|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wouldn't dream of it! Eternity within God speaks for itself. We infinitely underestimate Him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No, there is not problem at all. Hebrews explains quite clearly how Jesus replaced the many OT sacrifices with the once for all sacrifice of himself. Their function was perfectly clear, they covered sin temporarily, but were simply a type of the permanent covering for sin,the blood of Jesus himself, who was offered once ..as stated, " at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself " Heb9:26b.
Again, that's simply not the OT record, which fairly clearly makes the case that the temple sacrifice wasn't sufficient.
This a non sequitur. The OT sacrifice system covered sin temporarily UNTIL the REAL sacrifice of whom it was a type, appeared, (That was Jesus by the way,)..as Hebrews PLAINLY states. It looks to me as if Kaplan Corday is correct. You do not accept the book of Hebrews as canonical.
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it was Kwesi that Kaplan asked about the canonicity issue.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of that in this instance.
The issue is one of interpretation, not canonicity. My interpretation is similar to yours, but Kwesi's and mr cheesy's differs. That's the issue, not whether they think Hebrews should be in the NT or not.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I'm pretty relaxed on the issue of canonicity in that I don't expect to find consistency between all the texts or even within them. Hebrews I take to be a Jew explaining to other Jews how Christ's life is compatible with their traditional religious imagination. As a 21st century gentile it's quite a task for me to get into the mindset of the writer and of those to whom it's addressed. I sometimes suspect that those who pontificate about the meaning of the sacrificial signifiers are not as on top of the subject as they imagine. Still, we can all have our say!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Hebrews I take to be a Jew explaining to other Jews how Christ's life is compatible with their traditional religious imagination. As a 21st century gentile it's quite a task for me to get into the mindset of the writer and of those to whom it's addressed. I sometimes suspect that those who pontificate about the meaning of the sacrificial signifiers are not as on top of the subject as they imagine.
Totally agree, which goes back to seeing the images as metaphor, not as a transactional description.
The "lamb of God"/sacrifice motif, of course, is not the same as PSA. Hebrews is using the "satisfaction" image, whereas Romans is the place you most see the "substitution" image (whether or not you see the "penal" aspect of it). The two are similar in that both are "Godward" images so are seeing the "sin problem" similarly, but the imagery is different-- and, as Kwesi suggests, the satisfaction imagery would presumably speak more strongly to a Jewish audience. Although you'll also see Hebrews and some of the Pauline letters at time bring in ransom or CV-- quite different "Satan-ward" images. Which suggests to me the NT authors were aware they were using images that could be layered one on top the other, rather than suggesting a single "foundational" explanation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: mr cheesy's differs. That's the issue, not whether they think Hebrews should be in the NT or not.
There you go again wanting to say everyone's interpretation is valid cos its theirs and they're entitled to it? The truth is more important don't you think?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Why in the world don't we have a strawman emoji???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why in the world don't we have a strawman emoji???
Like this?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why in the world don't we have a strawman emoji???
Like this?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This a non sequitur. The OT sacrifice system covered sin temporarily UNTIL the REAL sacrifice of whom it was a type, appeared,
Right, but that doesn't work if the atonement had power backwards in time. Either the OT sacrificial system did what it says it did, or it didn't. You can't have it both being effective and Christ's atonement working backwards in time. Because that's stoopid.
quote:
(That was Jesus by the way,)..as Hebrews PLAINLY states. It looks to me as if Kaplan Corday is correct. You do not accept the book of Hebrews as canonical.
Thanks. Even though I've said the opposite, clearly I must be theologically defective on the basis that I disagree with you.
Seems to me that you are the one with the theological problem here: you're desperate to hold two opposite ideas at the same time in order to give the Hebrews passage primacy over everything else.
[ 19. May 2017, 06:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mr Cheesy : Thanks. Even though I've said the opposite, clearly I must be theologically defective on the basis that I disagree with you.
Seems to me that you are the one with the theological problem here: you're desperate to hold two opposite ideas at the same time in order to give the Hebrews passage primacy over everything else.
