Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have never come across, even at the popular level, of any supporter of PSA who has not described the cross in terms of God willingly surrendering himself in the person of his son - what else is Gethsemane about than the conscious decision of Christ to face the cross?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Orignially Posted by Seeker963:
(And I still think Steve Chalke should just become a Methodist )

---

Pardon me for my ignorance, and for a possible tangent, but who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Perspective is interesting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist?

---

Steve Chalke is a well known Baptist over in here in the UK who was caught up in a debate about the atonement after challenging PSA. I'm a Baptist and Seeker is a Methodist (I think) and hence her invitation for him to join the Methodists... they need all the people they can get

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist?

---

Steve Chalke is a well known Baptist over in here in the UK who was caught up in a debate about the atonement after challenging PSA. I'm a Baptist and Seeker is a Methodist (I think) and hence her invitation for him to join the Methodists... they need all the people they can get

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there.

---

Here's another bit of perspective. I don't think Steve Chalke launched an attack on PSA in its academic form. I think he was trying to tell people who grew up with the horrible popular version of PSA that they could still be Christians even if they didn't believe in 'that sort of God' (for all values of 'that sort of God'). The book is very much at a popular and pastoral level.

Chalke founded Oasis Trust. My invitation for him to become a Methodist is because his theology is totally in line with ours, even if some Baptists doubt his salvation.

It doesn't matter if our numbers are small, Johnny S. I think this thread has proven how outraged human beings get when people preach outrageous grace.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...(following an interesting IRL conversation)...

It's not that PSA is bad. It's that people misunderstand PSA, and then spread their misunderstandings under the guise of religion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there.

---

quote:

---

Posted 09 June, 2007 19:07

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have never come across, even at the popular level, of any supporter of PSA who has not described the cross in terms of God willingly surrendering himself in the person of his son - what else is Gethsemane about than the conscious decision of Christ to face the cross?

If you're still going at it from the idea that God is willingly surrendering himself TO HIMSELF (ie as the propitiation of our sins, punished in our stead), we still have the problem of why God needs the blood.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[ [QUOTE] Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[ [QUOTE] Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.

---

Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?

Such a reading of scripture is justified by the whole Mosaic covenant. Particularly read Lev 17 the law of the sin offering in conjunction with Hebrews 8, 9 10.
The contention is that the means of approach to God was required to be on the basis of the shedding of blood or taking of a life since otherwise the life of the one who approached God would, on account of his transgression, be forfeit. Christ by becoming the priest and the sacrifice fulfilled perfectly the requirements of the Mosaic covenant bringing it to an end. Without such a requirement for the treatment of sin, Christ would not have needed to come or to die. If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals. For a nutshell statement read Romans 5:10 which states,"..having been justified by his blood we shall be saved from the Wrath of God through him.". Consider also Ro 3:25.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
If you're still going at it from the idea that God is willingly surrendering himself TO HIMSELF (ie as the propitiation of our sins, punished in our stead), we still have the problem of why God needs the blood.

---

True.

However, that is the problem the bible leaves us with.

Interestingly, even Richard Dawkins picks up on that - quote - "Paul, as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes makes clear, was steeped in the old Jewish theological principle that without blood there is no atonement." Clearly Dawkins wants to use that as a stick to beat Christians with but he is using good scholarship to do so.

And as far as all the texts about 'God didn't really want sacrifice anyway' from Psalm 51, Hosea etc. - as promised I got my friend to discuss this one with Gordon Wenham. Gordon is convinced that these passages are correcting a wrong understanding of sacrifice rather than leaving it behind. I know that proves nothing in itself - Gordon is Mr. Conservative. However, as an internationally respected Professor of OT he would not hold those views unless he was confident that they could be justified.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamat:
If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mirrizim,
frankly, to anyone who thinks a little bit, the combination of that reading of PSA and the anthropomorphizing of God makes God into a royal asshole of a deity. Not only does he scream "Love me or you'll burn in hell forever!" but he murders his own son, brutally, as a human sacrifice to himself because if he didn't do that he'd have to take his rage out on all of us. I mean, if he was a literal parent, he'd be doing time in jail for physical and verbal child abuse, not to mention neglect.

