Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that I understand you reasoning here, John.

---

I'm not sure I do either.

I'm just trying to recreate (in my mind) what the idea you, and others, have used about identity would look like in practice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, I see the relationship between destructiveness and sin as more an identity than a chain of events.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Language, again, I'm afraid. I was using identity in the sense of destructiveness and sin being identical, rather than being our, human, identity.

---

Ah, okay ... still, I heard you the first time.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I accept the Scriptures in toto. I believe that every word was written by God Himself. But the contradictions are obvious and we need to have a way to resolve them.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Your point being perhaps that forgiveness in the heart of the wronged party is sufficient for the process.

---

Not at all, just that it must be the precursor of the restoration of relationship. It must already exist for the wronged party to want to instigate the relationship's rescue mission. You go on to address this...

quote:

---

It would be if forgiveness in the sense we understand God to forgive us was not more of a transaction or contract perhaps. In other words it is one thing to offer it, another to accept the offer.

---

Quite so but you seem to me to be departing from the standard PSA line a bit here, which is that God could not forgive us unless someone is punished for our sins. I'm arguing that God must pre-emptively forgive otherwise why the rescue mission? Therefore Christ's atoning work must be not to appease God but rather to make it possible for us to receive the benefits. How that works and why it's necessary is the next step in soteriology but it seems to me to be a key point that God's forgiveness must come before it all.

This fits IMHO the biblical picture of Christ announcing the forgiveness of sins before his crucifixion, much better than the hard-core PSA approach of saying that he could do it because he knew what was going to happen.

quote:

---

In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,

---

But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.

quote:

---

but the process is only complete when the sinner accepts the benefit of what God, in Christ did.
And so we circle round again.

---

No, I don't think that's controversial and it's not specific to PSA. The reason I question PSA is that it says things about God that Holy Scripture doesn't (at least when I read it - I acknowledge that YMMV and almost certainly does).

I know we can get into all sorts of theological knots with questions like the one I'm going to ask but I'll do it anyway because it illustrates the point. If Christ had not died for us, do you believe the Father would not forgive those who with true repentance turn to him?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
the way I see scripture is that 'if God wrote it, it couldn't contradict itself and so ,..if it seems to... then I must be misunderstanding it or misinterpreting it somewhere.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd remind myself we are dealing here with a being way beyond our limited minds to comprehend.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
]Sure, but if you mean that we must accept a description of God's "mercy" that seems monstrous, then it's just an excuse.

PSA is just such a system, in my opinion. It is simply wrong for anyone, God or man, to be somehow "satisfied" by punishment, much less "blood". It is simply wrong to think that the genuine spiritual merit of one can be imputed to another.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Well regarding blood, it was the one stipulation the apostles put on Paul's gospel to gentiles. They must not eat blood.

Why was this if somehow God did not see blood as a key of great importance to God?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” ...11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

---

quote:

---

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
We've been here before but if it wasn't necessary, God would not have required it. If I read you correctly Freddy, you think that this makes God if he would have required it for salvation, some kind of a monster.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE][qb]In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,

---

But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.

---

The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
John 6:55 Jesus says my blood is real drink. He nowhere suggests that of leaven.

---

quote:

---

John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

---

quote:

---

John 4:14 "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

---

quote:

---

Amos 8:11 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD, “ That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD."

---

quote:

---

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.

---

quote:

---

John 4:31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
In the NT it is as you say a type. Blood, however, is not seen as simply typological is it? It is literally about life or life force. To shed blood is to take life.

---

quote:

---

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus' shed blood covers our sin because God accepted that his life was given for us. This is a scriptural fact.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,

---

But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.

---

The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

---

...which is, of course, the position that I and others take. That is not to say that I do not need to live in that forgiveness for its benefits to accrue to me*, but, as far as God is concerned, it's a done deal and always has been.

*just to avoid any confusion, I do not, as I assume you realise, count eternal life (as in, going to heaven) as one of those benefits. The mechanism for saving us, in the sense of our eternal destiny, as opposed to quality of life here and now, is completely separate from forgiveness, as I see it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
John 6:55 Jesus says my blood is real drink. He nowhere suggests that of leaven.

---

Jesus' blood is real drink because His truth is the only thing that will genuinely satisfy our real, that is our spiritual, thirst.

Jesus speaks this way repeatedly about hunger and thirst. For example:

quote:

---

John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

---

Why won't they hunger and thirst? Because coming to Him and believing in Him are genuine spiritual food and drink that last forever. He said this to the woman at the well:

quote:

---

John 4:14 "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

---

Why will they never thirst? Because the words of Jesus will last forever. This is what Amos the prophet spoke about:

quote:

---

Amos 8:11 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD, “ That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD."