Hard to argue of course with such extensive knowledge but I am slightly curious as to what ideas you consider 'opposites.' here and while you feel one passage has primacy over another rather than both being complementary. Most here would actually probably suggest the the NT passage illuminates the OT one.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This a non sequitur. The OT sacrifice system covered sin temporarily UNTIL the REAL sacrifice of whom it was a type, appeared,
And in reply,Mr Cheesy:
Right, but that doesn't work if the atonement had power backwards in time. Either the OT sacrificial system did what it says it did, or it didn't. You can't have it both being effective and Christ's atonement working backwards in time. Because that's stoopid.
Oh dear, perhaps the word 'temporarily'doesn't mean what it used to. Dang!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course I'm interested in The Truth, Jamat. Which is why I am open to various perspectives and look to hold various aspects in tension.
I don't see how my more 'elastic' and stretchy approach is any more dangerous than your somewhat brittle one.
I'd suggest that mine is healthier as it is more likely to stretch than snap.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that all perspectives are equally valid. I'm simply suggesting that a range of complementary viewpoints are acceptable within the over-arching context of historic Creedal Christianity.
Read what I write, not what you think I write.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course I'm interested in The Truth, Jamat. Which is why I am open to various perspectives and look to hold various aspects in tension.
I don't see how my more 'elastic' and stretchy approach is any more dangerous than your somewhat brittle one.
I'd suggest that mine is healthier as it is more likely to stretch than snap.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that all perspectives are equally valid. I'm simply suggesting that a range of complementary viewpoints are acceptable within the over-arching context of historic Creedal Christianity.
Read what I write, not what you think I write.
What you write mate is mostly what you think other people might think but you are not really sure right?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I do not agree that the Mosaic sacrifices were temporary.
They were operative and effectual; and Jesus's sacrifice was not the 'real' sacrifice - it was the 'final' Mosaic sacrifice. It was the last sacrifice that was accepted under the Mosaic code, under the requirements of the Torah.
That's why it was effective.
He was killed, acting as the real Lamb of God (i.e. God's lamb, provided by him).
The sacrifice was made once and for all; it fulfilled the requirements of the Torah and, because he was perfect, it was the final sacrifice. No other was needed, not because they were useless in the past, temporary of just imaginary, but because Christ came to do away with sin and free us from the Law and to usher in the age of grace.
[ 19. May 2017, 11:12: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
1) Assumes there is life in the image of God elsewhere.
2) Assumes they had a Fall and need atonement.
There may be a place where the life forms are living still in Adamic innocence.
They, like the angels, have no need of redemption.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What are chances eh Mudfrog? Out of 400,000,000,000 - that's four hundred thousand million, four hundred billion - star systems in our average galaxy out of more galaxies in the mere observable universe (just 1:10^70 of the reasonably inflated unobservable universe) than grains of sand on earth.
We pathetically, laughably underestimate God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
They were operative and effectual; and Jesus's sacrifice was not the 'real' sacrifice because it was the final Mosaic sacrifice.
I thought Hebrews suggests it was not a Mosaic sacrifice because Jesus was of the order of Melchizedek not Aaron? So how could his sacrifice be a Mosaic sacrifice?
quote:
He was killed, acting as the real Lamb of God (i.e. God's lamb, provided by him).
I don't quite know what you mean or are implying. It looks to me, however, as if you are suggesting a substitute for the substitute (the lamb stuck in the thicket). Doesn't look quite right, does it?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: mr cheesy's differs. That's the issue, not whether they think Hebrews should be in the NT or not.
There you go again wanting to say everyone's interpretation is valid cos its theirs and they're entitled to it? The truth is more important don't you think?
What truth?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ... that's the question Pilate asked, Martin60 ...
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Meanwhile, @Mudfrog, sure, up to a point, but as Kwesi has observed, Christ was a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek ...
But yes, I'd agree with the point about Christ 'fulfilling' and finalising, as it were, the OT sacrificial system.
Also, at Jamat - no, that's not what I'm saying but given that your posts are so narrow-minded that their ears meet in the middle I wouldn't expect you to get my drift ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
More seriously, it's not that what I write is mostly what I think other people might think but I'm not really sure ... far from it.
As I've said to you before, I have plenty of convictions and there are plenty of issues where I'd plant my banner and take my stand. The Trinity and Deity of Christ and full Deity of God the Holy Spirit is one of them.
