Christ's Passion and Death

[3DOP]

God could have forgiven man by a means different, and less violent than the the suffering which His Son willingly endured. The Catholic Church teaches this, and it begs the question of whether it was fitting or not that Christ should have so suffered. I did not ponder what I believed about this subject before I was introduced to the Catholic doctrine. I think I was surprised at it because I had assumed previously that a loving Father would not punish His Son, one whit more than necessary to attain the price of our forgiveness and to satisfy the rigors of justice. It seems possible that this is an assumption made by other believers in the Atoning Passion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A clue is given to us in St. John's Gospel as to the possibility of other reasons good reasons than justice for why Christ intended to go way beyond and to the utmost extremes of agony and suffering for our behalf.  "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. Now this he said signifying what death he should die." (John 12:32)

Only days before, Jesus Christ stood before three of His disciples on the holy mount transfigured, in the brightness of His Sacred Humanity, even His very garments that He wore glowed a brilliant white. Why did not Christ use such a method to convince the scribes and Pharisees, or those indifferent to religion, to follow Him? Because even had their sins been forgiven (by some other means than being lifted upon the Cross), their miseries would have remained. No doubt, anyone would have been awed to see the majesty of Jesus Christ as He was on Mt. Tabor. Certainly it would inspire a healthy fear, respect we might call it, among those who had otherwise been inclined to disregard the claims of God and His Son. But as correct as it is to be awestruck with respectful fear, the loving designs of God for the poor fallen sons of Adam could not be limited to awe and respect. God wished to accomplish more with the mission of His Son than satisfy the rigors of justice.

The burning furnace of charity which brought Jesus down from heaven would not be content with convincing souls of His true greatness and the absolute need to obey His Father in heaven. It would still be a misery to be a forgiven sinner, that does not know and love the One good God, who wants us to follow Him not because we are convinced in His power, but because we see that He did something unimaginable to prove His love and to kindle our own love. This love of God is the greatest of His revelations and it could not be made in a more fitting manner. I admit though, that It is not wide of the mark to say that from a certain perspective, that going through the Passion and Cross was crazy. "The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness", as St. Paul puts it.

Nobody but an all wise God and infinitely loving God could have conceived and carried out the plan that fooled Satan and all the world, by breaking the hearts of the hard of heart who come to understand why Jesus Christ offered Himself as a holocaust not merely to forgive sins, but to "draw all things to Himself". This has inspired Christians to remember Good Friday on every Friday, by making us desire to unite our sufferings with His sufferings. He could have won our allegiance by showing us His grandeur. But He wins the love and devotion of our hearts by showing us the depths of His burning love. What a lover! One imagines a Romeo or Juliet dying for the love of one who loved them. But Jesus Christ? He died for the love of those who didn't know Him yet. Even for us who were estranged, enemies.

St. Thomas speaks of the fittingness of Jesus' death on the Cross in his usual prosaic but precise ways, noting in particular that perfection does not consist in fearful obedience, but loving obedience to a God who loves us beyond our capacity to comprehend:

Quote

"...in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says: "God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."

The Stabat Mater is a hymn in honor of the Mother of God and our Mother standing resignedly under the Cross of her Son. It is customarily sung with the Stations of the Cross as a means of uniting our love and sorrows with those of Jesus' Sorrowful Mother, whose soul, as prophesied by Simeon, was by a sword pierced. A few lines of the Latin poetry with some English translation might give the idea put by St. Thomas in a more inspiring manner.  see how fitting it was that Christ should have determined to "be lifted up".

Stabat Mater dolorosa, Juxta crucem lacrymosa, Dum pendebat Filius.

Near the cross, while on it hung her Son, the sorrowing Mother stood and wept.    (What strength! In her grief she courageously stands unswooning.)

Quis non posset contristari, Christi Matrem contemplari, Dolentem cum Filio?

Who is there could contemplate the Mother and the Son in sorrow, and not join his own with theirs?  (Yes. The hardest of heart cannot contemplate, placing himself at the scene while pondering, and remain unmoved.)  

Fac ut ardeat cor meum, In amando Christum Deum, Ut sibi complaceam.

Make this heart of mine burn with the love of Jesus my God, so that I may content his heart.  (Does an ostentatious show of signs and wonders accomplish this miracle of love in the soul of a sinner?)

Wikipedia has the full Latin text with a poeticised English. The entire hymn would never have been written if God had been content for us to merely believe in Him and to have been forgiven. By being "lifted up", he makes the soul that contemplates the Sacred Mysteries of our salvation to wonder in awe, yes. At the greatness of God, of course. But most of all at the kind goodness which condescends to love us after a manner that seems...if you will...almost mad.