---

Humanity would hunger and thirst for the truth and the goodness that result from people hearing and obeying it. So Jesus promised:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.

---

They shall be filled because they will hear the truth and obey it. This will change the world.

Jesus spoke about the fact that doing the will of the Father is food:

quote:

---

John 4:31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

---

This is a pattern of meaning that is present throughout the Bible. There is no question in my mind that this what Jesus' meaning was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
In the NT it is as you say a type. Blood, however, is not seen as simply typological is it? It is literally about life or life force. To shed blood is to take life.

---

Yes, blood is equated with life because the Word is life, Jesus' words are life, life is truth:

quote:

---

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

---

To "shed" this life, or literally to "pour it out" is to give it to humanity, or conversely, to attempt to destroy it. This is what happened to Christ as the Word, rejected by humanity. But since it cannot be destroyed the effect is just the opposite - the killers are exposed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus' shed blood covers our sin because God accepted that his life was given for us. This is a scriptural fact.

---

Yes, His life is given for us. But it is not that God accepted this life as payment. Rather, the giving overcame the power of evil. Jesus is God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Jamat
Well, given this comment, Johnny's earlier argument about your position collapsing into universalism seems to apply.

---

quote:

---

Regarding 'eternal life,' There is a logic to believing that since I am forgiven for my sins I am now in a covenant relationship with God through Jesus' blood that does assure me of an eternal destiny in his presence.

If you see salvation as a separate issue, how can you be assured you have it?

---

quote:

---

I recall in Acts when the people cried out 'Men and brethren, what must we do?' The injunction was to repent and be baptised. Repentance and forgiveness are surely theological correlatives, impossible to separate.

---

quote:

---

It just seems to me that the more you look at what you have in a CV scenario, the more you haven't actually got anything except a hope based on an assertion of God's nature of goodness, that refuses to allow anyone to be lost; hence, universalism. And the hope is based on a lot of allegorising of scripture since a literalistic interpretation is offensive because it implies as you say,'God is less than he is.'

---

Well what is your hope in, if it's not in the Nature of God? I certaily can't think of anything more secure in which to rest my hope. I certainly believe in what you say I believe in, viz, that God refuses to allow anyone to be lost. I would believe that even if I didn't believe in CV, even if I were convinced that PSA is a doctrine to be found in the Scripture, because I believe it is what the Bible teaches. You interpret the texts differently. Heigh-ho .

I don't think I go in for allegorising that much, though. That's more Freddy's tradition. I think there's a middle way between literalism and allegory. I suppose when I'm studying the Bible I hope for intelligent engagement with the text, regarding it as authoritative rather than inerrant or allegorical; true rather than forensically accurate or mythical , (though that doesn't preclude it being mythic)

I'm not sure that paragraph comes over with the right tone - I'm not trying to imply that you don't engage intelligently with the text, it's about how I approach the Bible. You will no doubt be able to find similarities and differences in our approaches.

[ 04. June 2008, 09:55: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

---

Sorry for the hit-and-run nature of my posting on this thread. Partly I've been busy, partly I have to summon up the effort to keep going when we get to fifty-odd pages

Based on what you wrote above, I suspect what we're talking about now is completely irrelevant to the argument of the thread. I say that, because I think we're saying the same thing but just using slightly different alternative definitions of the word forgiveness. The two descriptions...

1. God offers forgiveness + we gratefully receive (repentance, baptism) -> Salvation
2. God forgives, offers reconciliation + we gratefully accept (repentance, baptism) -> Salvation

...are functionally identically. You changed (quite possibly inadvertently) the goalposts a few posts back when you started saying that we need to respond in order for the soteriological transaction to take place. Before that, the question was different. It was the claim that Christ needed to suffer our punishment before God would forgive us (or in your terms, offer forgiveness). The two questions are not related although oddly people keep claiming they are, that is, that without PSA all soteriological models are universalist. This is just not the case.

I'm not arguing that a response from us is not required. I'm rather arguing that if Christ was acting according to the will of the Father, the Father's desire was for us to be saved from the consequences of our sin before atonement was made - and under the basic PSA model we're back to the paradox of a judge who personally forgives but is held to a higher authority and therefore cannot.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So yes, I agree with your thesis with the proviso that when we 'really' eat his flesh and 'drink' his blood, that something powerful, and transforming, is or should be, taking place.

---

quote:

---

John 6:56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

---

quote:

---

John 15.9 Abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.

---

quote:

---

John 15:7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life,

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

John 8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Revelation 3:8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess, Freddy, that the words 'literal' and 'real' become meaningless when we start applying them to spritual truths.

