Suferintele Lui Isus

[romans3:23]

Multi, sigur, ati auzit de Emil Cioran. Nu-l admir decat ca pe un om stralucit dintr-o perspectiva omeneasca. Spiritual vorbind, pare pierdut.
Citeam Cartea Amagirilor, de Cioran si am ajuns la un pasaj:
"Isus n-a suferit pentru toti oamenii; caci dac-ar fi suferit atat de mult pe cat se spune, dupa el n-ar fi trebuit sa mai existe dureri. Or, se pare ca toti oamenii care au venit dupa Isus, fara sa fie salvati prin suferinta lui, n-au facut, prin chinuri, decat sa adauge contributia lor la infinitul suferintei umane, pe care Cristos nu l-a putut realiza. Intr-adevar, putin a avut de suferit Isus, pentru ca noi sa mai avem atat de indurat. Daca ar fi suferit in natura lui divina, dupa el n-ar mai fi putut exista suferinte. Dar Isus n-a suferit decat ca om-- si astfel suferinta lui n-a putut rascumpara decat atat de putin..."
ce credeti, cum ati putea contrazice cu dovezi Biblice aceasta idee care pare logica??? :scratch:

[KiSsMeDoOrK17]

Hm, sorry i'm really bad at reading Romnian, I don't know if you want the entire lyrics to this song, cause I have them, or if your trying to figure out if the Bible contradicts what the lyrics say? Sorry, if you can translate in English that wouild be realllyyy helpful :-)

[mine]

how do you have the lyrics to this song???hihih.

[romans3:23]

ha, no it's not a song...sorry. ok...here goes: there's a pretty well known Romanian philosopher: Emil Cioran, he's known throughout the world, matter of fact..in his book Cartea Amagirilor, or, correct me if I'm wrong, The Book of Disappointments(roughly) he writes: "Jesus didn't suffer for all people; because, if he had suffered as much as it said he did, after him, there shouldn't have existed any more pain. Or, it seems that all people that were born after Jeus, not being saved through his suffering, did nothing, through pains, but to add their contribution to the neverending human suffering, which Christ could not surmount. Indeed, Jesus had little to suffer, in order for us to still have so much to endure. Had he suffered in his divine nature, after him suffering could have no longer existed. But Jesus didn't suffer but as a man--therefore, his suffering was able to redeem only so much."
how would you debase this seemingly logical argument with Biblical proof???

[SaintJoe69]

ha, no it's not a song...sorry. ok...here goes: there's a pretty well known Romanian philosopher: Emil Cioran, he's known throughout the world, matter of fact..in his book Cartea Amagirilor, or, correct me if I'm wrong, The Book of Disappointments(roughly) he writes: "Jesus didn't suffer for all people; because, if he had suffered as much as it said he did, after him, there shouldn't have existed any more pain. Or, it seems that all people that were born after Jeus, not being saved through his suffering, did nothing, through pains, but to add their contribution to the neverending human suffering, which Christ could not surmount. Indeed, Jesus had little to suffer, in order for us to still have so much to endure. Had he suffered in his divine nature, after him suffering could have no longer existed. But Jesus didn't suffer but as a man--therefore, his suffering was able to redeem only so much."
how would you debase this seemingly logical argument with Biblical proof???
mine, you are under the assumption that this statement seems logical. :screwy:

[romans3:23]

how does one "assume" that something "seems"?????

[relix]

Well seems pretty easy to me .. go back to where suffering came along in the first place....the answer would be sin. It's weird how philosophers and "documented" people like Cioran miss obvious things like this. And because they are so famous... people take their work for granted.. ("wow... if this guy says so.. then for sure he must be right") .. rather than reading a few chapters from the bible.

[romans3:23]

elaboreaza te rog.

[dukey]

Looks like most people ignored your argument. Maybe they aren't thinking about it.

I think that this statement is a upholding a small corner of Calvinism which states that Christ suffered only for those that are saved, since they are also predestined. Thus Christ didn't suffer for everybody, or die for everybody, just for those that would be saved.

Another question. Did Jesus have to suffer? If he had died a death which included no suffering, that would still have saved us from sins, because his sacrifice was perfect? Why suffering in the first place? Why did he stay on the cross for 6 hours and not 3? Was it his choice? I think it was.

His sacrifice, not his suffering has saved us. BUT, his suffering was a sign, that Christ was going to make this sacrifice cost something. (remeber David refusing to offer a sacrifice that wouldn't cost him anything?) I believe that he suffered greatly, because he left his divine power at the door, and limited himself with a human body capably of feeling pain, something angles or heavenly bodies cannot. His suffering was the ultimate sign of love. Also, he suffered for our future sufferings. (see Isaiah 66)..the by his strips we are healed passage...

more to say, but i have work to do...later

[Beatus]

I believe that the truest and most necessary perception of Jesus Christ, is the image that presents Him as the suffering Jesus, the crucified One. The Apostle Paul summarizes well the believer's relationship toward this image: "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2) The Apostle Peter sets forth the issues for us quite well:
"For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God." (1 Peter 2:20)

We know that Christ took upon him the sins of the world... and he had to be harshly treated through suffering for that massive load. And because it was in God's plan to give his one and only Son for mankind, and the fact that Jesus let God's will to be done shows that he did what was right and what was after God's plan. And so, not only did Jesus find favor with God, but we, through Jesus's suffering, find favor with God as well.

[gabi_m]

emil cioran was an idiot on this one...he obviously didn't know Christ as a Savior...

[ofelya]

Multi, sigur, ati auzit de Emil Cioran. Nu-l admir decat ca pe un om stralucit dintr-o perspectiva omeneasca. Spiritual vorbind, pare pierdut.
Citeam Cartea Amagirilor, de Cioran si am ajuns la un pasaj:
"Isus n-a suferit pentru toti oamenii; caci dac-ar fi suferit atat de mult pe cat se spune, dupa el n-ar fi trebuit sa mai existe dureri. Or, se pare ca toti oamenii care au venit dupa Isus, fara sa fie salvati prin suferinta lui, n-au facut, prin chinuri, decat sa adauge contributia lor la infinitul suferintei umane, pe care Cristos nu l-a putut realiza. Intr-adevar, putin a avut de suferit Isus, pentru ca noi sa mai avem atat de indurat. Daca ar fi suferit in natura lui divina, dupa el n-ar mai fi putut exista suferinte. Dar Isus n-a suferit decat ca om-- si astfel suferinta lui n-a putut rascumpara decat atat de putin..."
ce credeti, cum ati putea contrazice cu dovezi Biblice aceasta idee care pare logica??? :scratch:



Bietul Cioran! Nu pare pierdut, E PIERDUT. A pierit infasurat si strangulat in propria-i filosofie.Pacat ca nu a inteles rolul suferintei in viata omului.El nu a inteles ca D-zeu foloseste dalta si ciocanul suferintei pentru ca e mai interesat in modelarea caracterului nostru decit in comfortul nostru.Altfel cum am ajunge noi asemenea chipului Fiului Sau?

,,Suferintele...nu sunt vrednice sa fie puse alaturi cu slava viitoare''(Romani 8/18)
,,intristarile ...de o clipa lucreaza pentru noi tot mai mult o greutate vesnica de slava''(2Cor. 4/17)