Especially if there are others like I have been, assuming that justice could not be accomplished aside from this horrific suffering, I propose that of course the Cross allows our sins to be forgiven, but also by being lifted up, Jesus shows us very much more about Himself, and about ourselves. Some have asked why we Catholics call it Good Friday. Because It is the most generous display of unselfish goodness that the world has ever known. May we love our good God a little more this year as we consider His burning heart of charity for us on Good Friday.

3DOP

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

I was thinking over lunch that we should have a thread devoted to this Good Friday day, when we remember the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior.

We on this board have a variety of beliefs and approaches to religion, but almost everyone here acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Let's give thanks for Him this day and on Easter morn as well!


 

[Jeanne]

There has to be a word that means even more than grateful..an ultimate sacrifice can't even be defined  Thank you Jesus, for being my Savior, my brother, and my friend.

[Ahab]

I was thinking about starting a thread on the topic of why God didn't set up the scriptures to speak more plainly about who we are, why we are here, and where we will be going after this phase of our lives, but the answer is pretty well addressed in this thread. I think.

Sure, he could have made things simpler, he could have made it very easy to understand what is going on here, but the more we learn the more we usually want to keep learning and the closer we draw to our Lord and our Father in heaven.

[Spammer]

Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus) said:

" For what has not been assumed has not been healed; it is what is united to his divinity that is saved..."

In the Orthodox tradition, the Divine Logos became one of us, condescending to enter humanity and unite Himself with us, entering into and experiencing our entire humanity unto the lowest depths, draining all of the bitter cup of human sin, pain and suffering in order to heal and divinize broken human nature: Christ our God has conquered death and defeated sin and the powers of darkness. In Him, we are the victors!  God became man so that man might become god.

At the Paschal Vigil late Saturday night and into Sunday, we will sing the following as a refrain between stanzas while Psalms 68 and 118 are chanted, in honor of God and His impending glorious Resurrection:

“Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered; let those who hate Him flee from before His face (Ps. 68:1)
As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish; as wax melts before the fire (Ps. 68:2a)
So the sinners will perish before the face of God; but let the righteous be glad (Ps. 68:2b)
This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it. (Ps. 118:24)”

These words are inscribed in Slavonic on one side of the baptismal cross that hangs every day from my neck and under my shirt.

Then, at the moment of the Resurrection, the church is bathed in light and we joyously sing over and over again:

“Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!”

Through Bright Week and until the Feast of the Ascension, we greet each other with the Paschal greeting “Christ is Risen!” and respond with “Indeed, He is Risen!”  It is, indeed, the most joyous time of the year, for Christ our God has conquered. 

May the joy of this season be with all of you.

Happy Easter and a Blessed Pascha!

Edited April 14, 2017 by Spammer

[CV75]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Especially if there are others like I have been, assuming that justice could not be accomplished aside from this horrific suffering, I propose that of course the Cross allows our sins to be forgiven, but also by being lifted up, Jesus shows us very much more about Himself, and about ourselves. Some have asked why we Catholics call it Good Friday. Because It is the most generous display of unselfish goodness that the world has ever known. May we love our good God a little more this year as we consider His burning heart of charity for us on Good Friday.

3DOP

Thank you; these concepts remind me of two found in the Book of Mormon:

Emphasizing the justice component of His reasons, 3 Nephi 27: 13-15, “Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.” This refers to the role of His suffering to bring about the resurrection, which comes unconditionally to all.

And emphasizing the love component of His reasons, 2 Nephi 26: 24, “He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation… (and verse 30) wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love.” This refers to the role of His suffering in inspiring perfect love, which while voluntary and therefore conditional on our part, as children of God cannot be withheld no matter how craven we might be.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

............................................................................................

Only days before, Jesus Christ stood before three of His disciples on the holy mount transfigured, in the brightness of His Sacred Humanity, even His very garments that He wore glowed a brilliant white. Why did not Christ use such a method to convince the scribes and Pharisees, or those indifferent to religion, to follow Him? Because even had their sins been forgiven (by some other means than being lifted upon the Cross), their miseries would have remained. No doubt, anyone would have been awed to see the majesty of Jesus Christ as He was on Mt. Tabor...................

...........................   

Even though no one knows which was the Mount of Transfiguration, Mt. Tabor seems the best candidate, and I recall climbing up that mount back in 1966 early in my four years as a pilgrim in the Holy Land.  Seemed as though I was living in sacred time, and I very much appreciate your poetic comments on this day.

