Thread: The Cross Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029127
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
How do you view it?
Essentially, there are four ways it is viewed.
1. The cross is victory over evil. Ever since the rebellion of Adam and Eve the Devil has been holding us for ransom. Jesus pays this ransom with his death on the cross. His resurrection symbolizes his victory over death--which is Satan's greatest weapon
2. The cross is satisfaction for God's wrath. God gave mankind the chance to chose life, but we chose death. No matter what we do we screw things up. We find ourselves in a trial where all we deserve is everlasting punishment. Enter Jesus. Jesus becomes our everlasting scapegoat taking our punishment on himself.
3) The cross as moral victory. We are in a world of violence. We can give into that violence, but Jesus gives us a different way. Like Gandhi and Martin Luther King we can chose non violence. Instead of acting out of hate we can chose love. The greatest example of love is being willing to give up ones life for another.
4) The cross as means of transformation. The cross is the means by which God has restored a corrupted relationship with humanity. God, in the person of Christ, transfused divine life into every stage of human existence from birth to death. This view says God cares so much for us he is willing to experience the fullness of life, even willing to die to show us that we can come out on the other side.
The question really is, how is the cross informing your life now? Are you, yourself, cruciform? How does that play out in your lives? How does each facet instruct your footsteps?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, your list includes a lot of sub-categories. There's no mention there of, for example, "substitution" which would form sub-categories of at least items 1 (victory over evil - where substitution could include Christ as our Champion, fighting the battle we cannot hope to win ourselves) and 2 (satisfaction - where substitution is implied, with Christ taking the wrath of God on Himself, standing in our place).
A lot of evangelicals would comment on the absense of any legal item. So, that would need to be 5 - Christ paying the penalty for our sins.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It's 'all of the above'.
All the metaphors have a basis in Scripture but the 'best' ones are the ones that actually deal with sin.
A moral example/influence might be admirable but it doesn't save me any more than a kind man standing on a riverbank will save a drowning man simply by being amiable - he's got to jump in and get wet and make an effort to save the guy!
And as for the horror of the cross and the nonsensical nature of it - well yes, of course!
It's a stumbling block - a scandal - and it's foolishness!
Died he for me, who caused his pain? For me, who him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
[ 31. March 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Why not ask it itself?
The Dream of the Rood
quote:
It was years ago (that, I still remember),
that I was cut down from the edge of the forest,
removed from my foundation. Strong enemies seized me there,
they made me into a spectacle for themselves, commanded me to lift up their criminals.
Men carried me there on their shoulders, until they set me on a hill . . .
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And we were all given on Sunday, a cross in the church, to hake home and remember about God and Jesus and His Mother.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
It's also a mirror exposing the darkness of own souls. No surprise then that some recoil from it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I recall this row about a cross outside a church from some years ago. Now, I accept of course that not everyone may share the same artistic tastes (personally I think that the sculpture was of its time, but good).
But I felt that the comments expressed by the Vicar and his parishioners showed how far the Cross had drifted from modern secularist thinking (in 1963 it would have been common currency) and also how society has changed in its willingness to accept scenes of suffering ("You may find some of the images contained in this report disturbing", as often said in television news reports).
So has the Cross indeed become more "foolish" as the values it espouses become further removed from contemporary cultural values? And what does replacing a "horrific" Crucifix with a bland stainless steel Cross say about the Church's attitudes to both that culture and our own faith? St. Paul never pretended that it was "nice" or "acceptable" - quite the opposite, in fact.
P.S. It's intriguing that said sculpture is not thought to cause a problem when displayed in a museum, when (a) it is safely contained indoors and passers-by will not come upon it unawares and (b) it can have its teeth drawn by being reclassified as "art" rather than "an expression of religious belief".
[ 31. March 2015, 07:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It was interesting that in an entertainment world that demands more and more violence and more realistic and graphic acts of brutality, death, and bloodshed, that when The Passion of the Christ was released Hollywood and nigh on 90% of the critics shouted that it was obscene, pornographic, too violent, etc, etc, etc.
It's as if the world wants a gentle Jesus 'Gandhi-figure' but they don't want a crucified Christ.
But as John Paul II said, 'It is at it was'.
I remember Ian Paisley said that he didn't like the Christ of Saint John of the Cross because there were no nails, no thorns, no wounds, no blood.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I'd go with all of that, although Gibson may perhaps have over-emphasised the agony (I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment).
I even agree with Mr. Paisley's remarks! It was mentioned to me years ago that Dali's Christ is docetic as he is detached from the ground and does not share in the life of the "real world".
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
All four of Gramps49's options and a few more. The cross is bigger than we are. It's rather like the blind men and the elephant. The one thing one can say with confidence is that anyone who says 'this is the right understanding and everyone else is wrong' is themselves wrong.
Incidentally, while we're criticising the Dali painting for being Docetic - which I can see but don't actually agree with - the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
[ 31. March 2015, 08:41: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I've often seen the cross quite symbolically, for example as the intersection of time (horizontal) and the present (vertical), or as the reconciliation of opposites. But these are not antithetical meanings to the Christian ones, well, not for me.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally... the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
Yes, and it's also the view that was first put forward by a womanist theologian (as distinct to a feminist theologian) who was totally against any form of violent redemption whatever.
I can't remember who she was.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Well the cross is simply a Roman instrument of torture by which many people died horrible deaths.
In Jesus' case, as an instrument of torture, it represents humanities propensity for evil and violence when someone speaks truth to power and the status quo.
But the good news is God doesn't let evil and violence and death have the last word. Jesus is resurrected and vindicated. If we share in his sufferings now, we too will be raised with him.
In sharing his sufferings, we walk in his way, speak truth to power, relinquish ego when appropriate and live in love for others.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally... the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
Yes, and it's also the view that was first put forward by a womanist theologian (as distinct to a feminist theologian) who was totally against any form of violent redemption whatever.
I can't remember who she was.
Well violence certainly begets violence so that makes sense. We are told to love our enemies after all.
As for the cosmic child abuse issue being founded on a Arian non-understanding of the Trinity, I don't think so. It's more like a rejection of the heresy of Docetism. Jesus did suffer on the cross as fully human.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
This is precisely the problem if Jesus' death is seen as purely an activity of God. But it isn't. It was people that crucified Jesus. Not God.
Both God and Jesus probably knew it was inevitable that Jesus would die ( as per the prophets etc - standard fare for those that speak truth to power), but that's different.
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 4.10:
let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,* , whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.
It was God that raised and vindicated Jesus, it was evil that killed him.
[ 31. March 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The point is that the cosmic child abuse people imply that God picked out an innocent 'child' (Jesus the son of God) and made him suffer unimaginably so he, God, could redeem the world.
Thjat view suggests that Jesus was unwitting, unwilling, powerless and that the death was unjustified and needless.
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the cosmic child abuse people imply that God picked out an innocent 'child' (Jesus the son of God) and made him suffer unimaginably so he, God, could redeem the world.
Thjat view suggests that Jesus was unwitting, unwilling, powerless and that the death was unjustified and needless.
No, not really. Cosmic child abuse is an emotive term, but in the classical evangelical way of telling the story, God decides someone must die to pay the price of sin. So sends his son.. who was also himself.
Of course, there was no need for him to do this to cover sin - see David, Moses, Abraham etc and so on. It doesn't even work within the religious parameters that it sets itself - if God is God, he can do anything, including forgiving whichever sins he feels like at any time and for any reason.
quote:
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
No, sorry, classical Penal Substitutionary Atonement does none of those things - indeed it insists that the only purpose of Jesus coming to the planet was to die for sin.
The cross does not need to be a penal substitutionary atonement for it to be an atonement. Hence the numerous (better) theories of the atonement held throughout history.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Is this a parallel thread on the atonement?
If so, it seems to me that there's a danger of reducing the whole idea of the atonement to an instrument involved in part of it.
I'm only just trying to point this out - certainly the cross has many aspects to consider, and thinking on those has long been a discipline for Holy Week.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
Ooooh forgot that one.
As for your second post. Thou hast redeemed thyself in my eyes. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(not that it matters mind you).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog: It was interesting that in an entertainment world that demands more and more violence and more realistic and graphic acts of brutality, death, and bloodshed, that when The Passion of the Christ was released Hollywood and nigh on 90% of the critics shouted that it was obscene, pornographic, too violent, etc, etc, etc.
I remember this film being heavily discussed on the Ship when it came out. Criticisms were flying high, but most of them weren't about "it's obscene, it's pornographic, it's too violent".
The problem with showing a suffering Jesus to me isn't the obscenity of it, but when it is done with pride. We did this to Someone. We still do this to people. We shouldn't be proud of that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem with showing a suffering Jesus to me isn't the obscenity of it, but when it is done with pride. We did this to Someone. We still do this to people. We shouldn't be proud of that.
Exactly.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The Cross is the bridge, based in the earth, but with the cross-bar and top, where His head lay, in Heaven, that forms the bridge over which Jesus wu=ill lead us at our time.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The problem I think is that Christian beliefs about the cross developed in a post hoc way. That is, the apostles understood that Jesus' death and resurrection somehow made things better, and tried to work out how this could be so. Whereas a lot of writers treat the cross as though it could somehow be derived a priori - that is, by thinking logically about God's attributes you would eventually conclude with the cross.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
One simple difference, which rather points to his being Son of God, is that everyone else who was executed by the Romans, stayed dead.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The cross spells out God's message 'I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not willing to go through myself - and look, I came through it better than before despite them doing the worst they could do to me."
It informs my life every time people hurt me or let me down, every time I start to feel sorry for myself, every time I stand alongside someone who is suffering. This is how it is, for now, but we can trust in God to bring something good out of all of the evil and corruption we face in this world.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The earliest date of the Gospel of Mark was 66 AD. The question of who wrote it is up in the air but it could likely have been someone who was an actual witness to the events.
As for the cross being a Roman instrument of torture, the Persians actually were the first people to use it. Like everything else, the Romans just borrowed it.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The cross spells out God's message 'I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not willing to go through myself - and look, I came through it better than before despite them doing the worst they could do to me."
It informs my life every time people hurt me or let me down, every time I start to feel sorry for myself, every time I stand alongside someone who is suffering. This is how it is, for now, but we can trust in God to bring something good out of all of the evil and corruption we face in this world.
These concepts are core to my trust in Christ, too. I probably don't have a true understanding of everything the cross means, but I trust the Godhead implicitly because in Christ I was joined to God and given hope because, in grace, he came to us in his creation, in all its joys, beauties, fears, and horrors.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
I understand The Cross -- and Resurrection!!! -- as Ultimate Prophetic Act ...
The Word took on flesh and lived -- and died, and ROSE -- among us ...
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
I honestly don't know.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
I'd suggest that the cross and death of Jesus was a human decision, and a human decision alone. God does what God does with such things: makes something transformative. God doesn't intervene. The various interpretations of it and Jesus death are human constructions, and as noted by others, created years after by earnest and well-meaning people, but are constructed in good measure, not merely retold.
If Jesus had lived to a ripe old age and died in his bed, God would have made something transformative of that too. Or if he'd been stoned to death as a heretic, or anything else.
But I think the dying in his bed is unlikely, because his trajectory was going to bring him into contact with authority at some point. Perhaps dying in jail is the most realistic option if he wasn't murdered or executed. But,ultimately, it is not the manner of death that is important, even as it is a fetish for some. The manner of life is more important.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I think I may have mentioned it before, but Windows on the Cross by Tom Smail has been a very helpful book for me.
He invites people to imagine a house, arranged around the four sides of a large internal courtyard, at the centre of which is a cross. All four sides of the house that face onto the courtyard have windows, through which you can look to see the cross.
He then goes onto to explain the many different ways of understanding the cross, giving them as the different windows through which we can see the cross. The point he tries to make is that none of the windows gives us a complete picture of the cross, although all of them give us some aspect of what the cross really is.
There is no single theory or doctrine of the cross. There are many different ideas and suggestions (a lot of them found in the New Testament, though not all). And at the end of the day, we are still left with a certain degree of mystery. We believe that the cross brings us to God; that through it we can find life, forgiveness and God's love. But HOW that happens is not (IMHO) totally clear.
Did Jesus HAVE to die on a cross? In other words, was it inevitable or even God-ordained? I don't think it was inevitable, as at every point Jesus had the opportunity to walk away, and people like Pilate had the opportunity to make different decisions. I also don't think it was "God-ordained" if, by that, you mean that God insisted that a bloody, agonising death was the only way "salvation" could be achieved. This gets us far too close to God as the cosmic torturer and utter bastard.
But the point is that we can never know. All we can say is that this is the way things panned out for Jesus and that the Christian faith has seen this to be not just a mindless tragedy, but a means through which God has achieved something miraculous.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't believe in any of the ideas put forward in the OP.
For me, the incarnation is the salvific event.
The cross is simply a bi-product of Jesus living a free life - the powers that be didn't like that so they pout him to death.
This roughly the line taken by the late Fr. Herbert McCabe, OP.
How does it affect me? I try, on good days, to live a free life.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Crucifixion is public and relatively slow.
It is an interesting exercise to speculate on what might have happened had Jesus been executed in some other way or had not been executed but imprisoned.
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged. He certainly could have been killed out of hand in the garden by men with swords. If he had been burned at the stake, then presumably our churches would have eternal flames burning at the altar.
The death of Socrates provides some comparison and contrast.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
Ooooh forgot that one.
As for your second post. Thou hast redeemed thyself in my eyes. (not that it matters mind you).
Of course it matters.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
I honestly don't know.
