Understanding the Purpose of the Son's Death

[Duplicitous]

I am, and have always been an Apostolic.

Lately, however, I have been struggling to understand the intimated relationship between, and meaning of, the words (titles) Father and Son.

Why did Jesus feel the need to use these words (titles) instead of "flesh and Spirit?"

[Duplicitous]

When I step back and take a very high level view I wonder why any father would send a son to die for people who would not even appreciate the gesture.

In fact, most fathers would do anything to ensure a son lived, even if it meant dying themselves.

Is the father/son language allegorical? Figurative?

[bbyrd009]

One possible reason is to give the relationship
a frame that we might understand better?
I find many or most, if not all of the lessons
a Christian needs to learn mirrored in temporal
family relationships.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Duplicitous

When I step back and take a very high level view I wonder why any father would send a son to die for people who would not even appreciate the gesture.

In fact, most fathers would do anything to ensure a son lived, even if it meant dying themselves.

Is the father/son language allegorical? Figurative?

But ya, this would seem to be an exception? Until you consider that Christ is as close to the Father as we get, so you have to kind of juxtapose, there.

[bbyrd009]

And yes, the language would not translate directly, anyway.
God is not technically "male," and did not physically bear a Son.

[Duplicitous]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

One possible reason is to give the relationship
a frame that we might understand better?
I find many or most, if not all of the lessons
a Christian needs to learn mirrored in temporal
family relationships.

Perhaps.

But why would any father punish a son for sins someone else committed?

What does that say about the nature of that father?

[Sam]

God is an invisible Spirit who is everywhere present. He has always been that way. For some time before the "beginning" (whenever that was) God has existed as an omnipresent, invisible Spirit and also as a local, visible Word/Memra/Logos/Angel(messenger) of the Lord.

In this visible, local form He could interact with humans such as walking in the garden with Adam and Eve; wrestling with Jacob, appearing in a burning bush to Moses, appearing as the captain of the Lord's host to Joshua, etc.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He came to us as a sinless human so He could die for sinful humans. He was human, but more than human, so His death could count for more than just one human. He took the penalty of death (eternal separation from God) for us so that we would not have to live forever in a place of torment without God.

16 So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. At one time we thought of Christ merely from a human point of view. How differently we know him now! 17 This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!
18 And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. 19 For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. 20 So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” 21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:16-21

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Duplicitous

I am, and have always been an Apostolic.

Lately, however, I have been struggling to understand the intimated relationship between, and meaning of, the words (titles) Father and Son.

Why did Jesus feel the need to use these words (titles) instead of "flesh and Spirit?"

I consider myself Apostolic also, I'm just not oneness pentecostal anymore.

Your struggle is with the inability of the oneness, or trinitarian, position concerning God and Jesus to reconcile with scripture. In both positions, God becomes schizophrenic, interacting with Himself as if He's multiple persons, having multiple wills, thinking He's His own Son, crying out to Himself asking Himself why He's forsaken Himself. He loves another, Jesus, but is really not loving another but is instead loving Himself. This other person He sometimes pretends He is also loves the first person who is His pretend Father.

God is Father, Jesus is His Son who isn't God. It's so very very simple. There's absolutely no reason to have a twisting, pretzel shaped, theology in an impossible attempt to make Jesus God.

[houston]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I consider myself Apostolic also, I'm just not oneness pentecostal anymore.

Your struggle is with the inability of the oneness, or trinitarian, position concerning God and Jesus to reconcile with scripture. In both positions, God becomes schizophrenic, interacting with Himself as if He's multiple persons, having multiple wills, thinking He's His own Son, crying out to Himself asking Himself why He's forsaken Himself. He loves another, Jesus, but is really not loving another but is instead loving Himself. This other person He sometimes pretends He is also loves the first person who is His pretend Father.

God is Father, Jesus is His Son who isn't God. It's so very very simple. There's absolutely no reason to have a twisting, pretzel shaped, theology in an impossible attempt to make Jesus God.

Trinitarians have that problem?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Duplicitous

I am, and have always been an Apostolic.

Lately, however, I have been struggling to understand the intimated relationship between, and meaning of, the words (titles) Father and Son.

Why did Jesus feel the need to use these words (titles) instead of "flesh and Spirit?"

Because he really was the Son and God really was His Father.