This is Jewish Passover Week, and Nephi recalled for us that the Israelites were backsliders, and that God “did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent fiery flying serpents among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished.” (1 Nephi 17:41)

Consequently, the Lord God “gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, if they would cast their eyes unto the serpent which he did raise up before them,” (2 Nephi 25:20), i.e., “a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live.” (Alma 33:19)

Moses bore “record that the Son of God should come. And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come.  And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal.”  (Helaman 8:14-15)

The brazen serpent here (Nĕḥūštān) always refers to the bronze serpent (nĕḥaš) crafted in the wilderness by Moses as a mode of cure for Israelites bitten by fiery serpents (Numbers 21:8-9, Deuteronomy 8:15), but which must be understood as a type of Christ.

For, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:14)

That is, “the Sun of Righteousness (šemeš ṣĕdāqâ) will arise with healing in his wings.” (Malachi 4:2, 3 Nephi 25:2, Ether 9:22)

http://namesforgod.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sun-of-righteousness-Shemesh-ts’daqah.jpg

[Bobbieaware]

19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

God could have forgiven man by a means different, and less violent than the the suffering which His Son willingly endured. The Catholic Church teaches this, and it begs the question of whether it was fitting or not that Christ should have so suffered. I did not ponder what I believed about this subject before I was introduced to the Catholic doctrine. I think I was surprised at it because I had assumed previously that a loving Father would not punish His Son, one whit more than necessary to attain the price of our forgiveness and to satisfy the rigors of justice. It seems possible that this is an assumption made by other believers in the Atoning Passion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then it appears this is an area of doctrine where Mormonism and Catholicism part company in a very significant way. The Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that, as a consequence of the fall, men were forever cut off from any and all of the blessings God desires to extend to man through his eternal goodness and love. Apart from Christ's infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice, God could not extend to man even the least of the blessings of his goodness. Now let us understand that the forgiveness of sin is one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, of all the good things God extendes to mankind, but, as the following verses from the Book of Mormon plainly testify, God cannot extend even the least of his blessings to fallen man without the salvative work of Christ...

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

Therefore, in LDS Doctrine (and I am bold to say it) God is not able to forgive in righteousness unless there is an atoning sacrifice that balances the infinitely sensitive scales of justice and mercy -- for "mercy cannot rob justice." In other words, just because God is God doesn't mean he can forgive man by a mere act of his benevolent will apart from an atoning sacrifice. In fact, within in the one Godhead of Mormonism there is an eternal and utterly indispensable divine personage whom we call the Son of God, who, under the direction of his Father, unleashes the powers and blessings of heaven through an absolutely essential act of sacrificial mercy.

God cannot forgive just because he wants to forgive; he can only forgive by virtue of a divine sacrifice of Christ that throws open the floodgates of God's goodness and blessings that remain closed shut until the law is fulfilled and justice is satisfied.. Withot the atoning sacrifice our Father could not extend even the least of his blessings to man without violating his own everlasting and inviolable law of justice. . As the Book of Mormon declares, if God attempted to forgine sin without the laws of justice and mercy being in perfect balance he would, theoretically speaking, cease to be God. God has to obey his own laws.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Peter 1)

i.e. "... without the shedding of blood there is no remission."

 

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

Have a sacred and joyful Easter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not to detract in any way from 3DOP's thoughtful post, but I attended a lecture on Thursday night by John W. Welch. (For those who don't recognize the name, he is a law professor at BYU and one of the foremost scholars of Mormon thought and scripture. He founded FARMS many years ago. While on his mission, he discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon).

Welch takes issue with the term passion as applied to the suffering of Christ. Passion is related to the word passive. He said that during the ordeal in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ was anything but passive. On the contrary, he was engaged in a conflict, battling all the forces of evil arrayed against Him and trying to bring Him down as He effected the Atonement.

It was an insight that was new to me.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not to detract in any way from 3DOP's thoughtful post, but I attended a lecture on Thursday night by John W. Welch. (For those who don't recognize the name, he is a law professor at BYU and one of the foremost scholars of Mormon thought and scripture. He founded FARMS many years ago. While on his mission, he discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon).

Welch takes issue with the term passion as applied to the suffering of Christ. Passion is related to the word passive. He said that during the ordeal in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ was anything but passive. On the contrary, he was engaged in a conflict, battling all the forces of evil arrayed against Him and trying to bring Him down as He effected the Atonement.

