thought.

I don't think it would mean any more or less had Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac because he was already so prepared to sacrifice him. The outcome wasn't as important as the intent at the outset.
Of course this argument can't be used with Christ's sacrifice because the outcome of that was, and still is an essential part of our salvation.