Well here's a little teaser for you me ol" china. Keep an eye on the thread, and when it's run out of steam tell us which answer seems the least incredible to you.
Cheers TW
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Symbolically, the cross represents the 4 elements of the material world - it is the cross of matter. The astrological signs are based on combinations of Spirit (circle), soul (crescent moon) and matter (cross), so e.g. Venus is spirit resting on matter and the traditional symbol for Mars is an orb - i.e. matter resting on spirit.
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death... Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
Well, there is this alternative image... Whatever you think of it as an explanation, it does use the cross in a more positive way.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think those people (who focus on the suffering) are trying to point out the costly nature of that love. His is a love that has been thoroughly tried, unlike (say) mine.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think I may have mentioned it before, but Windows on the Cross by Tom Smail has been a very helpful book for me.
Many thanks for this recommedation, and your discussion of it. I need this one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
No, sorry, classical Penal Substitutionary Atonement does none of those things - indeed it insists that the only purpose of Jesus coming to the planet was to die for sin.
The cross does not need to be a penal substitutionary atonement for it to be an atonement. Hence the numerous (better) theories of the atonement held throughout history.
Hey, I'm no fan of PSA (see other thread), but it most certainly does contain all those elements. The key one being the fact that in Jesus is found the fullness of God, so figuring PSA (for all it's faults) as cosmic child abuse is to greatly misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity (not unusual of course).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged.
Jehovah! Jehovah! *
______
(*I am so going to Hell)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
That's what Paul calls "the scandal of the cross." The cross itself shows us love in a way never seen before or since-- the notion of a God who enters into human suffering and death is an astounding, audacious, radical statement about love-- and the means thru which God entered into death is therefore a very apt symbol for God's love and grace.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged.
Jehovah! Jehovah! *
"You're only making it worse for yourself
"
______
(*I am so going to Hell)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I think the more important lesson about the Cross is that Jesus did not respond to violence with violence, he did not call for a legion of armed angels from heaven to rescue him and inflict violence on those who was hurting him.
He chose a martyr's death over responding violence with violence.
The question is not "why does violence happen?" The question is "how do we respond to it?"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The question is not "why does violence happen?" The question is "how do we respond to it?"
Hear, hear.
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"You're only making it worse for yourself
"
"How could it be worse?"
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The question is not "why does violence happen?" The question is "how do we respond to it?"
Hear, hear.
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"You're only making it worse for yourself
"
"How could it be worse?"
"Nobody
is to stone anybody
until I blow this whistle
Even -- and I want to make this perfectly clear -- even if he does say, 'Jehovah'
"
[ 01. April 2015, 03:15: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Jesus knew he was going to die on the cross and He told us what it means: "If anyone wants to be my disciple, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."
He speaks of the cross as something we all already have - we don't have to find one, or do *something* to qualify for one - it's there, waiting for us to realise that the only way to be free from it is to carry it, and to die on it.
The cross is also the bed on which Jesus's marriage to his bride, the Church, is consummated. So it is a particular reminder to those who are married that to be joined in union with another requires total loss of self.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
That's what Paul calls "the scandal of the cross." The cross itself shows us love in a way never seen before or since-- the notion of a God who enters into human suffering and death is an astounding, audacious, radical statement about love-- and the means thru which God entered into death is therefore a very apt symbol for God's love and grace.
Yes, this.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
They point out that the cross was not used in the earliest Christian imagery. It's not on the walls of the catacombs in Rome, for instance. Only a couple hundred years later -- when nobody was left who could remember what a yucky process crucifixion is -- did people begin putting crosses up in churches or wearing them around their necks.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They point out that the cross was not used in the earliest Christian imagery. It's not on the walls of the catacombs in Rome, for instance. Only a couple hundred years later -- when nobody was left who could remember what a yucky process crucifixion is -- did people begin putting crosses up in churches or wearing them around their necks.
That would be true of the crucifix, but the cross as a symbol is much earlier. Tertullian was writing about people wearing out their foreheads in crossing in c. 200AD. Crosses in artwork are often disguised before the Constantinian edicts - such as ships and anchors, though there are some Greek crosses.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I think that we also need to bear in mind that for the first couple of centuries, persecution for Christians was a real possibility. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be too much desire to carry a symbol (or put it on your house) which marked you out as a target. Hence the early tendency to use the fish symbol or other, less explicit, means of identifying yourself.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I think all the theories in the OP get at something about how the cross redeems, but the full truth somehow includes and transcends all explanations. My problem with PSA as it was taught to me is the idea that God cannot forgive sins without the shedding of innocent blood. I don't see how that would limit God's ability to forgive. I also agree with the contributor who said it's the incarnation that redeems. My POV is that Jesus lived for us, died for us (whatever that means), and rose for us.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
That's what Paul calls "the scandal of the cross." The cross itself shows us love in a way never seen before or since-- the notion of a God who enters into human suffering and death is an astounding, audacious, radical statement about love-- and the means thru which God entered into death is therefore a very apt symbol for God's love and grace.
Yes, this.
Isn't the scandal of the cross actually only a scandal in Jewish eyes? The scandal, the stumbling block is that the Jews cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah simply because he was crucified - and 'cursed is he who hangs on a tree'. (Deuteronomy 21 v 23) That's what the scandal is - that Christians would believe that the Messiah was put on an accursed tree and still be claimed as the Lord's anointed.
[ 01. April 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...
Isn't the scandal of the cross actually only a scandal in Jewish eyes? The scandal, the stumbling block is that the Jews cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah simply because he was crucified - and 'cursed is he who hangs on a tree'. (Deuteronomy 21 v 23) That's what the scandal is - that Christians would believe that the Messiah was put on an accursed tree and still be claimed as the Lord's anointed.
There are more than one simple reason
Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus as the messiah.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
My problem with PSA as it was taught to me is the idea that God cannot forgive sins without the shedding of innocent blood.
It is simply because 'the life is in the blood' and so there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.' And, as it is a sacrifice the victim was be perfect, without spot or blemish - innocent, if you like.
Jesus was a sacrifice in the context of the Torah and met the requirements of the Mosaic sacrificial system. He was 'God's lamb' - the last lamb that was ever sacrificed that he accepted; he was offered once (on one occasion) and for all (people, for all legal penalties the Torah prescribed and to satisfy those demands, removing all condemnation).
As the perfect sacrifice given by God, it is a nonsense if his sacrifice did anything different to the Mosaic sin offerings and guilt offerings that were made to satisfy the law.
By satisfying the Jewish law, Jesus was a penal substitute - as well as all the other metaphors that are suggested in other Scriptures. He is not ONLY a penal substitute but we cannot have the others and ignore this one.
[ 01. April 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...
Isn't the scandal of the cross actually only a scandal in Jewish eyes? The scandal, the stumbling block is that the Jews cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah simply because he was crucified - and 'cursed is he who hangs on a tree'. (Deuteronomy 21 v 23) That's what the scandal is - that Christians would believe that the Messiah was put on an accursed tree and still be claimed as the Lord's anointed.
There are more than one simple reason
Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus as the messiah.
Of course, but in the context of Paul writing that the cross is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, that is precisely what he is referring to.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
That's what Paul calls "the scandal of the cross." The cross itself shows us love in a way never seen before or since-- the notion of a God who enters into human suffering and death is an astounding, audacious, radical statement about love-- and the means thru which God entered into death is therefore a very apt symbol for God's love and grace.
Yes, this.
Isn't the scandal of the cross actually only a scandal in Jewish eyes? The scandal, the stumbling block is that the Jews cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah simply because he was crucified - and 'cursed is he who hangs on a tree'. (Deuteronomy 21 v 23) That's what the scandal is - that Christians would believe that the Messiah was put on an accursed tree and still be claimed as the Lord's anointed.
I would agree that it's particularly "scandalous" in Jewish eyes-- but it's also "foolishness" to Gentiles-- for the reasons noted above. The notion of a God who becomes human for the expressed purpose of dying a sinner's death in order to enter into human suffering & death-- that's scandalous, foolishness, in pretty much any religion/worldview. It's an audacious, radical notion. It radically changes the whole way we view God-- our whole picture of God. Phil. 2 gets at this-- instead of a God who relishes in his "God-ness", his bigness, his "omnis"-- we have a God who gives it all up to come to us. And that very giving it all up, sacrifice, incarnation-- that is precisely what makes God God. And it is the definition of love-- or rather, the re-definition of Love, since it's so unlike our own conceptions of love.
And yeah, that's why the cross makes a perfect symbol for love.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is simply because 'the life is in the blood' and so there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.'
But the quote from Leviticus 17* is a pre-scientific statement. Are we really still supposed to believe that "life is in the blood"? I don't. Whilst blood is certainly important for life, so are many other things. Life is not solely found "in the blood". So the idea that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood is based on an obsolete understanding of what consists of "life", is it not?
* Leviticus 17:11
quote:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is simply because 'the life is in the blood' and so there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.'
Why?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Of course, there is no reason. Even the biblical record shows God forgiving people before the sacrifice. It is a made-up theology that says God is a tyrant who needs to punish someone - anyone - for sins. Of course, the things unsaid are that if it is possible to sacrifice someone else innocent for the forgiveness of our sins, then sacrificing children would still be acceptable.
The simplest explanation for sacrifice is, in my view, to get over the idea of a free gift. Accepting the forgiveness of God, which is offered freely, is not a free gift, glibly accepted with a life unchanged, but something which requires a costly response.
Sacrifice is a reminder to the individual that the Way of God is costly, and that it demands the best of what we have. It seems to me that the biblical record is in fact a progression away from the idea of placating the deity, away from the idea of killing other humans and towards the idea of sacrificing first things of immense value (animals in a rural economy) and ultimately in sacrificing one's whole life in response to the call.
And here is the man they called the Christ. He was so close to God that he was God. And that walk with God was so costly that it led him to a rebels execution. And that is the lot of the Christian, carrying the cross to the place of execution.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
All I can do is to reiterate that it was God who gave the sacrificial system to the Israelites, that it was God who said that the blood sacrifices were their symbol and sign of redemption, deliverance and ongoing forgiveness of sin. It was the New testament writers who spoke of Jesus being the lamb of God and that he was the once and for all sacrifice. We can argue all we like about the pre-scientific view of blood and life, that's not the point. The point is that if we are looking for meaning, then one of the meanings of the cross and the death of Christ, as far as theology and the whole story of redemption is concerned, is that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system by being the last, and most perfect, sacrificial victim. He was the spotless lamb provided by God not merely as substitute (foreshadowed by the ram given to Abraham in substitute for Isaac); not only as deliverance (foreshadowed by the lambs blood on the doors at the first passover), but also the legal blood sacrifice for sin's penalty required by the law of Moses.
All the other metaphors are excellent, all are valid and are useful in different circumstances and contexts. It's not always useful to speak of PSA; it's not always useful to speak of moral influence of Christus Victor. If we restrict ourselves to any one or even two of the atonement metaphors, we miss out on a whole range of truth and blessing. All the metaphors are there to be drawn on. But let's not reject the one because it doesn't cover all contexts.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All the other metaphors are excellent, all are valid and are useful in different circumstances and contexts. It's not always useful to speak of PSA; it's not always useful to speak of moral influence of Christus Victor. If we restrict ourselves to any one or even two of the atonement metaphors, we miss out on a whole range of truth and blessing. All the metaphors are there to be drawn on. But let's not reject the one because it doesn't cover all contexts.
No, I'm rejecting it because it is stupid. And not even particularly common as a belief until late in the Christian era.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All the other metaphors are excellent, all are valid and are useful in different circumstances and contexts. It's not always useful to speak of PSA; it's not always useful to speak of moral influence of Christus Victor. If we restrict ourselves to any one or even two of the atonement metaphors, we miss out on a whole range of truth and blessing. All the metaphors are there to be drawn on. But let's not reject the one because it doesn't cover all contexts.
No, I'm rejecting it because it is stupid. And not even particularly common as a belief until late in the Christian era.
So the law has no relevance? If it is penal substitutionary atonement it fulfils the demands of the Torah.
How do the other atonement metaphors do this?
If there is no fulfilment of the penal code that removes condemnation of the law, then how is Jesus the Jewish messiah, fulfilling the Torah??
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So the law has no relevance? If it is penal substitutionary atonement it fulfils the demands of the Torah.
How do the other atonement metaphors do this?
There is another thread on PSA, maybe you should ask there.
quote:
If there is no fulfilment of the penal code that removes condemnation of the law, then how is Jesus the Jewish messiah, fulfilling the Torah??
I don't think a requirement of the penal code was ever that a human could pay for the forgiveness of others with blood. And although there are examples of the myth of redemptive violence spread throughout the pages of the bible, this is not expressly stated as a rule in the law (in the sense of "if you go and slaughter Mideonites, I will forgive you all your sins"). Hence the idea that the cross is fulfilling some Levitical law is utterly bogus.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So the law has no relevance? If it is penal substitutionary atonement it fulfils the demands of the Torah.
How do the other atonement metaphors do this?
There is another thread on PSA, maybe you should ask there.
quote:
If there is no fulfilment of the penal code that removes condemnation of the law, then how is Jesus the Jewish messiah, fulfilling the Torah??
I don't think a requirement of the penal code was ever that a human could pay for the forgiveness of others with blood. And although there are examples of the myth of redemptive violence spread throughout the pages of the bible, this is not expressly stated as a rule in the law (in the sense of "if you go and slaughter Mideonites, I will forgive you all your sins"). Hence the idea that the cross is fulfilling some Levitical law is utterly bogus.