It was an insight that was new to me.

The word passive is related to the word passion but they are not the same things.

What I find interesting about the fact that  Catholics refer to the Passion of the Christ is how they refer to God as being without any body, parts, or "passions".

I'm very passionate about some things, sometimes, and can't imagine God or our Lord not being passionate about some things, at least sometimes, as well.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The word passive is related to the word passion but they are not the same things.

What I find interesting about the fact that  Catholics refer to the Passion of the Christ is how they refer to God as being without any body, parts, or "passions".

I'm very passionate about some things, sometimes, and can't imagine God or our Lord not being passionate about some things, at least sometimes, as well.

 

I think you are conflating separate definitions and a modern-day evolving etymology with the root meaning.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are conflating separate definitions and a modern-day evolving etymology with the root meaning.

A blessed Easter to you, Scott,

I believe Jack Welch's understanding of the word passion, when applied to the sufferings of Christ, to be deficient. The following is from the website allaboutjesuschrist.org:

"Passion stems from the Latin work pati, meaning "to suffer." The stem pass comes from the word passive meaning "capable of suffering." Pass was coined in the early 16th century to denote "the suffering of Christ on the cross." English also acquired the word through the Old French word passion  meaning "strength of feeling." This has been transferred in our modern times to denote sexual attraction and anger. Webster states the word passion "is a strong feeling, especially of anger, love or desire." It says that passion "is an emotion, an intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction." It also says that passion "is the sufferings of Christ between the night of the last supper and His death." Interestingly enough one version states, "it is also the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces." What stronger force is there then God? Wasn't it God who wanted "The passion of Jesus" to be a reality?"

 

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then it appears this is an area of doctrine where Mormonism and Catholicism part company in a very significant way. The Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that, as a consequence of the fall, men were forever cut off from any and all of the blessings God desires to extend to man through his eternal goodness and love. Apart from Christ's infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice, God could not extend to man even the least of the blessings of his goodness. Now let us understand that the forgiveness of sin is one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, of all the good things God extendes to mankind, but, as the following verses from the Book of Mormon plainly testify, God cannot extend even the least of his blessings to fallen man without the salvative work of Christ...

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

Therefore, in LDS Doctrine (and I am bold to say it) God is not able to forgive in righteousness unless there is an atoning sacrifice that balances the infinitely sensitive scales of justice and mercy -- for "mercy cannot rob justice." In other words, just because God is God doesn't mean he can forgive man by a mere act of his benevolent will apart from an atoning sacrifice. In fact, within in the one Godhead of Mormonism there is an eternal and utterly indispensable divine personage whom we call the Son of God, who, under the direction of his Father, unleashes the powers and blessings of heaven through an absolutely essential act of sacrificial mercy.

God cannot forgive just because he wants to forgive; he can only forgive by virtue of a divine sacrifice of Christ that throws open the floodgates of God's goodness and blessings that remain closed shut until the law is fulfilled and justice is satisfied.. Withot the atoning sacrifice our Father could not extend even the least of his blessings to man without violating his own everlasting and inviolable law of justice. . As the Book of Mormon declares, if God attempted to forgine sin without the laws of justice and mercy being in perfect balance he would, theoretically speaking, cease to be God. God has to obey his own laws.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Peter 1)

i.e. "... without the shedding of blood there is no remission."

 

 

Say bobbie...thanks for the thoughts. God has to obey His own laws, certainly. As to the least of His blessings, does not God continue to send rain upon the unjust even after the Fall? The sacrifice which Christ offers is as you say "infinite and eternal." But what is infinite about it? Could Christ not have received one more lash at His scourging or endured one more mocking epithet from the scoffers at Calvary? What I am suggesting is that His suffering could not be infinite. It is Christ who is infinite. The reason that our offenses required an infinite sacrifice is not because they are infinitely evil. It is rather because they offend an infinite God. It wouldn't work for anyone but an infinite God to pay the price. And so...it follows that a less severe sacrifice by Christ would have sufficed to pay for our sins, and for God to "obey His own laws", for I agree that "mercy cannot rob justice". It is not the amount of blood, or the number of stripes, but rather the Person who is suffering that renders the Sacrifice infinite.