If that's the only way to look at God (and some seem to think so), then I'm an atheist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

---

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Regarding the Jewish people and animal sacrifice, you will find an explanation in your copy of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book - a book (AIUI) authorised by all streams of British Judaism. They see the Torah and the prophets as ambivalent on the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
One last thought. The raging, blood-thirsty, angry God who Christians claim is the God of the Old Testament doesn't seem to be be the way the Jewish people read their scriptures at all. Jewish prayers are well worth reading - and praying - for their extravagant praise and adoration of a forgiving and merciful God. Just a thought.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamat:
If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals.

---

If this is true, then why don't Jewish people still practice animal sacrifice, given that they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

All this is to say that I doubt I can prove to you that my reading of the bible is 'the right reading'. But I can certainly satisfy myself with an honest conscience that my reading of the bible is not unbiblical, as you seem to be implying.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

---

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Funny that. The temple was destroyed in AD 70, they live in a nation which has traditionally seen Jesus as the 'atonement' for our sins and you think it significant that British Jews don't make much of the need for actual blood sacrifices anymore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Play fair Seeker - you're setting up a false dichotomy here. Who has tried to make out that God isn't forgiving and merciful?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Please accept my apology for any inference that yours or any other poster's view of atonement is not sincerely held. In my view, Just like you don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car, so you don't need a detailed systematic theology to have the benefits of faith in Christ. My view is strongly held and,I hope, based in my understanding of scripture. In defending my view I have no intention of offending others.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?

---

Such a reading of scripture is justified by the whole Mosaic covenant. Particularly read Lev 17 the law of the sin offering in conjunction with Hebrews 8, 9 10.
The contention is that the means of approach to God was required to be on the basis of the shedding of blood or taking of a life since otherwise the life of the one who approached God would, on account of his transgression, be forfeit. Christ by becoming the priest and the sacrifice fulfilled perfectly the requirements of the Mosaic covenant bringing it to an end. Without such a requirement for the treatment of sin, Christ would not have needed to come or to die. If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals. For a nutshell statement read Romans 5:10 which states,"..having been justified by his blood we shall be saved from the Wrath of God through him.". Consider also Ro 3:25.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd be interested to know why you think he's PSA?

---

quote:

---

He took into himself what it means to bear his own wrath on our sin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was the people to whom Paul wrote who perceived that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was the people to whom Paul wrote who perceived that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.

---

The problem with this argument is that it 'fits' whatever way you take it.

I could add - "Paul knew something quite different... that God had appeased his wrath in Christ" and it would still fit your reading of Romans.

---

Well, of course that is true, but the point which stimulated this little exchange was a request for what Jamat considered to be passages which backed his assertion that sin can only be dealt with by retributive justice. I can't see that these verses in Romans can be used to back that assertion. As a matter of fact, I do (of course ) think that my reading is the most natural reading in the context, why else would I hold it, but I accept that I can't "prove" that this is what was in Paul's mind. Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture". I think, in general, if you have a strong sense of the need for retributive justice, and are offended by the notion of anyone "getting away with it", you will probably find PSA attractive, and be able to find texts to justify this stance. If, on the other hand, you are unconvinced that punishment does anything to remedy sin, and find it incomprehensible that the killing of an innocent victim has anything to do with justice, you will probably interpret those same texts in a different way, and draw quite different conclusions. As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".

--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture".

---

Thanks JJ, I think (as ever) you've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Our vicious circle that we can't seem to escape is that it is impossible to discuss our respective 'biblical big pictures' without some degree of proof-texting - but, in so doing, we always read said passages through our own 'big picture'!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".

---

I have come across this maxim many times in Charismatic circles, but I'm not sure what it means. I say this with no malice to John Wimber (I went to hear him speak several times) but surely it is ironic that experience cruelly taught him that his theology was faulty - i.e. God does not always heal? (Please do not read that as a cheap jibe. )

I think we owe the Charismatic movement a great debt in teaching us the vital importance of experience, but such experience must always be interpreted... precisely because experience is always so subjective.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd be interested to know why you think he's PSA?

---

quote:

---

He took into himself what it means to bear his own wrath on our sin.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture".