It's why Jesus pictured as the lamb - and not a human sacrifice. It is a metaphor after all.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's why Jesus pictured as the lamb - and not a human sacrifice. It is a metaphor after all.
Riiight, it is a metaphor which fulfils Levitical law. Nope, sorry. Stupid metaphor, reject as useless.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's why Jesus pictured as the lamb - and not a human sacrifice. It is a metaphor after all.
Riiight, it is a metaphor which fulfils Levitical law. Nope, sorry. Stupid metaphor, reject as useless.
I fail to see your problem. Jesus is not a real, woolly four-legged lamb, is he?? The sacrifice, the death, the purpose and intent of that willing surrender is very, very real - but the 'lamb' is a metaphor. Jesus sacrificed himself to fulfil the legal requirement for sacrifice.
Kind of the whole basis of the sacrifice of Mass, don't you think? Host - hostia = 'victim'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I fail to see your problem. Jesus is not a real, woolly four-legged lamb, is he?? The sacrifice, the death, the purpose and intent of that willing surrender is very, very real - but the 'lamb' is a metaphor. Jesus sacrificed himself to fulfil the legal requirement for sacrifice.
Kind of the whole basis of the sacrifice of Mass, don't you think? Host - hostia = 'victim'.
It didn't though - he was literally not the right species to fulfil the Levitical law. Not a sheep, not an ox, not even a dove.
Therefore did not fulfil the law, metaphorically or otherwise.
[ 02. April 2015, 09:55: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
On that logic, neither was the ram caught by it's horns in the thicket, the right species to be a substitute for Isaac. I think you have erected a straw man.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On that logic, neither was the ram caught by it's horns in the thicket, the right species to be a substitute for Isaac. I think you have erected a straw man.
As far as I know, there was no Levitical law in the times of Abraham (around 2000 BC), given Moses (around 13911271 BC) was not born for another 500+ years.
It is you that are erecting straw men.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On that logic, neither was the ram caught by it's horns in the thicket, the right species to be a substitute for Isaac. I think you have erected a straw man.
As far as I know, there was no Levitical law in the times of Abraham (around 2000 BC), given Moses (around 13911271 BC) was not born for another 500+ years.
It is you that are erecting straw men.
On the Isaac/ram point, I was speaking about inter-species sacrifice not Levitical law. In any case, God didn't invent the principle of sacrifice in the Levitical law - the principle of sacrifice is eternal and was merely codified in the Torah.
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The substitionary sacrifice of the ram for Isaac is part of that principle and foreshadows the sacrificial law.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the Isaac/ram point, I was speaking about inter-species sacrifice not Levitical law. In any case, God didn't invent the principle of sacrifice in the Levitical law - the principle of sacrifice is eternal and was merely codified in the Torah.
Your point is entirely shredded given you were making a point about the crucifixion fulfilling a law and pointing as evidence to an event which happened before the law. Clearly Abraham was hardly fulfilling the law which did not exist.
quote:
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The substitionary sacrifice of the ram for Isaac is part of that principle and foreshadows the sacrificial law.
Simply repeating that does not make PSA true. It isn't.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On the Isaac/ram point, I was speaking about inter-species sacrifice not Levitical law. In any case, God didn't invent the principle of sacrifice in the Levitical law - the principle of sacrifice is eternal and was merely codified in the Torah.
Your point is entirely shredded given you were making a point about the crucifixion fulfilling a law and pointing as evidence to an event which happened before the law. Clearly Abraham was hardly fulfilling the law which did not exist.
quote:
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The substitionary sacrifice of the ram for Isaac is part of that principle and foreshadows the sacrificial law.
Simply repeating that does not make PSA true. It isn't.
I repeat it, not because by repeating it makes it true but because it IS true.
The punishment that bought us peace was laid upon him.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is simply because 'the life is in the blood' and so there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.' And, as it is a sacrifice the victim was be perfect, without spot or blemish - innocent, if you like.
Jesus was a sacrifice in the context of the Torah and met the requirements of the Mosaic sacrificial system. He was 'God's lamb' - the last lamb that was ever sacrificed that he accepted; he was offered once (on one occasion) and for all (people, for all legal penalties the Torah prescribed and to satisfy those demands, removing all condemnation).
As the perfect sacrifice given by God, it is a nonsense if his sacrifice did anything different to the Mosaic sin offerings and guilt offerings that were made to satisfy the law.
By satisfying the Jewish law, Jesus was a penal substitute - as well as all the other metaphors that are suggested in other Scriptures. He is not ONLY a penal substitute but we cannot have the others and ignore this one.
That's supercessionism plain and simple.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is simply because 'the life is in the blood' and so there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.' And, as it is a sacrifice the victim was be perfect, without spot or blemish - innocent, if you like.
Jesus was a sacrifice in the context of the Torah and met the requirements of the Mosaic sacrificial system. He was 'God's lamb' - the last lamb that was ever sacrificed that he accepted; he was offered once (on one occasion) and for all (people, for all legal penalties the Torah prescribed and to satisfy those demands, removing all condemnation).
As the perfect sacrifice given by God, it is a nonsense if his sacrifice did anything different to the Mosaic sin offerings and guilt offerings that were made to satisfy the law.
By satisfying the Jewish law, Jesus was a penal substitute - as well as all the other metaphors that are suggested in other Scriptures. He is not ONLY a penal substitute but we cannot have the others and ignore this one.
That's supercessionism plain and simple.
I can see where you are coming from but what of Judaism which has also ceased the sacrificial system?
Had they continued to offer sacrifices or had Judaism ceased to exist when the temple was destroyed you would have a point in saying that we alone in the church were fulfilling the plan of salvation and the covenants. But we're not. The Jewish people are still living under the covenants. I cannot answer for them how they do that without sacrifices; someone would need to answer that.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I am intrigued by this text. What does it mean? And what does it tell us about creation? Does it mean that from the very start creation was flawed or was intended to be flawed?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can see where you are coming from but what of Judaism which has also ceased the sacrificial system?
Had they continued to offer sacrifices or had Judaism ceased to exist when the temple was destroyed you would have a point in saying that we alone in the church were fulfilling the plan of salvation and the covenants. But we're not. The Jewish people are still living under the covenants. I cannot answer for them how they do that without sacrifices; someone would need to answer that.
What if the sacrifices both of animal and man were never required and are human constructions? Which God makes something out of, just like God makes something out of everything.
I find that I know less certainty over time.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can do is to reiterate that it was God who gave the sacrificial system to the Israelites, that it was God who said that the blood sacrifices were their symbol and sign of redemption, deliverance and ongoing forgiveness of sin.
It's this - your starting premise - that ends up causing all the problems.
The Jewish faith emerged in a context where all the religions operated some form of sacrificial system. There was nothing particularly special about the Jewish system. They believed that God had given them instructions - just as the other gods had given instructions to their followers.
As the Jewish faith developed, so we see increasing indications that prophets clearly saw that the sacrificial system was unnecessary.* And, of course, the killer point is that Jews have not sacrificed in 2000 years, so it can hardly be held to be essential even for Jews. I think you make too much of the sacrificial system, especially in terms of dealing with sin. As a metaphor (one among many) it has some value but it cannot bear the weight you are placing upon it.
* quote:
Isaiah 1:11-17
What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation - I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
You might have also added, Oscar, that God made it clear to Abraham that human sacrifice was not part of the script!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was also thinking about Amos 5:
quote:
I absolutely despise your festivals!
I get no pleasure from your religious assemblies!
Even if you offer me burnt and grain offerings, I will not be satisfied; I will not look with favor on your peace offerings of fattened calves.
Take away from me your noisy songs;
I dont want to hear the music of your stringed instruments.
Justice must flow like torrents of water,righteous actions like a stream that never dries up.
That doesn't sound to me like a God who is bound to accept a blood sacrifice, nor actually one who is too interested in one.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Mudfrog - quote:
As the perfect sacrifice given by God, it is a nonsense if his sacrifice did anything different to the Mosaic sin offerings and guilt offerings that were made to satisfy the law.
It would have to do far more than the sin and guilt offerings. Firstly, these cover only certain sins of the Jewish people and them alone. Secondly, sin offerings only cover unintentional sins. Guilt offerings concern largely civil matters which disadvantage one party. That leaves all the other sins uncovered. For many of these, under Jewish law, no atonement is possible. For these you are to be "cut off". But enough of that.
More importantly - Are you not looking at this the wrong way round? Today is one of the three days when we are called to look at things through the lens of the cross. That's what the OP asks us to do also.
If we do that, surely it is clear that it's not a question of Jesus having to suffer because that is what God has decreed is needed. As if God were some bloodthirsty desert sadist. It is because true sacrifice is uniquely exemplified in the self offering of Jesus. The OT sacrifices prefigure the nature of what true love involves. The pre-Abrahamic nature of sacrifice is radically re-configured in the (non-)sacrifice of Isaac. No longer is sacrifice an act to pacify some angry deity. From now on, "The Lord will provide" (Gen 22:14)
Or in other words it is not that Jesus had to die according to the law. It is that the law had to prepare the Jewish people for the way that Jesus would die. Right at the centre of that is the cross.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I am intrigued by this text. What does it mean? And what does it tell us about creation? Does it mean that from the very start creation was flawed or was intended to be flawed?
If this has been drawn from the Revelation text, it seems to me to be standing on shaky ground, but to take the meaning as put forward, that it was always in the plan for the world that Jesus must come to die for us, I don't accept that this means that creation was or is flawed.
If from the beginning God intended for human beings to be given the opportunity of accepting the gift of free will choice of good over evil (or the corruption of the good), which came with it the gift of guidance, and the responsibility for our choices, the possibility for corruption is not a flaw but an inevitable alternative pathway within the plan.
The example and teaching of Jesus combined with his death and resurrection at the right place in the plan introduced new dimensions which spread abroad the message that God is the Almighty Creator, but that God also knows how it feels, so that the guidance of the Holy Spirit has reached more people more powerfully and intimately than before, as people have accepted God's immanence as well as God's transcendence and invited the risen Christ into their lives.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I believe that pure and simply it means that sacrificial love, mercy, grace and compassion for sinners is in the very heart of God. I believe that the cross is a manifestation, a sacrament, of what is already in the heart of God.
The sacrificial system - which I believe was given, revealed by God to Israel (to very briefly answer the other recent posts) and not Israel's own developmental thinking: it's a divine revelation - is also an outward demonstration of God's sacrificial nature and therefore points backwards through Abraham right to Cain and Abel, and points forwards to the sacrifice in time and space of Jesus who, in the heart of God, was already sacrified.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that pure and simply it means that sacrificial love, mercy, grace and compassion for sinners is in the very heart of God. I believe that the cross is a manifestation, a sacrament, of what is already in the heart of God.
Lots of other Christians don't. Happy Easter.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that pure and simply it means that sacrificial love, mercy, grace and compassion for sinners is in the very heart of God. I believe that the cross is a manifestation, a sacrament, of what is already in the heart of God.
Lots of other Christians don't. Happy Easter.
Well I'd like to know what kind of church teaching they accept then because it's hardly eccentric. What I have written is the heart of the meaning of the cross.
It's basic Christian doctrine.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm sorry Mudfrog, if you think that you are the only arbiter of truth and that if you say PSA is at the heart of Christianity, therefore it is and therefore other Christians (who incidentally may even be in the majority in the world) are not proper Christians...
err
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry Mudfrog, if you think that you are the only arbiter of truth and that if you say PSA is at the heart of Christianity, therefore it is and therefore other Christians (who incidentally may even be in the majority in the world) are not proper Christians...
err
I wasn't saying that of PSA. Look again at our latest exchange:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that pure and simply it means that sacrificial love, mercy, grace and compassion for sinners is in the very heart of God. I believe that the cross is a manifestation, a sacrament, of what is already in the heart of God.
Lots of other Christians don't. Happy Easter.
Well I'd like to know what kind of church teaching they accept then because it's hardly eccentric. What I have written is the heart of the meaning of the cross.
It's basic Christian doctrine.
I assumed you were disagreeing with what I had just said about the heart of God. That's not PSA, it's the meaning of the cross for all Christians, whatever atonement metaphor is used - that there is love, sacrifice and compassion in the heart of God. Surely you can accept that much, because it's that to which I was referring when I said it was the heart of the Gospel.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
According to Scripture Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I am intrigued by this text. What does it mean? And what does it tell us about creation? Does it mean that from the very start creation was flawed or was intended to be flawed?
My understanding is that it means that Christ was not accepted by many even from the foundation or beginning of the church.
The references to the slaying of the prophets and of the Lamb means that they were not believed or acknowledged.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1 Peter 1 v 19-21
This means that Jesus was God's lamb, foreknown, foreordained, before the world was created. He was Saviour before he was the agent of creation.
There has always been salvation, sacrifice and redemption in the heart of God. He is always creator, redeemer and sanctifier - that is part of his essential being.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
We had a big brown one just this afternoon in our church to be really aware of Jesus' pain as He was put in it.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry Mudfrog, if you think that you are the only arbiter of truth and that if you say PSA is at the heart of Christianity, therefore it is and therefore other Christians (who incidentally may even be in the majority in the world) are not proper Christians...
err
He doesn't sit in judgement that is your view. All he says is and can be justified by scripture. God is the arbiter of truth and it is God your argument is with.
What he writes is what he knows to be the heart of our faith. Clearly it is not yours but can yours save you?
It is the sin problem that the cross solved; but if you deny God as the judge of sin and you deny Christ as God's messenger for men to avoid that judgement, then you bear your own sins.