---

quote:

---

John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

---

quote:

---

Luke 16:11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The two questions are not related although oddly people keep claiming they are, that is, that without PSA all soteriological models are universalist. This is just not the case.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Similarly for CV, the enemy that bars the way to eternal life is death (=sin =Satan) and Christ defeats that in his own death and resurrection. Atonement is complete, the gates of heaven are open, the part 1 problem is solved. We still have the exactly identical part 2 problem though of how we receive the benefits - and incidentally Calvin vs Arminius is still on the programme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
the fact that the Orthodox aren't universalists counts against the theory that CV is more universalism friendly, doesn't it?

---

The big 'O's can answer for themselves, but the fact that Orthodoxy (big O) has its roots in tradition (and is not a philosophical system like Arminianism or Calvinism) stops it from progressing to the logical conclusion of some of its theology!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny S

I'm not sure you're right, scripturally.

---

About what exactly?

I don't see how Acts 2 fits into the recent discussion.

(People tell me I'm wrong about so many things it helps to be specific! )

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Personally, I think it is very much prototype CV! Yet it produces this well known response (Acts 2 v 37).

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the Apostles 'Brothers, what shall we do?'"

---

Posted                       

Since no one else is interested, I'll carry on the conversation with myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose much depends on how much weight you give to "this Jesus, who you crucified". Anyway, you know that I'm primarily CV but accept SA. Maybe one can argue there's a bit of both? But I think there is a whole lot of CV and only by implication a bit of SA.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
not on the sacrificial power of the Cross (an SV theme) but God's power in the resurrection of Jesus, which defeated those who were opposed to His purposes (a CV theme). The effect on his audience was not "Oh that's great, but we don't have to do anything about it" but "What must we do?".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
just back this week from 40th wedding anniversary celebrations.

---

Oooooo, congrats!!!

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

But that argument kind of proves my "non-pat" point. Discussion about salvation-models and comparative evaluation can cleanse the mind I suppose, but because conversion is ultimately the work of the Spirit of God, we can be surprised by which messages prove to be efficacious. Those of us, like you and me, who have preached, often wondering perhaps at the mangling of the gospel we have achieved, have often been surprised by the responses.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

My overall take is that CV is becoming more popular because of cultural shifts in our society... and when it comes to proclaiming the gospel we must both go with the flow and cut against the grain.

I stand with those who say that (in some evangelical quarters) PSA has been a sole voice and we need CV to speak into today's world. However, I am convinced that those who want to jettison PSA altogether will soon find that they have married the 'spirit of this age' and (proverbially) will be widowed in the next ... left with nothing to say.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I'd agree that on a number of levels the CV notion is communicating with our contemporaries much better than the bundle of medieval lies and complex insults to God and humanity that constitutes the PSA perspective. But it is hardly conforming to the spirit of this age to take Satan and his wiles as fully into account as fully and as centrally as CV does, for instance. CV makes some serious demands on the credulity and moral perspective of the great majority of our contemporaries.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I'd agree that on a number of levels the CV notion is communicating with our contemporaries much better than the bundle of medieval lies and complex insults to God and humanity that constitutes the PSA perspective. But it is hardly conforming to the spirit of this age to take Satan and his wiles as fully into account as fully and as centrally as CV does, for instance. CV makes some serious demands on the credulity and moral perspective of the great majority of our contemporaries.

---

Yes, this illustrates what we are wrestling with perfectly.

In your eagerness to to dismiss PSA you appear to have wandered into platonic dualism. I assume that is not what you meant but by putting Satan centre stage that is what you have done and so, as the early Church Fathers decided, put you outside of orthodox Christianity.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept my POV just to acknowledge that the issues are too complex for models to be dismissed to lightly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
There is nothing light about my dismissal of PSA, it is vigorous, hearty and the result of decades of attention to exegetical, doctrinal and historical matters.

You obviously forget that many of the 'early church fathers' you refer to (I have Irenaus in mind especially) by no means confuse Christ's victory over the powers with a crass dualism.

---

I'm sure such a great man will not be bothered that after all those decades of study you can't even spell his name correctly.

But if you have read Irenaeus, then you will know that he did not set Christ's victory over Satan centre stage.

Also you will know that what we have of his writings were in response to others and therefore hard to draw conclusions from about his systematic thinking.

Indeed, even then, there are many passages which seem to weave CV and PSA together. e.g.

“And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become 'the Mediator between God and men'; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. For this reason also He has taught us to say in prayer, 'And forgive us our debts'; since indeed He is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed His commandments.” Against Heresies, V.xvii.i "

(Obviously whether we translate as 'propitiation' or 'expiation' is key, but nevertheless there is sacrifcial language here.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
It takes eyes dazzled and sensibilities blunted by systematically distorted thinking to do that to a person.

