Wasn’t sure why Jesus needed to die on the cross — Divine Physics
Tags: Catholicer, Divine Physics, Cross, Advent, Catholic

A subset of divine science, a contemplation of a Catholic worker.

It seems there are a few Catholics out there who start investigating the theology again about the cross. Aquinas had his own arguments, but I didn’t feel they cover the topic in its entirety. This reflection is written to help fill a few of those holes just by the fruit of our own reflections. This article assumes readers are well informed in the True Faith that His death is our victory and redemptive.

His prison, under Caiaphas’ place

Can’t Jesus choose to die being burned alive or other methods instead?

I would answer, He could, but the Father's selected time was in the era when the cross was the worst capital punishment, and the element of being nakedly displayed fits the perpetual need of our Lord being displayed easily in the place of worship and in our heart. His nakedness was so beautiful that it shows His followers to come to the Cross and the Father naked.

Another factor missing with many other death methods was that his crucifixion accumulated enduring smaller pains, not just like a one-minute effort that might instead make Himself unrelatable to many sufferers if other ways were chosen. While we do not know if the Cross is perfect in the Father’s eyes, but I would argue, it is the perfect one used at the perfect time.

Another great story that came about was how He was taken down and put into a tomb. This calls His disciples how we should treat the dead, without which, His call to love others even after death would be missing otherwise to preserve the His teaching of the resurrection of the body.

One might think that the Jews shouted “crucify him” as the ultimate judgment, and it coincided with what Jesus predicted. Others might think the Father was the one choosing the way of the Cross. For those who are conflicted about what’s going on here, I would refer you to Aquinas’ work on prophecy and predestination, but in short, The Father chose it while holding all existence of the world, knowing how the Jews would react, and let Jesus know about it.

Getshemane

Can’t Jesus choose to come without being harmed to death while delivering His message?

If you’ve read our article about the trinitarian economy, the second Person of the Trinity serves one ultimate function, being the only bridge between the creation and the Father. This being said, I would answer that His existence would not be completed according to the natural law the Father created, that the greatest love is when one gives up his life for a friend, which he taught. In this very essence, our Lord showed the perfect love toward the Father, which is the total obedience and sinless attitude when approaching death. In the Eastern Churches, a priest near me called,

“His obedience repelled all evil efficacies and made them glorious instead.”

For us, we know Jesus rebuked Peter for trying to save Him, which I consider the ultimate time and the perfect way had been prepared from the foundation of the world; therefore, there was no second chance (without denying in God nothing is impossible).

Old City, Jerusalem

It seems like Jesus was a bit glorious, then died, then very glorious. Was the dying part vital as it seemed so temporary and a short act.

For a few, the message of death is used to build our longing for the resurrection more than the death itself. However, I would also add that most of the faithful are not God’s lovers or those reigning from above like the saints, who were given access to divine agenda. While it is true that the access to eternal life was still in Him regardless of whether He died on the cross or not as the 2nd person of the Trinity, the created world can grasp Him only with what they have. Therefore, His fulfillment toward Jewish promises, His greatest example of love toward all future humanity, His way that is digestible by the Greeks and philosophers were essential to

fulfilling His own function to unite all creations to Himself from the ground below to ensure His invitation respects the freedom given to man from the foundation of the world.

If he did not do one or two that He did, we know for sure, His way would not be so blameless as a God that is supposed to be perfect.

On top of that, we can’t measure Trinitarian activity and Spiritual actions, for we are no observers. What it means from the perspective of angels to let the Trinity started the redemption of all souls by His very death remains undisclosed to us, just like we are not aware how the spiritual world and even God Himself felt when the human world began to exist.

However, we know one thing for sure, the feeling was still a form of intense joy and incomprehensible love, for He is love. Thus I would imagine all creations not in our world were immensely in Love to observe the divine Love the Son brought to their own respective world, for such action is an immense self-giving of the first principal of all existences. It might not be the glorious feeling that they felt. I think the angels were filled in awe of love for along with the Second person, they could then rule and bring the worldly creations back to the Father more deeply and freely than ever.

Some of us might turn to Him wondering how it was important while we do not feel His burning love in our soul, the fire that we will get in His presence like the Cherubim is required for one to completely experience the whole thing. While we are still on a journey, such presence is granted only to those who genuinely seek Him in respect to our freedom.

Thorn and Nails of Christ in Santa Croce, Roma.

Was His thorn part of His dying method, or was it an ornament?

I would say his suffering was multiplied by the crown of thorns to enhance the level of grip He will offer to all humanity, especially those who had brain or upper body issues. On the other side, it might be the Father’s love for Humanity to present that thorn to be there always as a reminder that we are gazing Him as King, for without it, He might be seen as God, not a king that leads His flocks hands-on.

It seems like some Churches are over-emphasizing His suffering, resurrection, obedience. Should we spread out the emphasis?

As pastors and deacons are called to preach Him, they know best which sector of His passion is required and relatable to speak Him to the people of God. While overemphasis often creates heresy, it seems like among the 23 Catholic churches and even within the Latin Church herself, there has not been a serious concern due to the elimination of some emphasis other than the ability of the people of God to approach Him in a broader sense. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to distribute these emphases forcefully well, but rather focus on one’s ability to meet Christ.