One day when your life is examined ( or mine) will you be able to say "my king died in my place"? I hope you will. I hope I will.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What he writes is what he knows to be the heart of our faith. Clearly it is not yours but can yours save you?
God saves any who recognise their need to be saved. That is actually the core of the Christian message, not the forced quasi-legal mechanics of penal substitutionary atonement.
[ 04. April 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think we need to approach this PSA not from the legal side of things as if we were discussing English criminal law, but from the standpoint of the Torah!
It is the Torah's demands that Jesus death is said to satisfy - the punishment that gave us peace was laid upon him, etc.
The legal code of the Torah simply put is that 'the soul that sinneth shall die.' Therefore a sacrificial system was revealed that would remove sin and guilt - and Jesus died in order to remove that sin.
It's a sacrifice because the law demands it.
It's a penal sacrifice because the law is satisfied by it.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we need to approach this PSA not from the legal side of things as if we were discussing English criminal law, but from the standpoint of the Torah!
It is the Torah's demands that Jesus death is said to satisfy - the punishment that gave us peace was laid upon him, etc.
The legal code of the Torah simply put is that 'the soul that sinneth shall die.'
According our Zeke (Ez 18:20) the remedy for sin here isn't sacrifice, it's repentance.
quote:
Therefore a sacrificial system was revealed that would remove sin and guilt - and Jesus died in order to remove that sin.
It's a sacrifice because the law demands it.[\QUOTE]
Yup
[QUOTE] It's a penal sacrifice because the law is satisfied by it.
Nope. Need to change the cultural lens in your specs here Colonel (or have you been promoted again?). See what the Drewmeister said up-thread. You don't need a penal view here. You can get by just as nicely, and less anachronistically with a view of covenant. Sin isn't just law-breaking in the OT context it's covenant breaking. Gentiles can't be guilty of breaking the Torah 'cos they never signed up to it. The Torah is for the Jews. The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it. Makes as much sense to see one life as carrying away guilt and pollution without needing to resort to some kind of anachronistic jutisprudence.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
...apologies for the naff editing in my last post ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The Zeke reference is mine.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: God saves any who recognise their need to be saved. That is actually the core of the Christian message
Maybe it is to you, but it isn't for everyone.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
God's saving grace applies to everyone in my book regardless of whether they recognize their need of salvation or not. It is called objective salvation or grace.
A point is made that crucifixion continues even today. When 148 Kenyans were killed largely for their faith, there is crucifixion. I am sure there are many modern day examples of crucifixion.
This is the good news of Good Friday, and the radical challenge of the resurrection. Jesus, with his broken body, breaks down the walls that divide humanity, and makes us into a new family, children of God. And if we are to remember his death and enter his life, we must take up in a new way the familiar human cross of being a son, a mother, a friend. We must turn to and claim each otherneighbors, strangers, enemies and refuse to be separated. Because nobody is outside this family, for whom Jesus was willing to be betrayed into the hands of sinners, and suffer death upon the cross.
[ 05. April 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@George Spigot
N'ah then.
So now we've had a stack of explanations for the significance of the cross, which of these seems the least unlikely to you me ol mate?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
Any law code anywhere in the world would say it was. The price for sin is and always was from time immemorial in Christian doctrine,contained in the act of Jesus in dying on the cross.
The fact that it may be unfashionable, unpalatable and unaccepted should tell us something about ourselves, we do not accept ourselves as sinners in a Biblical sense as in "All have sinned". IOW, we do not put God's value on sin or see his judgement on ourselves but taken by Christ on himself.
Unless we do we cannot be saved.
The is pretty well the whole argument in the first 8 chapters of Romans.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
What Truman said was that you don't need a penal view, which isn't the same as saying the sacrifices were not penal.
There are lots of perfectly valid viewpoints relating to the sacrificial system that are nothing to do with paying a penalty. Sacrifices could be in thanksgiving, not paying for forgiveness of sins but in thankfulness for sins forgiven. Sacrifices could be signs of covenant faithfulness, and indeed that's possibly the best way to describe the Passover sacrifices - the people repeating the sacrifices in memorial of the great act of salvation in their history, in obedience to their LORD who told them to offer this sacrifice (sound familiar?).
Which provides another way of viewing the Cross. Jesus is the Passover lamb, the blood of which protects us from death (in the same way as the blood on the door posts protected the people of Israel). But, Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is also an expression of the covenant faithfulness of the one offering the sacrifice - God the Father. It is Gods declaration, "I have made my Covenant with you. I am faithful to that covenant", a bit like the rainbow as a sign of the covenant made with the whole of creation not to destroy the world in a flood again.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
What Truman said was that you don't need a penal view, which isn't the same as saying the sacrifices were not penal.
There are lots of perfectly valid viewpoints relating to the sacrificial system that are nothing to do with paying a penalty. Sacrifices could be in thanksgiving, not paying for forgiveness of sins but in thankfulness for sins forgiven. Sacrifices could be signs of covenant faithfulness, and indeed that's possibly the best way to describe the Passover sacrifices - the people repeating the sacrifices in memorial of the great act of salvation in their history, in obedience to their LORD who told them to offer this sacrifice (sound familiar?).
Which provides another way of viewing the Cross. Jesus is the Passover lamb, the blood of which protects us from death (in the same way as the blood on the door posts protected the people of Israel). But, Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is also an expression of the covenant faithfulness of the one offering the sacrifice - God the Father. It is Gods declaration, "I have made my Covenant with you. I am faithful to that covenant", a bit like the rainbow as a sign of the covenant made with the whole of creation not to destroy the world in a flood again.
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
That kind of tiresome hair splitting nonsense is simply self deception.
Consider why Jesus had to die..to forgive yours and my sins right? You personally have stated elsewhere that you self identify as an 'evangelical' but what is your point of difference? Without being set free from the penalty of your sins and sinfulness there isn't one. What is your 'evangelical' gospel? What are you wanting to convert people to see? Without that whatever it is, is 'another' gospel.
There are NOT lots of good ways to view the cross other than Judicial unless Judicial is the basis of all of them. Take the Passover lamb. (You raised it.) The blood of that lamb protected the Hebrews from the angel of death..they avoided judgement, they avoided 'Penalty.' They too were sinners just like the Egyptians right? The blood of the Passover lamb was the key point of difference between Egyptian and Hebrew just like the blood of Christ is the key point of difference between believer and unbeliever. The difference that heads one to heaven and the other to a lost eternity. That is the basis of 'covenant faithfulness'. The church has no covenant incidentally, they are all with the Jews, but the church partakes of covenant blessings but not apart from blood, which is life, Christ's life. There is no covenant in scripture that teaches that forgiveness is possible on ANY other basis than the cross of Christ. God makes no covenant with any sinner apart from his son. The scripture is totally clear. "There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved". (Acts 4:12) How did he save us? By dying in our place, by taking our penalty.
What of sacrifices of thanksgiving? Sure they existed in the OT and certainly as David proclaims there is the 'sacrifice' of praise. What though is there to give thanks for if there is not an absolute assurance of sins forgiven? And there is only ONE way this can happen..your king died the death that was due you so you can live.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
The key there is you used the phrase in lieu. What if the life given isn't in lieu? And, even if it is, does it need to be in lieu of a penalty imposed as though in a court of law?
quote:
You personally have stated elsewhere that you self identify as an 'evangelical' but what is your point of difference? Without being set free from the penalty of your sins and sinfulness there isn't one. What is your 'evangelical' gospel? What are you wanting to convert people to see? Without that whatever it is, is 'another' gospel.
Yes, I identify as evangelical (no need to include little quotes as though I'm not, thank you very much). That means that central to my faith is the belief that without the crucifiction there is no basis on which I can be saved. That doesn't mean that I consider that there is only one, narrow description of what happened on the Cross, much less a strict adherence to PSA.
What is the gospel? It is far broader and magnificent than some court room transaction where Jesus steps in to pay the fine for my sins.
My gospel is that I was a slave to sin, and on the Cross Christ paid my owner the price to set me free.
My gospel is that I was dead, and in His death and resurrection Jesus lead me up from death into life.
My gospel is that I was lost in the darkness, and on the Cross Christ gave me a light to lead me home.
My gospel is that I was filthy and covered in shit, but the blood of Christ washes me clean.
And, yes, my gospel is that my sins justly condemn me to death, but Christ paid that penalty for me.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Nice tension! Well done Jamat. And Alan.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are certainly lots of ways to understand the atonement and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The 'penal' and juridical aspects, though, have been emphasised in the Latin West rather than the Orthodox East - and it's become pretty apparent to me the more I've read around the subject that St Augustine of Hippo and Anselm wouldn't have understood those aspects in the same way as contemporary evangelicals ... although there are threads that can be traced through from them to Calvin via Aquinas and the medieval Scholastics.
The first 8 chapters of Romans are all about the apostle Paul working out and setting out a view of God's economy, if you like, that would allow Gentiles to come in on a different basis to the old Covenant with Israel and the 'works of the Law' ...
Many scholars have suggested that he'd have been surprised himself at how these ideas were developed and put forward from the 16th century onwards - because the issues he was dealing with in the 1st century weren't the same as those the Protestant Reformers were facing in the 16th.
Also, as I've pointed out on the separate PSA thread, I've been told by native Greek speakers that the 'weight' of the juridical and legalistic language in Romans doesn't appear quite so strong in Greek as it does in Latin and in English.
I can't comment on that, but it's an interesting observation.
The fact remains, though, that much of Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews is all about how Christ 'fulfilled' the requirements of the Law and the language is certainly legalistic in that context ... but that's not all that's going on in these passages, of course.
I think all Christian traditions are agreed that Christ's sacrifice was substitutionary - it's whether it was 'penal' that's the sticking point.
The fact that generations of Christians down the centuries haven't understood it in a post-Reformation, 16th and 17th century type way is interesting - and should give us some pause, I think - even if we do then go on to adopt a version of the post-Reformation 'take' on these things ...
Otherwise, we have to conclude that the Gospel went down the tubes about the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries and everything went out of kilter until the Reformers put it all back on track 1400 to 1500 years later ...
I'm not convinced that it's as simple as that.
There's also the issue that none of the ancient 'oriental' churches - ie. the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox - which weren't party to the great debates and controversies of the Reformation period appear to take a line on these matters that 'fits' with later Western developments. Why is this, I wonder?
Also, whatever else we may say about it, contemporary Judaisism doesn't seem as fixated with the blood-sacrifice angle as we might expect them to be if we put as much weight on that aspect as most evangelicals tend to.
I'm not saying it's not 'there', simply that whole swathes of Christendom haven't felt the need to frame these things in the way Jamat does. That doesn't mean that Jamat is wrong, necessarily, but it does illustrate that our take on these things depends on our particular traditions - and that what we might see as somehow 'self-evident' from our reading of the scriptures (which is inevitably informed by our tradition/s) isn't necessarily self-evident to anyone else.
It clearly isn't self-evident to the Orthodox. Are we saying that they can see it really but are pretending it's not there?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
Obviously it can.
In Aztec mythology the gods needed a regular supply of blood and hearts to keep the sun shining, the rain falling, etc. It didn't matter who got sacrificed, but they needed the blood. If one Aztec volunteers to be sacrificed instead of his son that doesn't mean the underlying logic of the original sacrifice was penal in any way.
Someone's child is drowning. The father prepares to save his child's life at the probable cost of his own; but his brother jumps in instead. In that case, the uncle sacrificed himself in place of the father but nobody was being punished.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Jamat. You can also think of sacrifice as brining cleansing from the pollution of sin. Pollution excludes you from the community and from the presence of God. Don't need a view that means someone taking a punishment on your behalf to get that idea (reckon this is the heart of the soteriology of Hebrews for instance).
None of that minimises our sinfulness or its consequences.
Having this broader understanding of the cross has serious missional connotations, so isn't hair splitting. One of the problems missionaries have had in Japan, for instance, is that the locals don't get the idea of penal substitution. It just doesn't resonate. What they do get is the notion that bad behaviour brings shame. The idea of Jesus taking your shame away is something that's more intuitive to the culture.
PSA has its missional value - but if we reckon we've only got one hat to hang we're not doing ourselves any favours. When it comes to thinking about the cross, the hat stand has a number of hooks (seven at least I'd say) 'cos we've got a variety of societies with a variety of sin-related issues that the cross addresses.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
PSA has its missional valueety of sin-related issues that the cross addresses.
Not rteally - it just makes screwed up people even more screwed up.
[ 09. April 2015, 19:55: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The image of being washed in blood is awful. It makes me think of Mel Gibson's obscenely violent version, of which I've seen just enough to know I needed no more than 2 mins to know what I need to know.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
no prophet's flag is set to quote:
The image of being washed in blood is awful
Though I share your fastidiousness, no prophet, ISTM less of a problem if the word "blood" is replaced by the thing for which it is a metaphor i.e. "life"or "spirit" of Christ. Thus, we can talk about being washed in the life of Christ, of being besprinkled with the life of Christ, or speak of "power in the life or spirit of Christ". Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The image of being washed in blood is awful. It makes me think of Mel Gibson's obscenely violent version, of which I've seen just enough to know I needed no more than 2 mins to know what I need to know.
On the other hand, did you ever see Ben Hur? As I remember it (and it's been a while since I saw the film) there's a line where one of the characters (I forget who) says that Israel needs to be cleansed by blood. The reference is to insurrection. At the end of the film, Christ's blood flows into water which washed lepers who are then cleansed of their disease.