What I am saying, whether this works for Mormons or not, and I am not sure, is that for Catholics, we see on Calvary how mercy is being done rather than mere justice. Christ's suffering for us, if not what we call His Passion, begins in earnest with His first shedding of blood, without which there is no remission. Here is how one Catholic commentator explains what I am trying to say, speaking about the Feast of the Circumcision and why we celebrate such an event in the Catholic Church:
 

Quote

"The Incarnate Word is upon the earth in order to offer a Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice is begun today. The first shedding of the Blood of the Man-God was sufficient to the fulness and perfection of a Sacrifice; but he is come to win the heart of the sinner, and that heart is so hard that all the streams of the Precious Blood which flow from the Cross on Calvary, will scarcely make it yield. The drops that were shed today would have been enough to satisfy the justice of the Eternal Father, but not to cure man's miseries, and the Babe's Heart would not be satisfied to leave us uncured. He came for man's sake, and His love for man will go to what looks like excess...Let us magnify his love for us, for it is in order to cure our wounds that he humbly condescends to feel their smart himself."

Dom Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 2, p. 385

I am pretty sure that unlike us, you do not acknowledge that the Baby Jesus was conscious of his surroundings. You could still allow that before He came to dwell in the Virgin's womb, that He knew that He would be offering His blood in this painful ceremony, and it would be infinitely meritorious, not because the suffering is infinite, but because the Person is infinite. Most likely, it will sound too strange and foreign to most LDS. But I find there to be a beautiful allure, a tremendously powerful "draw", in the idea that it is a kind of wild love rather than an absolutely strict and rigorous justice that causes Jesus to accept the Cross. You would still rightly love such an One that is fulfilling the law on our behalf. I am not saying your way lacks love. What I am experiencing this year at Lent, is the powerful idea that there is a mystery in God's loving care for sinners that is unfathomable.

We are also taught He would have done it just for one of us, or even none of us. Think of that. I don't know God, but I have believed in His love. What is there more that He could do to win my heart? Believing in that love, am I faithful for my part? How can I behave so as to please this Divine Lover of my own and every human soul? I am taken with an idea that from our perspective, to love like God has loved, is crazy. Don't get me wrong. I know it can't be. But I can't explain God's love rationally. Is it possible God's love, true love, is in some way contrary to reason? Or maybe this...it is above and beyond reason! Maybe it has something to do with being so good. I have heard that goodness, and the supreme good, the love of God, always seeks to communicate itself. Could it be that God is so good that He cannot help being "a crazed lover"? (The words in this paragraph are my own, and I trust that God knows I am struggling to understand, while saying things that taken out of context, could seem irreverent.)

His words keep ringing in my mind. He does not say "I, if I be lifted up, will be able to forgive". He says He will "draw all things to Himself". He spent Himself for love, while knowing that by the law, men could have been forgiven with justice by far less. Christ becomes a lodestone on the Cross, a fleshy magnet that has ever since been polarizingly attractive to those who choose to follow, and to be drawn, or becomes repugnant to those who refuse, who turn away. Of course we believe that if "all things" are drawn, so certainly are all souls in some mysterious fashion that will be revealed on the day of judgment.

I don't know if these ideas can be adapted to LDS "theology". It seems to me that the way Mormons emphasize practice over dogma, that such a view might be permitted. Nobody has to dogmatic about it. What if it just works in practice? Perhaps bobbie, you find the idea less attractive than other LDS might, but you seem unusually more dogmatic than most of the serious and practicing Mormons I have met on line. I have no intention to propose that this makes sense for Mormons. Maybe it doesn't. 

3DOP 

Edited April 15, 2017 by 3DOP

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not to detract in any way from 3DOP's thoughtful post, but I attended a lecture on Thursday night by John W. Welch. (For those who don't recognize the name, he is a law professor at BYU and one of the foremost scholars of Mormon thought and scripture. He founded FARMS many years ago. While on his mission, he discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon).

Welch takes issue with the term passion as applied to the suffering of Christ. Passion is related to the word passive. He said that during the ordeal in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ was anything but passive. On the contrary, he was engaged in a conflict, battling all the forces of evil arrayed against Him and trying to bring Him down as He effected the Atonement.

It was an insight that was new to me.

Is he saying it is related in the original language...because these days passion is anything but passive in tone.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

The word passive is related to the word passion but they are not the same things.

What I find interesting about the fact that  Catholics refer to the Passion of the Christ is how they refer to God as being without any body, parts, or "passions".

I'm very passionate about some things, sometimes, and can't imagine God or our Lord not being passionate about some things, at least sometimes, as well.

 

Catholics do not say that Christ could have experienced the Passion aside from the Incarnation.

Among other more modern meanings, to be passionless is to be unchanging..."without a shadow of turning", is I think the way God is described in St. James' epistle (KJV). You are what you call passionate, as you say, sometimes. All of us are. We cannot be always "passionate".