---

Thanks JJ, I think (as ever) you've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Our vicious circle that we can't seem to escape is that it is impossible to discuss our respective 'biblical big pictures' without some degree of proof-texting - but, in so doing, we always read said passages through our own 'big picture'!

---

This is most certainly true (pace Luther) and it's the reason why I said that I more often not find that discussing the process of biblical interpretation is a fruitless exercise in frustration.

It's helpful, however, to arrive at a point such as this. There's no hope of discussion, in my view, when the discussing parties steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they have a 'big picture' that they are applying.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have come across this maxim many times in Charismatic circles, but I'm not sure what it means. I say this with no malice to John Wimber (I went to hear him speak several times) but surely it is ironic that experience cruelly taught him that his theology was faulty - i.e. God does not always heal? (Please do not read that as a cheap jibe. )

I think we owe the Charismatic movement a great debt in teaching us the vital importance of experience, but such experience must always be interpreted... precisely because experience is always so subjective.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

---

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA?

---

quote:

---

“I will take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness.”

---

quote:

---

He literally experienced the intensity of our sin, and in doing so he could resolve his own wrath on sin and let us go free. (emphasis added).

---

quote:

---

Peter writes that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree. (1 Pet 2:24) That is to say, Jesus literally absorbed into himself all of our sin, all of our hostility, all of our negativism toward God. He did this supremely when humanity was saying, “We would rather get rid of God then to serve him.” And God, in Jesus, took it all … all the way to the death. He carried all of our rejection.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[

[QUOTE]Jeremiah makes it quite clear that this promise(forgiveness) is made on the basis of God's sovereign actions. There is no punishment involved, no sense of compulsion upon God to deal with sins in any way other than the way of forgiveness, of deliberate decision to put aside any demand for punishment or redress. To sum up, the covenant is the thing to which the sacrificial system was intended to point the people of Israel. They were forgiven, not because they sacrificed, but because the sacrifice pointed them to the true source of forgiveness, the committment of God towards them, as symbolised in the covenant relationship.

---

quote:

---

With regards to the Romans verses, I do think that Romans 3:25 is key, but I don't read it as you do. Paul is trying to get across to (in this little section) his Jewish flock the way in which Christ is the fulfilment of the Jewish faith, but in order to do that, he has to correct some misunderstandings that he perceived they had. Amongst those misunderstandings was the belief that their (as a nation, and maybe also personally) disobedience had caused God to turn His back on them. On the contrary, Paul says, you are indeed guilty, as all of us are, but that doesn't mean that we can't access forgiveness, because forgiveness is not based on what we have done, but on the decision of God to forgive. He was trying to contradict their view that God wanted to punish them. Romans 3:25 shows clearly that they had not been punished for their sins because God's plan is to reveal His restorative justice in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Justice is empty-tomb shaped as far as God is concerned, the revelation of a new creation. It was the people to whom Paul wrote who percieved that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I was quite taken with Ausberger's description of the Cross as God saying:

quote:

---

“I will take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness.”

---

but baffled and disconcerted by his subsequent statement that:

quote:

---

He literally experienced the intensity of our sin, and in doing so he could resolve his own wrath on sin and let us go free. (emphasis added).

---

That's the bit that I don't get--and also the bit of the essay that treads most heavily in PSA.

---

Thanks infinite_monkey (and thanks again to Seeker for the original article) - I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. Sin is not a concrete noun. We may use metaphors like poison and wounds to describe sin but it is not really a thing that Christ can take on himself. When I choose to 'take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness' I am not taking sin onto myself but the consequences of sin. The reason, I feel, why the writer collapses back into PSA language is the CV has to paint sin in 'concrete' terms.

Now the key question of the atonement (IMHO) is how Jesus took all the consequences of sin on himself. If we only see physical death as that consequence then I can't see how we can speak of a universal substitution.

(Of course, at this point Starlight will say that we don't need to because it is all subjective ... okay, I admit that I am assuming at least some objectivity to the atonement...)

Unpleasant though we may find it I think that speaking of God's wrath provides the 'something' of the consequences of sin that Jesus can bear in our place. After all God made the world in the first place and so any pain we feel as a consequence of sin is the 'built in' consequence that he put into our world.