The point I think being made is this. Violence cleanses nothing - sacrifice does.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
As the old hymn says:
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuels veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
I always always thought that was a horrible image.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Regarding the meaning of the cross what are we to make of Peter's sermon at Pentecost? In that sermon Peter told his hearers that they killed God's Messiah, and in response they ask "what are we do to be saved". The implication seems to be that it was the cross that made salvation necessary because human complicity had incurred God's severe judgement. Where does that leave the cross in relation to the various soteriological theories?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Though I share your fastidiousness, no prophet, ISTM less of a problem if the word "blood" is replaced by the thing for which it is a metaphor i.e. "life"or "spirit" of Christ. Thus, we can talk about being washed in the life of Christ, of being besprinkled with the life of Christ, or speak of "power in the life or spirit of Christ". Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
I don't know that I am fastidious, but on this I can't tergiversate.
The blood isn't a metaphor when it is spilled as an actual physical occurrence is it? The requirement in the story, as it is punctiliously told to us, is that actual blood is required from being brutally tortured to death. I don't hear of people washing in the life of Christ, your's is my first hearing of this usage.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The blood is real, it's how it 'works' that is where the metaphorical elements start.
There is a balance in all of this. It often find, though that some evangelicals are far more superstitious than they accuse RCs of being when it comes to how the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The blood is real, it's how it 'works' that is where the metaphorical elements start.
Nicely put
quote:
There is a balance in all of this. It often find, though that some evangelicals are far more superstitious than they accuse RCs of being when it comes to how the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
I wasn't sure I followed this (seems to have been written at the end of a long day). Tell me more.
[code]
[ 10. April 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Drew -
What I had in mind was the way the blood of Christ is described/discussed in almost talismanic terms - as if it somehow has 'magical' properties in and of itself.
This is never stated explicitly but it does appear to crop up in some Pentecostal and other charismatic circles - exhortations to 'Plead the Blood' and so on.
At the extreme, among some of the more 'out there' health-wealth groups I've heard explanations about the various wounds of Christ and how they heal this that or the other - that wouldn't sound out of place in some of the freakier forms of medieval or Renaissance mysticism.
Not that I have an issue with mysticism per se, but some of the language can be overly florid and almost sensuous at times.
I think it stems from some of the language used within the Wesleyan tradition which - via Zinzendorf and the Moravians - inherited more mystical language about the wounds and blood of Christ that predated the Reformation - which largely put paid to some of the floridity - for better or for worse.
I must admit, I do find some forms of Reformed piety rather 'reductionist' but at the same time the Wesleyan tradition can become rather florid and overly sentimental - and I say that as someone who is Anglo-Welsh and who has a constant battle between his more reserved English genes and the 'hwyl' of his Welsh side.
I don't know whether that makes any sense ...
I think if one has been exposed to more traditional forms of Pentecostalism, particularly at the more working-class end of the spectrum - then what I say may strike some chords.
The emphasis on 'the blood' and a rather 'realised' - if that's the right word - view of its efficacy isn't unknown elsewhere - you can find it in conservative evangelicalism too - but I dunno - it's not expressed in quite the same way.
Am I making any sense?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile - may I congratulate you on your insight, Drew. It was written at the end of a rather long and quite stressful day which involved a flight cancellation and much else besides ...
(Don't ask)
I'm not sure I can cope with too many days like yesterday ...
But, onwards and upward.
I'm trying to think of examples of what I was getting at in order to best illustrate what I mean.
I'm struggling because it's a long while since I was exposed to some of the more fruity and florid teachings and emphases - but I hope I've given something of the flavour.
Going back - and this is well before my time - I've heard (and various Pentecostal writers expressed their disgust at this at the time) that one of the means used to induce glossolalia was to get people to 'plead the blood'.
This led to the practice of people literally repeating the phrase 'the Blood, the Blood, the Blood, the Blood ...' which, with increasing frequency and volume would become, 'theBloodtheBloodtheBlood ...' at which point whoever was presiding would declare, 'Hallelujah! our brother/sister is through!' and the seeker was deemed to have 'received'.
In some quarters repeating 'the Blood, the Blood' over and over again was thought to segue neatly into 'speaking in tongues ...'
Sure, those are extremes and condemned by the Penties themselves, and whilst these things happened back in the day - and not in my own experience - I have, nevertheless, encountered rather superstitious attitudes towards 'the Blood' and its efficacy in the life of the believer.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Giles Fraser has written quite well on this today.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He certainly has. Stone me! I'm Orthodox! Is that what you've been getting at all along mousethief? Isn't the 'debt crisis' older than Anselm? Isn't it in Augustine at least? How did the East deal with this?
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Giles Fraser has written quite well on this today.
Well spotted! I particularly liked the line " [Orthodoxen] say, salvation is not some bloody cosmic accountancy. Its a prison break."
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
@Gamaliel. Yes I remember this. You've reminded me of HA Maxwell-White's book "The Power of the Blood" which I haven't read for some years (I'll have to see if I still have it somewhere). In the early days of the Pentecostal movement, there were cries of "Blood, the blood!" But that particular expression of over-enthusiasm seems to have calmed.
I vaguely remember the idea that different of Christ's wounds have different healing properties. I see this as an extension of the popular allegorising tendencies in Pentedostal preaching. Each element of a Biblical story has a deeper meaning, each wound a special significance. That's not to pass a value judgement on it - just an observation.
Hope you're recovering well from your journey BTW.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks. The journey has yet to start. We've been stuck at home.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
There are two incontrovertible facts: I am a sinner and I am going to die. I can avoid neither.
It is not possible to be free from sin in this life. Only death has the potential to separate me from sin.
Therefore, it is not just the realisation that I will die - or even that I deserve to die - that is necessary. What is needed is the realisation that I need to die in order to be free from my sin.
However, I find myself faced with a problem. If I die 'in my sin' I will perish. Thankfully, the bible says that there is another death with which I can identify in order to be freed from my sin.
By faith it is somehow possible to be crucified with Christ. He supplies the death I need in order to be free from sin. This happens through mystical union with him. If I die 'in Christ' by virtue of my mystical union I will be set free from sin and united to God.
This is, AFAIK, is vicarious substitutionary atonement. Jesus provides the death which I need in order to be free from sin and united to God.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Giles Fraser has written quite well on this today.
Well spotted! I particularly liked the line " [Orthodoxen] say, salvation is not some bloody cosmic accountancy. Its a prison break."
I was on a retreat day today and the theme was the Eastern Orthodox resurrection icon. The majority of the discussion (what discussion there was, that is - it was mainly a silent day) was about the way the focus of orthodoxy is not the cross, important though that is, but the images of transformation and Christ's victory over the powers of darkness and death.
It was awesome. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
Good question. What evidence is there, both for and against?
quote:
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required and that Jesus somehow provides a sinless death to which we can be mystically united thereby escaping the eternal consequences of sin.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
daronmedway -
I've just been looking up vicarious substitutionary atonement. A problem seems to be that that phrase gets used for a range of positions, from something that looks pretty much like the "recapitulation" position, right through to something I can't see as being any different to PSA. Not your fault, I know, but it seems a rather unstable entity.
My perception is that you seem nearer the classic recapitulation end than the PSA end from what you have written so far. Have I read you correctly?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
I like your thinking here, daronmedway.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Who knew? I appear to be more Eastern than Western in my theology. Thank you SofFs
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
Good question. What evidence is there, both for and against?
quote:
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required...
Why?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why?
Tis the mystery of faith: you can only gain life by losing it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Re-reading DM's post there I think I understand him better; there might be something I can work with there.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Just suppose there is no substitution necessary; God has no problem with us not being perfect; death does not need to be overcome; justice does not need to be satisfied. Just suppose a violent death is not necessary. Suppose the cross is the ultimate debunking of sacrificial thinking rather than its ultimate fulfilment.
All versions I was brought up with had God as both grossly incompetent and blood thirsty.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Well said, Luigi! :noteworthy: Furthermore, there's plenty of evidence in the gospels to support your case.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required and that Jesus somehow provides a sinless death to which we can be mystically united thereby escaping the eternal consequences of sin.
I don't see our deaths as required, rather that our deaths are inevitable. Biological fact. I've been thinking more along the lines of Jesus set an example for us, and a roadmap for humanity. The wikipedia explanation of the moral influence concept captures some of my thinking, though I would tend to neglect almost completely any ideas about an afterlife, which in my view will take care of itself and is not a reasonable focus for a good life.
[fixed url]
[ 15. April 2015, 05:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I've been thinking more along the lines of Jesus set an example for us, and a roadmap for humanity. The wikipedia explanation of the moral influence concept captures some of my thinking, though I would tend to neglect almost completely any ideas about an afterlife, which in my view will take care of itself and is not a reasonable focus for a good life.
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, lets say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Luigi: I suppose SO!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, lets say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that the Buddha taught that his followers should sit under a tree and wait for enlightenment. Buddhism seems to be a religion built upon the idea that one first needs to recognise one's need for enlightenment and then seek it. Apologies to any Buddhists if that is a misrepresentation.
In contrast, the Christ of the gospels is not primarily a philosopher or even really offering a well-arranged set of behviours to follow to reach the 'good life'. Indeed, he seems to talk in riddles, oxymorons and contradictions.
But - that said, it seems clear to me that there is a moral example one is supposed to read from the gospels; namely that people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are to let go of the things of this life, pick up a cross and follow to the place of crucifixion. That moral example is that one can only be truly whole and truly human in total self-sacrificial giving and service of the other.
I am not sure it is quite the same kind of example as given by other teachers, the example here is one of action not just following directions.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
I like your thinking here, daronmedway.
I'm sorry? "temporary animosity between the Father and the Son..."?
Where do you get that in PSA?
God was 'in Christ' in atonement.
The Father suffered (albeit in a different way) with the Son as the Son was on the cross.
Jesus laid down his own life, it wasn't taken from him (by the Romans, the Jews or, for that matter, the Father!).
I think some people over-egg their opposition to SA by introducing human emotions and feelings into the Father/Son relationship that having nothing to do with atonement.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, lets say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that the Buddha taught that his followers should sit under a tree and wait for enlightenment. Buddhism seems to be a religion built upon the idea that one first needs to recognise one's need for enlightenment and then seek it. Apologies to any Buddhists if that is a misrepresentation.
In contrast, the Christ of the gospels is not primarily a philosopher or even really offering a well-arranged set of behviours to follow to reach the 'good life'. Indeed, he seems to talk in riddles, oxymorons and contradictions.
But - that said, it seems clear to me that there is a moral example one is supposed to read from the gospels; namely that people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are to let go of the things of this life, pick up a cross and follow to the place of crucifixion. That moral example is that one can only be truly whole and truly human in total self-sacrificial giving and service of the other.
I am not sure it is quite the same kind of example as given by other teachers, the example here is one of action not just following directions.
Well, letting of the things of this life sounds interesting, and even inspiring. Do Christians in reality do this? I expect that some of them do.
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Well said, Luigi! :noteworthy: Furthermore, there's plenty of evidence in the gospels to support your case.
Kwesi - yes I think the wrongness of the crucifiction has some back up from parts of scripture. Of course there are scriptures (quite a few) that back up some sort of subsitutionary atonement or some of the other (IMV) problematic takes on the cross - particularly Hebrews.
I have no problem with 'going against the text' and saying this author was almost certainly wrong on this issue. I think an approach which says 'look we can get all these voices to sing in harmony' is deeply flawed and unconvincing.
The irony is that the view (largely based on the thinking of early / mid period Rene Girard) that the cross is the ultimate debunking of sacrificial thinking is most easily seen when you spend some time looking at the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus. Many see it as a very boring book. I see it as a very disturbing book.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
It seems to me that the call of Christianity is to total sacrificial giving. I guess one could say that is a form of masochism, but Christianity has always valued self-sacrifice over personal spiritual development, in my opinion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
It seems to me that the call of Christianity is to total sacrificial giving. I guess one could say that is a form of masochism, but Christianity has always valued self-sacrifice over personal spiritual development, in my opinion.
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Christianity is nothing if not extreme.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Christianity is nothing if not extreme.
I just think there are lots of ways of being whole and human; still, each to their own.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Christianity is nothing if not extreme.
I just think there are lots of ways of being whole and human; still, each to their own.
I guess it depends on how you see wholeness. Some people see it as relating only to the individual, which could be therapeutic for that person, but...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Christianity is nothing if not extreme.
I just think there are lots of ways of being whole and human; still, each to their own.
I guess it depends on how you see wholeness. Some people see it as relating only to the individual, which could be therapeutic for that person, but...
Well, I think wholeness involves being connected, but then total self-sacrifice sounds disconnected from oneself. As I said, it's potentially dangerous.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It's not a criticism of you at all, q - just an observation that for a lot of other people it appears to be more a mystical monism. But that would be a long digression.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It's not a criticism of you at all, q - just an observation that for a lot of other people it appears to be more a mystical monism. But that would be a long digression.
Ah, I get it; what I would call non-dualism. That makes sense, within the history of mysticism, people like de Caussade.
Yes, it's pretty complicated, but I still balk at total self-sacrifice. I think a lot of people need to learn to enjoy life.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
I'm wondering what we have in mind by total self-sacrifice. We could be thinking about martyr syndrome (I don't in any way value myself) which would seem a little odd given that Peter reminds us that we are redeemed by the "precious" blood of Christ. That says something about the value God places on us.
Ignatius talks about coming to a place of "indifference" or, to perhaps use a more modern word, "detachment." If we regard all we have, including life itself, as belonging to God then it is his to direct as he sees fit. We hold everything in this life lightly.
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that the Buddha taught that his followers should sit under a tree and wait for enlightenment. Buddhism seems to be a religion built upon the idea that one first needs to recognise one's need for enlightenment and then seek it. Apologies to any Buddhists if that is a misrepresentation.