In God, His love, if it were passionate, would be in ebbs and flows. Passion does not signify intensity. If God were passionate, rather than signifying consistency and durability, it would literally mean that He would need to be known according to His mood. God's love is infinitely intense and indescribable, but revelation compares it to a fire, and He came to kindle a fire in us who are passionate, who need courage to imitate the unwavering, absolutely dependable love of God, with which He has loved us for all eternity.

Edited April 15, 2017 by 3DOP

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is he saying it is related in the original language...because these days passion is anything but passive in tone.

The earlier and root meaning is suffering or hurt. Strong will or desire is a connotation it took on later. Passive is truer to the root meaning than passion. 

[Calm]

I don't understand the need to reject a word based on original meaning if it has assumed a different meaning in the here and now.  If it was transtioning, sure.  But not if it is fully grounded at this point.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Catholics do not say that Christ could have experienced the Passion aside from the Incarnation.

Among other more modern meanings, to be passionless is to be unchanging..."without a shadow of turning", is I think the way God is described in St. James' epistle (KJV). You are what you call passionate, as you say, sometimes. All of us are. We cannot be always "passionate".

In God, His love, if it were passionate, would be in ebbs and flows. Passion does not signify intensity. If God were passionate, rather than signifying consistency and durability, it would literally mean that He would need to be known according to His mood. God's love is infinitely intense and indescribable, but revelation compares it to a fire, and He came to kindle a fire in us who are passionate, who need courage to imitate the unwavering, absolutely dependable love of God, with which He has loved us for all eternity.

I don't know if we agree or not at this point but what I think of as having passions is to have strong emotions, sometimes angry, sometimes happy and smiling, sometimes sad, etc, not because he changes but because of changing circumstances.  And yes we, his children, are often the cause of his changing moods.

To think he has no passions means to me that to think that he is always in the same mood, or that he doesn't have any emotions. And that is not the way I think of our Father.  I have a healthy fear of his wrath and because of that I would prefer to try to keep him in a better mood with me so that I can experience his softer, gentler love and approval of the way I live my life.

[Darren10]

This video is vety compatible to 3DOP's very good write up on the Passion of the Christ and why He was lifted up on a cross. 

http://www.ldsliving.com/What-We-May-Have-Been-Getting-All-Wrong-About-the-Savior-s-Cross-and-the-Beautiful-Symbolism-Behind-it/s/85138

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't understand the need to reject a word based on original meaning if it has assumed a different meaning in the here and now.  If it was transtioning, sure.  But not if it is fully grounded at this point.

Bear in mind that "the passion of Christ" is a comparatively late expression. Even so It was intended from the first to convey the idea of Christ's suffering. I have always understood it in that classic sense and have never given it the meaning that we apply to the word today: strong will or desire, even sexual desire.

I think what Jack Welch is saying is that when you consider another derivative from the root, passive, it is an inappropriate -- or perhaps inadequate -- term to apply to the experience that Christ went through.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I can see "inadequate", no term will ever fit it very well, imo.  It is "inappropriate" that I think inappropriate, especially since it has acquired a technical meaning in the context of "Passion of  Christ" that I think many and hopefully most understand.  Because of its inadequacy, additional explantation is required, but that pretty much happens with everything surrounding Christ.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Calm

[Guest]

To address the OP: What I do know is that Jesus Christ through his suffering and sacrifice paid the demands of Justice. This where I find hope and joy, and when I stand before him in that great day, I want no part of Justice, but Mercy, His Mercy. So that despite myself, I can enter into the presence of the Father, and dwell with them from everlasting to everlasting. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I can see "inadequate", no term will ever fit it very well, imo.  It is "inappropriate" that I think inappropriate, especially since it has acquired a technical meaning in the context of "Passion of  Christ" that I think many and hopefully most understand.  Because of its inadequacy, additional explantation is required, but that pretty much happens with everything surrounding Christ.

Welch seemed to think the term was inadequate to the point of being misleading -- hence, inappropriate (my term).

But I'm probably not the one to be making his argument for him, as the idea was new to me as well.

 

[Calm]

I am opened to being persuaded.  I suspect my view has been coloured by the use of "passion" in business or at least business education.

Perhaps Welch dislikes the term in part for the reason this woman is saying "follow your passion" is self centered and won't work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-beaton/what-no-one-told-me-about_2_b_11618730.html

I will have to discuss with my husband how he sees it (he uses it as a positive)

Edited April 16, 2017 by Calm