That said, I thought it was a great article ... but apparently I'm an arch liberal, to the left of Spong

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
That said, I thought it was a great article ... but apparently I'm an arch liberal, to the left of Spong

---

quote:

---

I care more about you than about what you have done. I really love you, and I will move beyond the issue to the person.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The Mosaic covenant pointed them toward itself? Or do you mean the New covenant of Jer 31:33 Which of course is fufilled in Christ when he spoke of 'a new covenant in my blood'.(Luke 22:20) I would suggest there is no explanation for the requirement of blood in your account and that therefore you are imposing an interpretation or reading based on your own preconceptions or values which find the concept of punishment repugnant.

---

quote:

---

The point at issue seems to be the purpose of blood sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

I would suggest there is no explanation for the requirement of blood in your account and that therefore you are imposing an interpretation or reading based on your own preconceptions or values which find the concept of punishment repugnant.

---

quote:

---

In my view the sacrificial Mosaic system had a literal function of shielding them from God's anger. Think of Noah as a type. "God smelled the soothing aroma.." Now you may not like this God but he is the God of the OT. To reinvent him according to our sensibilities is not an option for me. It is far simpler to believe Paul in Romans thought that believers were literally 'justified by his(Christ's) blood and saved from the wrath of god though him.'If this is true, the God of the NT also has some 'wrath' which it is best to avoid and which in his grace and mercy he has found a way to help us do so.

---

quote:

---

You need to prove that Paul had a concept of restorative justice for this to hold up.

---

quote:

---

The word propitiation carries the sense of covering I think.(I'm no Greek scholar.)The concept Paul is dealng with is the covering of sin which was dealt with by the cross and seen by all creation (Devil, Principalities, Angels,and all Mankind)to be the fulfillment of justice owed for the problem of sin. Up to the cross, the sacrificial system had temporarily functioned to cover sin. Now Christ has dealt with it once and for all as the Hebrews writer states.(Heb 9:12) God is thus manifested as absolutely just as well as, paradoxically, absolutely merciful.

---

quote:

---

This to me is a plain and straightforward reading but of course it plays havoc with those of us who can't bear the thought of a judging and punishing God. My point is and has always been that God is more merciful than punishing and that his love had to find some harmony with his holiness. We are not in our natural state 'holy'. God is. We have no understanding in our natural state of God's problem. Paul states that the natural man doesn't understand the things of God. (1Cor 2:14,15) I'm not suggesting I'm holy, far from it, just that we need to humble ourselves to accept the word as stated rather than struggle to find a way to make it acceptable to our minds and preconceptions.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Certainly, I would not dispute that the sacrificial system involved the shedding of blood, and that this system prefigures the Atonement. What I do dispute is that there is any penal element to all this. The ox, or the goat, or the lamb were not punished instead of the one in need of atonement. Indeed, the sin bearer of Ch 16 , the scapegoat, is not punished, rather driven out of the camp. The sacrificed animal must be perfect. So there is something different going on here than "sin must be dealt with by punishment", because there is no punishment here, and yet sin is dealt with. So what is going on here? I think the clue is in the use of ritual sacrifice in late bronze age culture, which we see in, for example, Gen. 15 . Sacrifice was seen as a seal of committment, the shedding of blood (being costly in terms of sheep-hearders) representing the investment in the promise. Thus, to sacrifice was to bring to mind the covenant. This is further developed in Gen. 22 , where God challenges Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, in order to demonstrate to him that, firstly, He is not like the God of the surrounding nations, requireing appeasement, but, more pertinately to this argument, it is God who is the prime mover in committment. It is God who provides the sacrifice. Abraham has to do nothing, the goat, if you like, is God's. This, surely, is a pointer to grace.

---

• First, a sacrifice represented a person's willingness to give up what "belonged" to them, giving up their own desires in favor of God's will.
• Second, a sacrifice represented an offering of love to God - it offered what they loved to God, giving Him gifts. Sacrifices needed to be valuable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And what is this covenant? Well many things, but amongst them is a promise to remember their sins no more. Jeremiah makes it quite clear that this promise is made on the basis of God's sovereign actions. There is no punishment involved, no sense of compulsion upon God to deal with sins in any way other than the way of forgiveness, of deliberate decision to put aside any demand for punishment or redress. To sum up, the covenant is the thing to which the sacrificial system was intended to point the people of Israel. They were forgiven, not because they sacrificed, but because the sacrifice pointed them to the true source of forgiveness, the committment of God towards them, as symbolised in the covenant relationship.