In contrast, the Christ of the gospels is not primarily a philosopher or even really offering a well-arranged set of behviours to follow to reach the 'good life'. Indeed, he seems to talk in riddles, oxymorons and contradictions.
But - that said, it seems clear to me that there is a moral example one is supposed to read from the gospels; namely that people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are to let go of the things of this life, pick up a cross and follow to the place of crucifixion. That moral example is that one can only be truly whole and truly human in total self-sacrificial giving and service of the other.
I am not sure it is quite the same kind of example as given by other teachers, the example here is one of action not just following directions.
mr cheesy, I agree with your point about Christ not being a teacher of the good life foremost - which is one reason why Im yet unconvinced of the moral influence theory of atonement.
I do struggle with the idea of the cross as moral example in any sense when everything about it seems to be wrong and immoral and nobody should ever be in that place.
It's is part of my understanding of what substitution means (i.e Christ taking our place).
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
I like your thinking here, daronmedway.
I'm sorry? "temporary animosity between the Father and the Son..."?
Where do you get that in PSA?
From the mistaken idea - which is very common among a certain brand of evangelical - that the crucifixion of the Son makes it possible for a God who is essentially wrathful to love sinners, rather than the cross being the place where the God who is essentially loving has chosen to be just.
[ 15. April 2015, 20:05: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
You see, you use phrases that misrepresent the position. You say that people who hold PSA as a valid theory believe that God as "essentially wrathful" as opposed to those who believe that God is "essentially loving."
I believe in the wrath of God but I also believe that God is loving.
But I also believe that God's greatest attributes is his holiness - and that holiness is expressed in wrath and love. Is it possible to be loving and not wrathful? I don't think so. For God to be loving and not wrathful is for God to be apathetic.
quote:
Face it: to deny Gods wrath is, at bottom, to deny Gods love. When God sees humans being enslaved and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance if God doesnt hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didnt get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someones political agenda, if God doesnt hate it, he isnt a loving God.
NT Wright
The Word of the Cross
[ 15. April 2015, 20:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, you use phrases that misrepresent the position. You say that people who hold PSA as a valid theory believe that God as "essentially wrathful" as opposed to those who believe that God is "essentially loving."
No, I didn't say that. I said that many evangelicals who hold to PSA as a valid theory - particularly those who hold to it almost exclusively - have a faulty understanding of it which sees the Father as so angry at sinners that he is unable or unwilling to love them without the satisfaction that the death of his Son gives him.
[ 16. April 2015, 06:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Christianity is very mainly nothing at all. Out of a church of, rounded, 1000, I'm a former 1, of a current 1% who give 1% of their time to the homeless and vulnerably housed, as I'm always banging on about. What a hero eh?
This lunchtime I'll give 1% (and that's pushing it, but he's had that already this week in texts and a phone call I chose to make) to 1% of those so served. He O/D'd on antidepressants a couple of nights ago and I always ignore his phone calls - except with a text - so he rang some other poor woman in the church, who was unwise once enough to give him her phone number so he could be driven to and from the soup kitchen, with badly managed diabetes who got in a taxi (she's lost her license) at 1 in the morning and picked him up to take him to A&E a 15 minute walk away.
In my 100 order-of-magnitude local church, I - only - give 1% to the 1 man broken with grief (5 1st and 2nd degree bereavements in as many years), unemployment and loneliness.
So where is our total, extreme, sacrificial giving? It's certainly in that poor woman's behaviour. And of course, that's not what's meant or required.
It's required of the 100% of us. 100% of the time.
Not 1% of the 1%.
But Hell ain't even a bit nippy yet.
Which is why when we see Christianity being driven out of the Middle East, we don't.
[ 16. April 2015, 07:16: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The blood is real, it's how it 'works' that is where the metaphorical elements start.
There is a balance in all of this. It often find, though that some evangelicals are far more superstitious than they accuse RCs of being when it comes to how the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
Thinking a little more about blood references in public worship settings, I notice that two of the meditations in the monthly cycle of the Northumbria community refer to the blood. One uses the repeated refrain "praise to the blood of the lamb." The other speaks about faith in the blood.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, but if I recall correctly there are two alternative cycles of meditation passages in the Northumbria prayerbook, so that is 2 out of 62 readings.
They're not really typical evangelicals in that (or typical evangelicals in any real sense).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You see it seems to me that 1% of us picking up 1% of our cross is not much Cross.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You see it seems to me that 1% of us picking up 1% of our cross is not much Cross.
But then beating oneself up over it isn't much use, is it? We just end up in another guilt trip; maybe it would be better to abandon the idea of total self-sacrifice as a dangerous illusion?
I was reading the church noticeboard in a village I am staying in, and there was a long litany by somebody (presumably the vicar), saying how he regretted watching crap TV, eating too much nice food, buying nice clothes, and so on. What is this, self-flagellation Inc.?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then beating oneself up over it isn't much use, is it? We just end up in another guilt trip; maybe it would be better to abandon the idea of total self-sacrifice as a dangerous illusion?
Or maybe we (those who actually say we believe in this stuff) should actually practice what we preach.
quote:
I was reading the church noticeboard in a village I am staying in, and there was a long litany by somebody (presumably the vicar), saying how he regretted watching crap TV, eating too much nice food, buying nice clothes, and so on. What is this, self-flagellation Inc.?
I think there is essentially a spectrum here, and you are taking a very extreme end of it.
I didn't see that noticeboard, but I'm assuming the vicar is not complaining about the existence of this stuff, but the preoccupation with them - as if they actually matter - and the neglect of the things that really matter.
And this is also the point that Martin is making, I think. The call is to costly, sacrificial discipleship. Not that entertainment and self-care is neglected, but that it is put in its proper place.
What I get from Martin's rant is that if the church community actually lived up to what it says, no individual would be lumbered with feeling that they have to do something which is totally inappropriate (getting up in the middle of the night to sort out a minor problem).
The problem we have is that so many do nothing, hence those that do something often take on more than they can or should be doing.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but if I recall correctly there are two alternative cycles of meditation passages in the Northumbria prayerbook, so that is 2 out of 62 readings.
They're not really typical evangelicals in that (or typical evangelicals in any real sense).
There are only 31 meditations, one for each day of the longest month. There are two sets of daily bible readings, so there is indeed a doubling up there. But not for the meditations.
Day 6 and Day 7 meditations seem to be the ones that Drew is referring to. Neither refers to the nature of the atonement (no wrathful God to be found); both point to Christ's victory, human freedom and destiny.
You are quite right that the Northumbria Community, as a community, is not typically evangelical. The local group to which I belong has members from various parts of the spectrum. The community has an ecumenical outlook, prefers to encourage folks to travel together, rather than draw boundaries which emphasise differences. Given the "heretical imperative" (essentially a willingness to give folks freedom to question and think for themselves), which is a community value, I don't think anyone is in much danger of being lulled into a superstitious interpretation of those meditations.
I'm simultaneously a companion in the NC and a long term member of an evo nonco congo. Go figure.
[ 16. April 2015, 09:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There are only 31 meditations, one for each day of the longest month. There are two sets of daily bible readings, so there is indeed a doubling up there. But not for the meditations.
Thanks for the correction, I do not have the book to hand and it is a while since I used it. Even so, using the evidence offered, it is only 2 readings out of 31 meditations.
quote:
Day 6 and Day 7 meditations seem to be the ones that Drew is referring to. Neither refers to the nature of the atonement (no wrathful God to be found); both point to Christ's victory, human freedom and destiny.
Right. I do not think that the Northumbria Community is into PSA.
quote:
You are quite right that the NC as a community is not typically evangelical. The local group to which I belong has members from various parts of the spectrum. The community has an ecumenical outlook, prefers to encourage folks to travel together, rather than draw boundaries which emphasise differences. Given the "heretical imperative" (esentially a willingness to give folks freedom to question and think for themselves), which is a community value, I don't think anyone is in much danger of being lulled into a superstitious interpretation of those meditations.
I'm simultaneously a companion in the NC and a long term member of an evo nonco congo. Go figure.
Right, maybe we should talk about experiences of the NC another time.
My general point is that Drewthealexander hasn't really shown anything much by offering evidence from the prayer book of the NC. It might well be the case that it is used more widely by evangelicals than I imagined, but I don't think this really proves anything very much.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My general point is that Drewthealexander hasn't really shown anything much by offering evidence from the prayer book of the NC. It might well be the case that it is used more widely by evangelicals than I imagined, but I don't think this really proves anything very much.
I agree re Drew's post. IME, there is quite a lot of use of NC liturgical material in MOTR churches these days, not so much in evo churches (particularly nonco) which are not much into written down liturgical forms.
Feel free to PM re the NC, any time. Or start a thread, if you like. We've had previous discussions about neomonastic movements.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb] OK, but if I recall correctly there are two alternative cycles of meditation passages in the Northumbria prayerbook, so that is 2 out of 62 readings.
Day 6 and Day 7 meditations seem to be the ones that Drew is referring to. Neither refers to the nature of the atonement (no wrathful God to be found); both point to Christ's victory, human freedom and destiny.
I'm simultaneously a companion in the NC and a long term member of an evo nonco congo. Go figure.
Thank you yes - it was the meditations rather than the readings I had in mind. Attaching the reference to Gamaliel's post was misleading (perhaps I should start my week again
.).
In the wider discussion of the cross (rather than PSA specifically) I was musing on how references to "the blood" are used in different liturgical settings. We discussed this briefly up-thread with respect to Pentecostal worship. I was thinking about how the particularly earthy, bloody, very physical aspect of the cross evokes responses in worship settings. (Just looking through again, the reading for day 25 also reminds us of the Christ of calvary, and again reminds us specifically that involved the shedding of his blood).
I'm part of a prayer group that uses the NC Morning Office and have always been struck by the often very earthy nature of the readings (working the land, physical spaces to which God pays attention) as well as the focus on our interior life and God's providence and sovereignty.
I think this emphasis on God revealing himself, and his ways, through the very physical cycles of life and death is a helpful safeguard against unhelpful mysticism or the cross being relegated to a symbol.
Hopefully I am not now straying into Ecclesiantics
.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.
Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Wesley seemed to have it right:
quote:
Depth of mercy! Can there be
Mercy still reserved for me?
Can my God His wrath forbear,
Me, the chief of sinners, spare?
I have long withstood His grace,
Long provoked Him to His face,
Would not hearken to His calls,
Grieved Him by a thousand falls.
Whence to me this waste of love?
Ask my advocate above!
See the cause in Jesus face,
Now before the throne of grace.
There for me the Saviour stands,
Shows His wounds and spreads His hands.
God is love! I know, I feel;
Jesus lives and loves me still.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No q. What it is, is me not reconciled at all to all our beliefs, all our religion, all our worship, all our praise, all our prayers, all our words of knowledge, all our utter inability to embrace the poor in any meaningful way. For 'our' read 'my'. Sorry to project. I'm sure there are a billion Mother Theresas out there.
And yeah, let's just carpet bomb IS.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No q. What it is, is me not reconciled at all to all our beliefs, all our religion, all our worship, all our praise, all our prayers, all our words of knowledge, all our utter inability to embrace the poor in any meaningful way. For 'our' read 'my'. Sorry to project. I'm sure there are a billion Mother Theresas out there.
And yeah, let's just carpet bomb IS.
Don't worry about projecting, everyone does.
I take your point about not embracing the poor; I suppose I feel I worked with the poor in spirit for most of my life, probably as a way of dealing with my own poverty!
I am just about to have a glass of cold wine, not much guilt around either.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
White I trust. A Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc? Or a dry white Bordeaux?
I shall chug down most of a Cτtes du Rhτne tomorrow. For mine oft infirmities sake.
As for the poo-err, let them drink Merlot I say!
[ 16. April 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.
Mudferog: Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.
I assume from your mocking tone that you do not accept the distinction. Sin, by the way, does not need to be forgiven- it needs to be defeated.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.
Mudferog: Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.
I assume from your mocking tone that you do not accept the distinction. Sin, by the way, does not need to be forgiven- it needs to be defeated.
That was my point. It is people who need forgiving because it is people who are under the wrath of God.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, lets say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
The focus on his death, the cross and related issues is precisely the wrong focus. That's the problem. If you're going with moral example, you don't let the sacrificing penal view set the terms of the discussion and focus on the death part.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What's the wrath of God?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What's the wrath of God?
Both his passive and his active opposition and animosity to evil and evildoers.
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The focus on his death, the cross and related issues is precisely the wrong focus. That's the problem. If you're going with moral example, you don't let the sacrificing penal view set the terms of the discussion and focus on the death part.
There is a case for penal substitution, though, and reason to assume that Jesus saw his own death as sacrificial, because he was quoting from Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant bearing the punishment on our behalf. That, and the words of institution at the eucharist, about scripture being fulfilled etc.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I see the cross as a symbol of cruelty, suffering, sacrifice (including self-sacrifice).
As to whether Jesus knew what he was letting himself in for, I rather doubt it, though he would have had a much better idea of it than most of us can imagine. We live in an age when violence is partly about guys who get up and walk away, or suffer in silence, or get blown up a thousand miles away - even though it can happen in our own back yards at any time.
I think the cross is generally worn by good-hearted people with no imagination. It was, after all, only part of the process. Jesus would almost certainly have been screaming his head off long before his cosy crucifixion chat to the Beloved Disciple.
[ 16. April 2015, 21:27: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Active? When?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Active? When?
Good question. When do you think? I say back then and not yet.