---

Quite.

This is, IMHO, the mistake Aulen makes. He is right to recognise CV so clearly here, but wrong to try to expunge PSA from him entirely.

Still, that is what systematically distorted thinking can do to you.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you and I sing a lot from the same hymn sheet, but I am uncomfortable about the "P" in PSA. We're right at the expiation-propitation point here. Expiation is about effecting changes in us, propitiation about changing God. The "P" implies a change in God. I guess leo is right - that might be the ongoing discussion in this long thread, really. The problem is that I've met a lot of folks frightened by their own shadows by the effects of an overemphasis on PSA, and the consequent wedding in their minds of divine holiness and "angry punishing God". They've never really "got" God as Abba - and that can't be right either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But if you have read Irenaeus, then you will know that he did not set Christ's victory over Satan centre stage.

---

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:

I am far more interested, however, in your contention that CV models are more wedded to the spirit of the present age (in a bad way) than are more strictly Anselmian reconstructions. Do you care to elaborate?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But there is no way I can throw away SA. Deep within me, something resonates. The combination of words and music with which Handel expresses "All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" tells me something absolutely vital about the human condition and salvation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel

---

That's like saying gravity didn't exist before 1687.

As I keep saying, we are discussing models here Andreas. The question is which models most accurately explain the gospel.

Whenever anyone (yes, even the Orthodox) seek to explain the gospel then the moment they use an analogy or even select verses from scripture they are adopting a model. Everybody does it (yes, even the Orthodox) so let's just get on with discussing them.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something struck me about this whole debate a while back. Dualism is often raised - as Johnny just has - as an objection to the ransom theory. Well, surely anyone that believes in the existence of Satan as an evil entity with any sort of influence in this world has to ask why God does not simply bar him from the universe or obliterate him by fiat. In fact that same question must be asked of any evil and the answer it seems to me, inadequate though is is, must be that he permits Satan/evil to exist for a higher purpose.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel

---

That's like saying gravity didn't exist before 1687.

As I keep saying, we are discussing models here Andreas. The question is which models most accurately explain the gospel.

Whenever anyone (yes, even the Orthodox) seek to explain the gospel then the moment they use an analogy or even select verses from scripture they are adopting a model. Everybody does it (yes, even the Orthodox) so let's just get on with discussing them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
What I think (it) might get us somewhere is some meta-discussion about the presuppositions of this debate, and this is what I'm trying to do with this post.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

(The Value of Animal Sacrifices)
The institution of animal sacrifice allows us to confront our deepest subconscious urges and needs.
By Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson


Sefer Vayikra, the Book of Leviticus, is at the center of the Torah, not only spatially, but also spiritually. More than any other single book, Vayikra sets the tone and establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages.

...

For Judaism to be able to assist us in living, it must reflect all life. Judaism must be the haven in which we can safely channel and express the entire range of human impulses and drives, confront our own subconscious, relive our own past, face and share our deepest anxieties. If it cannot be at least this, then it is nothing.



Sacrifice horrifies and stuns precisely because it embodies so many subconscious drives and terrors. We need not reinstitute sacrifice to be able to benefit from recalling this ancient practice in the safe context of a worship service. Are you afraid of death? Confront it by reading about sacrifice. Are you ridden with guilt? Represent and conquer your guilt in the Yom Kippur ritual of the scapegoat and sacrifice.



Our ancestors turned to animal sacrifice because they saw in it a way to express deep rage, feelings of inadequacy and guilt. They could use the rite of sacrifice as a means of facing their terror of death and the unknown. They could, through sacrifice of animals, see their own frailty, their own mortality, and their own bloodiness.



In our age, a period of sanitized religion and everyday violence, escalating drug abuse and rising poverty, the practice of our ancestors has something yet to teach. And so we read Sefer Vayikra, and learn to see our fears in the eyes of an animal going to the slaughter, in the cries of the victims of sacrifice.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
My view is still that God didn't give the system of sacrifice and doesn't need it (Jeremiah etc.),

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
They're certainly not taking everything written in the Torah as coming from God and Jeremiah particularly goes against "And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God." by saying "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

---

Yes Myrrh, we have talked about this before, which is why I can't see why you have brought it up again.

A few chapters later in Jeremiah 17 we have this picture of what God does require:

"People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the LORD."

Jeremiah 17: 26

So, two options:

1. Jeremiah was so mentally retarded that he (or the final redactor of the book) could not spot the complete contradiction.

or ...

2. Jeremiah was not contradicting God's commands about sacrifice but criticising the Israelite abuse of sacrifice.

You choose.

---