---

quote:

---

Jeremiah 31.31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD.

---

quote:

---

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

---

quote:

---

John 6:53 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.

John 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

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

---

quote:

---

John 5:24 I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

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.

John 6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

---

quote:

---

John 4.13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but 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.”

Revelation 21:6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

---

quote:

---

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

---

quote:

---

John 18:37 For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

Mark 1:38 But He said to them, “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth.”

Luke 4:43 “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.”

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:


Why is blood so essential?

I think that the blood from the beginning always stood for the truth of His words and the life that is in them. The central idea is that God's words bring people out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. This would bring them spiritual life, and rescue them from spiritual death, if they heard and obeyed it.

Jesus repeatedly makes a connection between blood, the truth, His words, and life:

---

Freddy, as I keep saying, this view undermines the incarnation. There is also a very real sense ( ) in which the blood will not let us lose our grip on the historic Christ event. Throughout the bible 'flesh and blood' has an earthy, incarnational sense to it = common humanity, e.g. 2 Samuel 5: 1, "We are your own flesh and blood."

While the link you make is there, the physical link is also there and cannot be denied.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...the insistence on the importance of literal blood is to make the message of Christ's redemption more visceral, in the viscera sense, to cut through the intellect and thus move people to compassion, that is, to move them in the guts?

While it's tempting to take that sort of imagery and go "ew," I can see the utility of it.

---

I can and do see the utility of it in an allegorical sense. But the idea of a God who won't forgive until there is an eviscerated human body on his altar is not only horrible but, again, contrary to everything that Jesus taught.

It just gets worse and worse. God is a macho hunter and all people of a sensitive disposition can literally go to hell?

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
Agreed. Then again, some people think that "allegory" and "metaphor" are wimpy words for people who can't stare reality in the face and call a spade a spade.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...the insistence on the importance of literal blood is to make the message of Christ's redemption more visceral, in the viscera sense, to cut through the intellect and thus move people to compassion, that is, to move them in the guts?

While it's tempting to take that sort of imagery and go "ew," I can see the utility of it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
Though I also get frustrated with people who say that the bible is meaningless because it's all just "metaphor" and "allegory," as if the metaphors symbolize nothing but a fading illusion.

---

As you would expect, I share that frustration. I admit, though, that the burden is on the ones believing in metaphors to make them meaningful and compelling.

I also think that the events recorded in the Bible are, by and large, literally true. So, as I understand it, it is not only the accounts that are metaphoric but the events themselves.

If the events themselves had not been able to actually be living metaphors, imbued with deep significance, Christ would have had to come the moment that the Fall happened. This wouldn't have worked at all since humanity needed to be prepared. Or so I understand it.

In my understanding, the metaphors all represented Christ's struggles and victories - presenting them as current realities to the inhabitants of heaven, who were then able to be present with the human race because of them.

This was necessarily a temporary arrangement, according to this understanding. Yet it could hold the place of the Incarnation until humanity was sufficiently developed to be able to receive, record, and spread the gospel. This is why it is said that when Christ came He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Its metaphors had been holding the place that only He could fill. This is why the ritual law was abrogated when He came. This is why pre-advent religion is largely symbolic, and why Christianity is so much more explanatory and doctrinal.

Still, the Old Testament remains holy because Christ's victories are read backward into it, filling them with meaning.

So I don't see the metaphors as in any way a wimpy way to look at and explain Christ's actions. Rather, they are ways of grasping and dealing with spiritual and divine events that are essentially above out comprehension.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
It just gets worse and worse. God is a macho hunter and all people of a sensitive disposition can literally go to hell?

---

Where does the 'macho hunter' bit come from? My point about the 'gore' of the cross was a million miles away from Mel Gibson - it was to do with Christ sharing our humanity - I think you were reading all sorts of things into it that weren't there.

BTW - my earlier jibe about me being labelled 'liberal' was just a joke ... sorry if that wasn't obvious.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

---