[ 16. April 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Never. As with the passive. What's to hate?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I assume from your mocking tone that you do not accept the distinction. Sin, by the way, does not need to be forgiven- it needs to be defeated.
That was my point. It is people who need forgiving because it is people who are under the wrath of God.
It seems that you two are talking past each other - however this idea that God cannot be in any form of relationship with mankind because of sin is not borne out by scripture - think of all the characters who God chose to take the initiative with before the atonement and before they did any animal sacrifice.
And the idea that the atonement can work backwards obviously doesn't work otherwise there would be no need to institute the animal sacrifice and everyone would be covered by the blood (so to speak) backwards from the death at Golgotha.
In my view, PSA is a totally unsupportable position. The tragic thing is how often it is portrayed as the only possible explanation when in fact it is totally unfathomable and portrays a deity that nobody would want to believe in.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Though, it is a diety that many do believe in.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And also one which an increasing number are rejecting as cruel and incomprehensible.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And the idea that the atonement can work backwards obviously doesn't work otherwise there would be no need to institute the animal sacrifice and everyone would be covered by the blood (so to speak) backwards from the death at Golgotha.
Good place to ask how Christendom has reconciled that particular problem. On principle, there doesn't seem to be a problem with a temporal act having eternal consequences. Revelation speaks of Christ being "slain before the foundation of the world" so if you're going to get your head round this you need to start with the worldview of the people who came up with this idea in the first place.
Still, raises the question of what the point was of the Old Testament sacrificial system. One of my old lecturers compared it to a flight simulator - it teaches you everything that's supposed to happen, but you only get airborne by being in a plane.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Good place to ask how Christendom has reconciled that particular problem. On principle, there doesn't seem to be a problem with a temporal act having eternal consequences. Revelation speaks of Christ being "slain before the foundation of the world" so if you're going to get your head round this you need to start with the worldview of the people who came up with this idea in the first place.
Well Mudfrog introduced this earlier in this thread. But the more I thought about it, the less it worked - taken to a logical consequence, it would mean that the atonement event had an effect at all times, which therefore made the Levitical sacrifice pointless.
quote:
Still, raises the question of what the point was of the Old Testament sacrificial system. One of my old lecturers compared it to a flight simulator - it teaches you everything that's supposed to happen, but you only get airborne by being in a plane.
This is one aspect which I find baffling - I don't know your lecturer, but sometimes the argument is put that pre-Leviticus the Patriarchs were covered by the Temple sacrifices (backwards), but then does not seem to apply to the atonement.
And if it does apply to the atonement and if this then suggests that the temple sacrifice did not actually have any saving purpose, then one wonders on what basis PSA is argued.
It seems to me that all of these points are actually in conflict with each other.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Yo Mr Cheesy.
Might help to separate out two issues here. The relationship between the cross and the OT sacrificial system is one issue. The interpretation of the saving significance of that relationship is a second one.
So let's have a go at taking these in turn.
What I reckon about the OT sacrificial system was that it was both provisional and instructive. Sin has immediate and temporal consequences (tweak my nose and I won't be happy and there will be consequences) and eternal consequences (it separates you from God forever). The OT sacrificial system dealt with the immediate consequences of keeping you in Jahweh's covenant community. It dealt with the immediate problem of sin polluting the community and muddying your relationship with God. It did that job fine. What the NT writers say is that it couldn't deal with the eternal consequences of sin which is why Christ had to come.
The OT sacrifices were like a patch up job, or applying medicine to deal with symptoms (which is why they had to repeated year on year). Christ's sacrifice deals with the root cause of sin in the human condition by crucifying that condition and renewing it in himself. In that way he deals with the eternal consequences of sin, once and for all. It's not a patch-up repair job, it's a new creation.
So the OT sacrificial system served a purpose and did it fine. Christ's sacrifice does something else, something deeper and more cosmic.
Second issue is how you interpret that. Now our Mr Mudfrog is a keen PSA exponent, a view which has a broad following in the church and one I respect. But it's not the only way of understanding the cross (other views upthread). You can, IME, be an orthodox, faithful and (if i's important to you) Bible Believing Christian without subscribing to PSA. So to take points made up-thread, sacrifice can be an expression of penitence, remove guilt, remove impurity, break a curse - all views you will find in Scripture.
If you can get your head around the OT sacrifices doing a valuable but limited job, you should be OK going from there to Christ's sacrifice achieving a complete, comprehensive, cosmic, and eternal job.
What you have to deal with is the evidence. The sacrificial system and Christ's relationship to it is central to Christian doctrine and important to the New Testament writers so we have to make sense of it. If PSA makes is a road-block, have a look at another angle that keeps you moving towards a conclusion that makes sense.
Chew on that for a bit and see where it gets you.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The focus on his death, the cross and related issues is precisely the wrong focus. That's the problem. If you're going with moral example, you don't let the sacrificing penal view set the terms of the discussion and focus on the death part.
There is a case for penal substitution, though, and reason to assume that Jesus saw his own death as sacrificial, because he was quoting from Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant bearing the punishment on our behalf. That, and the words of institution at the eucharist, about scripture being fulfilled etc.
As a First Century Jew he wouldn't be aware of the way translators have twisted the words of Isaiah into a prophect of the cross.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
"Twisted": that's a bit loaded language, isn't it leo? Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53; and
b) Reckoned Jesus Himself saw what He was doing as fulfilling that prophecy?
Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jesus didn't see the cross as a fulfillment of prophecy, even though the original writer of those words in Isaiah wouldn't have had a clue about Jesus?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Yo Mr Cheesy.
Please don't Yo me.
quote:
Might help to separate out two issues here. The relationship between the cross and the OT sacrificial system is one issue. The interpretation of the saving significance of that relationship is a second one.
Not sure I really agree, the two issues are intertwined together. But anyway, go on on that assumption..
quote:
So let's have a go at taking these in turn.
What I reckon about the OT sacrificial system was that it was both provisional and instructive. Sin has immediate and temporal consequences (tweak my nose and I won't be happy and there will be consequences) and eternal consequences (it separates you from God forever).
It doesn't. See all the OT characters who were in no way 'separated' from God before they sacrificed. See the person of Jesus Christ who reached out to touch people in their sinfulness before the atonement. This argument just doesn't seem to have any biblical support, it is just asserted.
quote:
The OT sacrificial system dealt with the immediate consequences of keeping you in Jahweh's covenant community. It dealt with the immediate problem of sin polluting the community and muddying your relationship with God. It did that job fine. What the NT writers say is that it couldn't deal with the eternal consequences of sin which is why Christ had to come.
Mmm. It seems to me that you are close here to saying that the OT sacrificial system did not actually do 'what it says on the tin'.
quote:
The OT sacrifices were like a patch up job, or applying medicine to deal with symptoms (which is why they had to repeated year on year). Christ's sacrifice deals with the root cause of sin in the human condition by crucifying that condition and renewing it in himself. In that way he deals with the eternal consequences of sin, once and for all. It's not a patch-up repair job, it's a new creation.
Again, that is not the way sacrifice is described in the OT. You are just asserting that the atonement is needed because the OT sacrifice was inadequate. Which is fine - my points are mostly assertions too
quote:
So the OT sacrificial system served a purpose and did it fine. Christ's sacrifice does something else, something deeper and more cosmic.
I don't see it like this.
quote:
Second issue is how you interpret that. Now our Mr Mudfrog is a keen PSA exponent, a view which has a broad following in the church and one I respect.
Not really. It has a broad following in certain sections of the Evangelical church, it is held rather lightly - or not at all - by the vast majority of the church outside of that set.
quote:
But it's not the only way of understanding the cross (other views upthread). You can, IME, be an orthodox, faithful and (if i's important to you) Bible Believing Christian without subscribing to PSA. So to take points made up-thread, sacrifice can be an expression of penitence, remove guilt, remove impurity, break a curse - all views you will find in Scripture.
Last time I looked, there were at least 8 theories of the atonement held by sections of the church at some point in history. I'm not sure what the point is that you are making. And I do not self-identify as a "bible-believing Christian".
quote:
If you can get your head around the OT sacrifices doing a valuable but limited job, you should be OK going from there to Christ's sacrifice achieving a complete, comprehensive, cosmic, and eternal job.
I don't, for reasons already explained. In fact, I believe PSA is really a dangerous lie.
quote:
What you have to deal with is the evidence. The sacrificial system and Christ's relationship to it is central to Christian doctrine and important to the New Testament writers so we have to make sense of it. If PSA makes is a road-block, have a look at another angle that keeps you moving towards a conclusion that makes sense.
Chew on that for a bit and see where it gets you.
Thanks for your advice, but I really do not need to be told to 'chew on' something I have been considering for more than 20 years.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
If PSA is only acceptable in certain sections of modern evangelicalism, how does one explain:
Mine, mine was the transgression,
but thine the deadly pain?
Surely the pain in 'O sacred head (now, once, or sore) wounded' is in the context of the transgression.
Sounds pretty PSA to me.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53;
I think it's not only possible, I'd go further. I think it's impossible that the first Christians didn't see a fulfilment of the words of Isaiah 53 in the life and crucifixion of Jesus. It's there in Acts plain as day, Philip meets an Ethiopian reading Isaiah 53, asks who it is about and Philip starts from that very passage and tells him the good news about Jesus.
Of course, whether Isaiah 53 teaches Penal Substitution is another matter entirely.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Alright Mr Cheesy
So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy
So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?
I have already answered this: the sacrifice was for the person not God. Death is not needed by God to forgive sins.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If PSA is only acceptable in certain sections of modern evangelicalism, how does one explain:
Mine, mine was the transgression,
but thine the deadly pain?
Surely the pain in 'O sacred head (now, once, or sore) wounded' is in the context of the transgression.
Sounds pretty PSA to me.
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy
So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?
I have already answered this: the sacrifice was for the person not God. Death is not needed by God to forgive sins.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy
So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?
I have already answered this: the sacrifice was for the person not God. Death is not needed by God to forgive sins.
So you did mate,
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The simplest explanation for sacrifice is, in my view, to get over the idea of a free gift. Accepting the forgiveness of God, which is offered freely, is not a free gift, glibly accepted with a life unchanged, but something which requires a costly response.
Sacrifice is a reminder to the individual that the Way of God is costly, and that it demands the best of what we have. It seems to me that the biblical record is in fact a progression away from the idea of placating the deity, away from the idea of killing other humans and towards the idea of sacrificing first things of immense value (animals in a rural economy) and ultimately in sacrificing one's whole life in response to the call.
Forgiveness costs God nothing to give, but is costly to us to respond to (we choose to sacrifice to show we appreciate its value).
What I couldn't find is what you reckon made Jesus think that getting himself crucified was such an important thing to do.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What I couldn't find is what you reckon made Jesus think that getting himself crucified was such an important thing to do.
Others have said it better than me, but I think it is something about closeness to God being related to whether we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves.
Here is a man who was so close to God that he was God, and that walk ended up as the death of a criminal. Those who claim to walk the walk but do not pick up their own Cross are deceiving themselves.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What I couldn't find is what you reckon made Jesus think that getting himself crucified was such an important thing to do.
Others have said it better than me, but I think it is something about closeness to God being related to whether we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves.
Here is a man who was so close to God that he was God, and that walk ended up as the death of a criminal. Those who claim to walk the walk but do not pick up their own Cross are deceiving themselves.
You'll need to talk me through this a bit more me ol' son. The record of everyone who knew him well is more than that Christ followed a path that got himself crucified. He actively chose that path knowing where it would end. He repeatedly wound up the power-brokers of the day and it didn't take any kind of divine foreknowledge to work out where that was going to end.
So what made him want to make himself a martyr? He could have demonstrated his closeness to God by carrying on helping poor people, encouraging people to live in a more altruistic way, valuing people who were marginalised. Why did he want to get himself killed?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
"Twisted": that's a bit loaded language, isn't it leo? Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53; and
b) Reckoned Jesus Himself saw what He was doing as fulfilling that prophecy?
Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jesus didn't see the cross as a fulfillment of prophecy, even though the original writer of those words in Isaiah wouldn't have had a clue about Jesus?
The history of the translation shows that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 223 were altered in laster times - as listed here and here.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
You'll need to talk me through this a bit more me ol' son. The record of everyone who knew him well is more than that Christ followed a path that got himself crucified. He actively chose that path knowing where it would end. He repeatedly wound up the power-brokers of the day and it didn't take any kind of divine foreknowledge to work out where that was going to end.
I think he chose to do what he had to do even though he knew it would lead to the cross. That is an important difference.
quote:
So what made him want to make himself a martyr? He could have demonstrated his closeness to God by carrying on helping poor people, encouraging people to live in a more altruistic way, valuing people who were marginalised. Why did he want to get himself killed?
I don't think he wanted to die. The vision of which he embodied was a road that led to the cross.
But you are right, if he could do this much in 3 years, why not 30? Again, I think, because the road he was on was inevitably heading towards Jerusalem and the cross.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think he wanted to die. The vision of which he embodied was a road that led to the cross.
But you are right, if he could do this much in 3 years, why not 30? Again, I think, because the road he was on was inevitably heading towards Jerusalem and the cross. [/QB]
We'll just have to agree to differ on that one then. The historical records we have look pretty consistent on Jesus's expectations.
On a slightly different tack, you talked upthread about Jesus being close to God and being God. Just trying to get my head around your take on the incarnation here (it's relevant - I'll explain when I know where you're coming from). How would you describe what "Jesus being God" means?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
We'll just have to agree to differ on that one then. The historical records we have look pretty consistent on Jesus's expectations.
He knew that was where it was going, I just don't believe he wanted it to. He sought first the kingdom, not the crucifixion.
quote:
On a slightly different tack, you talked upthread about Jesus being close to God and being God. Just trying to get my head around your take on the incarnation here (it's relevant - I'll explain when I know where you're coming from). How would you describe what "Jesus being God" means?
I believe Jesus was the incarnation of the unseen God. When you see Jesus, you see God. This is what God is like, any idea that is not like Jesus is not like God.
[ 17. April 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@ Mr Cheesy. Cheers for the above. What's not making sense to me is where God sits in all this. You said God can forgive whenever he wants and for any reason, and in practice saves people who recognise their need to be saved. Sacrifice is our response to that - but God doesn't need that to forgive or to save.
So what kind of God is happy for people to subject themselves to the privations, difficulties, torture and even death which comes with sacrifice when he has no need of this? Christ follows the way of sacrificial gratitude and kingdom-keeping and ends up crucified, leaving us an example to follow. What is it in God that wants us to follow this example of suffering when there was no need for it.
Being willing to give everything for someone who has given everything for you makes sense. On your view, it looks like God is happy for us to give everything, in gratitude for something that cost him nothing.
Looks like there's something missing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@ Mr Cheesy. Cheers for the above. What's not making sense to me is where God sits in all this. You said God can forgive whenever he wants and for any reason, and in practice saves people who recognise their need to be saved. Sacrifice is our response to that - but God doesn't need that to forgive or to save.
So what kind of God is happy for people to subject themselves to the privations, difficulties, torture and even death which comes with sacrifice when he has no need of this? Christ follows the way of sacrificial gratitude and kingdom-keeping and ends up crucified, leaving us an example to follow. What is it in God that wants us to follow this example of suffering when there was no need for it.
I didn't say it wasn't needed, I just said it wasn't needed by God.
quote:
Being willing to give everything for someone who has given everything for you makes sense. On your view, it looks like God is happy for us to give everything, in gratitude for something that cost him nothing.
Looks like there's something missing.
It is a paradox (as I've also said before on this thread) - we only find life by losing it.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Mr Cheesy
Let's work this through then. What need did the cross fulfil and for whom?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
"Twisted": that's a bit loaded language, isn't it leo? Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53; and
b) Reckoned Jesus Himself saw what He was doing as fulfilling that prophecy?
Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jesus didn't see the cross as a fulfillment of prophecy, even though the original writer of those words in Isaiah wouldn't have had a clue about Jesus?
The history of the translation shows that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 223 were altered in laster times - as listed here and here.
I don't think there's much doubt that the Servant Songs were about the nation of Israel. But, that isn't particularly relevant to the questions raised here.
It is equally certain that the first Christians applied those passages to Jesus. And, it's not just those passages. Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus. The NT authors hammer on at the subject that in Jesus we see all that the people of Israel should have been embodied in a single person - including being the Servant of God.
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
Yes to Alan Cresswell and I think these passages, like others in the OT, can be interpreted in different legitimate ways. The Christian perspective isn't the only one.
Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are certainly in contrast to what was commonly expected about the messiah. He wasn't supposed to suffer and die like that.
Yet, throughout the gospels, Jesus repeatedly refers to his crucifiction as a fulfilment of scripture. It is so central that, IME, it doesn't just reflect the belief of the early church but Jesus' own understanding.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
Yes to Alan Cresswell and I think these passages, like others in the OT, can be interpreted in different legitimate ways. The Christian perspective isn't the only one.
Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are certainly in contrast to what was commonly expected about the messiah. He wasn't supposed to suffer and die like that.
Yet, throughout the gospels, Jesus repeatedly refers to his crucifiction as a fulfilment of scripture. It is so central that, IME, it doesn't just reflect the belief of the early church but Jesus' own understanding.
As an aside, there is a strain of modern rabbinic interpretation which sees the suffering servant as signifying the Jewish nation., particularly in the light if its being the subject of repeated persecution throughout history.
On your point of Christ identifying himself with the servant - yes I agree. The idea is so deeply bedded in the tradition it's difficult to see where else it could have originated.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't see why this matters. Early Christianity reinterpreted Isaiah. Even if that was not directly under the influence of Jesus Christ (personally I cannot see how it is possible to be sure about this) it was certainly from the earliest times.
Christianity reads the Jewish prophets in a different way to the rabbis. OK. Is this news?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus.
And Matthew often gets it wrong. He misreads 'nazirite'as 'Nazarene' and had 2 donkeys because he things 'a colt and the foal of an ass' is plural.
He write up the life of Jesus so that it fulfils prohecy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Mr Cheesy
(In case you missed my post up-thread (on what we were on about yesterday))
Let's work this through then. What need did the cross fulfil and for whom?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I didn't miss it, I am just bored of being interrogated on things when I have already posted what I think.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Mr Cheesy
Right you are. Let me round this off from my end.
What you've got here is version of Abelard's moral influence theory of the atonement. It has some powerful insights, but as an atonement theory is seriously incomplete. Here's why.
First off, it doesn't need the cross. We can be moved by the costly example of someone following God without them dying at the end of it. No surprise that you never answered the question of what need the cross fulfilled and for whom.
It's also got an over-optimistic view of the human ability to overcome the influence of sin. Sin seems to be some kind of relative barrier that we humans can get around if we find the right motivation. Objective explanations say that sin is an absolute barrier that needs God to address directly, rather than just giving us a stronger incentive to get around it.
Third problem is there's nothing really unique about Christ. Plenty of people have got on the wrong side of powerful people and got killed as a result. So Christ is the perfect moral example of obedience - what does that achieve? Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, in what way is it a demonstration of love?
It works as a partial view of the cross, focusing on a personal response. But it's seriously incomplete and there's nothing specifically Christian about it (plenty of sacrificial moral exemplars in other faiths and none).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Mr Cheesy
Right you are. Let me round this off from my end.
What you've got here is version of Abelard's moral influence theory of the atonement.
Nope, not really. The theory I most associate myself with is the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. But I would certainly put the Moral Influence theory as higher and more useful than PSA.
quote:
It has some powerful insights, but as an atonement theory is seriously incomplete. Here's why.
First off, it doesn't need the cross. We can be moved by the costly example of someone following God without them dying at the end of it. No surprise that you never answered the question of what need the cross fulfilled and for whom.
No, sorry, I didn't answer you because I didn't like your tone, and you shouldn't read into that something about my beliefs.
I believe in the trinity, the incarnation, the atonement and the resurrection. I just do not believe that blood is needed to pay for the price of sin to placate God, because I do not believe God is like that.
At no point did I say that the cross was not needed. It is, in my opinion, certainly not needed by God to pay the price of sin, but clearly there are other atonement theories which still hold the cross in high regard.
quote:
It's also got an over-optimistic view of the human ability to overcome the influence of sin. Sin seems to be some kind of relative barrier that we humans can get around if we find the right motivation. Objective explanations say that sin is an absolute barrier that needs God to address directly, rather than just giving us a stronger incentive to get around it.
Nope, you are just projecting here. At no point did I argue that humans are able to single-handedly overcome their own frailties. Quite the reverse, I have clearly said that only those who lose themselves and are prepared to sacrifice themselves find life.
quote:
Third problem is there's nothing really unique about Christ. Plenty of people have got on the wrong side of powerful people and got killed as a result. So Christ is the perfect moral example of obedience - what does that achieve? Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, in what way is it a demonstration of love?
This is what the Way of God looks like. If you want to walk with God, this is the way to walk. There is no other.
quote:
It works as a partial view of the cross, focusing on a personal response. But it's seriously incomplete and there's nothing specifically Christian about it (plenty of sacrificial moral exemplars in other faiths and none).
You are entitled to your own opinion, but very little of what you have ascribed to me above resembles my views.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
How do you tell the difference? I mean, how do you tell, especially from this distance, that what "actually happened" (by which I mean as a matter of fact) was that Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah's prophecies about Israel?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
They can certainly be both. John is explicit, he's selected which stories to include in his Gospel for the purpose of expressing belief. I see no reason why the other Gospel writers were not doing the same.
And, comments by the author to say "and, this fulfilled such and such a prophecy" is quite clearly an expression of the belief of the early church that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. There are a few occasions where we have statements of fulfilled prophecy in the mouth of Jesus, the ones that He had to die and rise again being among them, but I don't think He routinely went around and after each thing He did or said turned around and said "and, there you are, I've fulfilled another prophecy".
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
.....of course, most Jews neither then nor subsequently believed Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Indeed, the manner of his death definitively demonstrated he was not the Messiah. The argument on the Emmaus road, for example, represented a paradigm shift in the concept of Messiah. It was New Wine in New Bottles.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
How do you tell the difference? I mean, how do you tell, especially from this distance, that what "actually happened" (by which I mean as a matter of fact) was that Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah's prophecies about Israel?
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
And where subsequent gospels inflate previous accounts, that one blind man was healed, not two. one demoniac, not two.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
I really don't think it is possible to "prove" beyond all doubt what happened. I think your point is a good one - namely that the Christ story is different to the one that the Jews were expecting and involved a very odd interpretation of OT passages - but so what?
quote:
And where subsequent gospels inflate previous accounts, that one blind man was healed, not two. one demoniac, not two.
Again, I don't know how anyone can really be sure about this. Even if inflation really happened, I can't see what it changes.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know how anyone can really be sure about this. Even if inflation really happened, I can't see what it changes.
To prove inflation, all you have to do is look at the parallel accounts in a synopsis.
What it changes is the view that the gospels are historical accounts. Ther are theology not history, though there may be some overlap.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, but that only changes if you think the Gospels are historical narratives or biographies. Since very few people, and I don't think anyone posting on this thread, actually believes that (many of them fundamentalist atheists, who find it a convenient fiction that they can use to bash Christianity) it's an irrelevancy.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Alan - Is this a response to Leo's post, or a cross-post? (Knowing which makes quite a difference to your meaning!)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Alan - Is this a response to Leo's post, or a cross-post? (Knowing which makes quite a difference to your meaning!)
Sorry, for lack of clarity. It was a response to the post by leo immediately before my post.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus.
And Matthew often gets it wrong. He misreads 'nazirite'as 'Nazarene' and had 2 donkeys because he things 'a colt and the foal of an ass' is plural.
He write up the life of Jesus so that it fulfils prohecy.
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
Further, what makes you think it is more likely that Matthew (of all the NT writers) has failed to recognise the parallelism in Zech 9.9, than that he accurately recounts what Jesus did? (Possibly taking the mother along so that the colt would be more docile - especially if Mark is right and the foal had never been ridden.)
Certainly Matthew's grammar doesn't suggest that Jesus rode both the foal and its mother either sequentially (which would be clumsy) or simultaneously which would be ridiculous, if not impossible.
Posted by Meike (# 3006) on
:
What I find most interesting about the donkey ride is that Jesus seems to have arranged the event precisely to enact Zech 9.9. He could have walked into Jerusalem, why organize a donkey (or two)?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Having been to the Middle East, I can confirm that riding on donkey is a common feature of life.
I'd imagine 2000 years ago it was a rather larger feature of life.
If Jesus travelled as part of an extended journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (which is several days walk or donkey plus stops), a donkey is a fairly obvious way to travel.
I think we need to get over the idea that this was out of the ordinary. What is extraordinary is the literary way that the gospel writers contrast the entry into Jerusalem with the lavish entry of the Romans. That, I'm sure, is the point that is being made - with the interesting nod back to the ancient prophesies.
[ 21. April 2015, 09:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
..Just as a matter of interest, what proportion of ancient prophecies did Jesus fulfil?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
It says 'fetch the ass AND the colt.
The Hebrew style in Zecharia is parallelism and means ONE donkey.
And Matthew alters Mark's 'it' to 'them'.
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
But the word he uses is one letter away from it in LXX - and he says it was to fulfil 'what was said by the prophets' without knowing which specific prophecy it was.
This article suggests a different interpretation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too. [BroJames' italics]
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
It says 'fetch the ass AND the colt.
The Hebrew style in Zecharia is parallelism and means ONE donkey.
And Matthew alters Mark's 'it' to 'them'.
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
And what I and Moo (I think) are saying is that Matthew's gospel does not suggest anything other than that Jesus (in your words) "sat on one donkey, not too [sic]". We are not disagreeing that there were two in the account, just that Jesus did not sit on both of them - which is what would have been needed if Matthew really misunderstood Zechariah's parallelism.
Additionally, I am saying that it seems very unlikely that Matthew, of all the gospel writers, would fail to understand Zechariah's parallelism, and that the mention, therefore, of two donkeys is not particularly because Matthew wants to strengthen the parallel (he would have known that it didn't), but because that is what happened for good pragmatic reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
But the word he uses is one letter away from it in LXX - and he says it was to fulfil 'what was said by the prophets' without knowing which specific prophecy it was.
There is no known prophecy which says of the Messiah that he will be called either a Nazarite or a Nazarene. If the spelling were the same, there might be a more compelling argument treat the wording of the annunciation to Samson's mother. Since however the prophecy is hard to read as Messianic, and the words are spelt differently, a link with Judges 13.5 is tenuous at best
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thank God Jesus wasn't modern.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
Who here is doing that? Who are you talking to?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Himself.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
It might liberate people from such a reading if it wasn't so wedded to a flat literalist reading both of the text itself quote:
Matthew creates a ludicrous scene: Jesus stunt-rides two animals into Jerusalem.
and of the way Matthew uses the prophecy fulfilment motif quote:
The only possible purpose Matthew could have had in changing Marks straightforward narrative into such a spectacle is to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled prophecy to the letter.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0