I'd also plant my banner firmly on the idea of an Atonement. How that works and the various aspects, facets and views on that is something I'm keen to discuss and to evaluate - and indeed re-evaluate my own views if necessary.
That's a very different position to being 'blown about by every wind of doctrine.'
Whatever else might be said about me, I operate firmly within the foot-print of the received tradition - small t - and with nods to the various Big T Traditions from which small t tradition derives.
The difference between thee and me is that I at least recognise my own position as a tradition and don't kid myself that it tumbled out of the Bible ready-made one day either at the close of the 1st century or sometime in the 16th or the 19th ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not quite G., not quite.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Pilate asked, 'What IS truth ...'
So yes, there is a slight difference ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This a non sequitur. The OT sacrifice system covered sin temporarily UNTIL the REAL sacrifice of whom it was a type, appeared,
Right, but that doesn't work if the atonement had power backwards in time. Either the OT sacrificial system did what it says it did, or it didn't. You can't have it both being effective and Christ's atonement working backwards in time. Because that's stoopid.
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
Or maybe the sacrifice - shock, horror - never had anything to do with God anyway.
Maybe sacrifice was always for mankind, never to placate God, never to win him over, never to pay Satan and never to blot out sin.
Maybe God is always the same as he ever was, and that the perfection we see in Jesus isn't a change but is actually his character - namely that he forgives the penitent, those who know that they've screwed up and those who are committed to forgiving others and putting things right.
Maybe then the sacrifice of a perfect and costly thing was about "sealing the deal" for mankind not for God. Maybe it was because humans do not value things offered freely that there needed to be a mechanism to show that this free gift actually required a costly response.
And maybe the atonement similarly wasn't about God, wasn't about Satan and wasn't about personal sin. Maybe the forgiveness is always offered freely and that the correct, and only, true Christian response to that loving offering is self-sacrifice.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
Or maybe the sacrifice - shock, horror - never had anything to do with God anyway.
Maybe sacrifice was always for mankind, never to placate God, never to win him over, never to pay Satan and never to blot out sin.
Maybe God is always the same as he ever was, and that the perfection we see in Jesus isn't a change but is actually his character - namely that he forgives the penitent, those who know that they've screwed up and those who are committed to forgiving others and putting things right.
Maybe then the sacrifice of a perfect and costly thing was about "sealing the deal" for mankind not for God. Maybe it was because humans do not value things offered freely that there needed to be a mechanism to show that this free gift actually required a costly response.
And maybe the atonement similarly wasn't about God, wasn't about Satan and wasn't about personal sin. Maybe the forgiveness is always offered freely and that the correct, and only, true Christian response to that loving offering is self-sacrifice.
I think that's consistent with the sacramental approach I was spit-balling.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
Or maybe the sacrifice - shock, horror - never had anything to do with God anyway.
Maybe sacrifice was always for mankind, never to placate God, never to win him over, never to pay Satan and never to blot out sin.
Maybe God is always the same as he ever was, and that the perfection we see in Jesus isn't a change but is actually his character - namely that he forgives the penitent, those who know that they've screwed up and those who are committed to forgiving others and putting things right.
Maybe then the sacrifice of a perfect and costly thing was about "sealing the deal" for mankind not for God. Maybe it was because humans do not value things offered freely that there needed to be a mechanism to show that this free gift actually required a costly response.
And maybe the atonement similarly wasn't about God, wasn't about Satan and wasn't about personal sin. Maybe the forgiveness is always offered freely and that the correct, and only, true Christian response to that loving offering is self-sacrifice.
VERY good. And the sacrifice FACILITATES penitence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ....
I'd be interested to hear how contemporary Jews regard the sacrificial aspect ... A range of perspectives I would imagine.
Meanwhile, I can see the appeal of what Cliffdweller is saying ... Although I feel a wee bit nervous with some of the things mr cheesy is saying ...
If we see these things as metaphors rather than actual existential transactions, then I can see what you're suggesting ...
It's all a bit vertiginous if one has a conservative evangelical background, though ... Like stood at the top of a swaying pole ...
It depends on what we're saying though.
Are we saying that God, in Christ, was saying, 'Look, you really don't need all that nasty, messy sacrificial stuff and to prove it I'm going to take it all on myself and bear it all for you ...'?
Or that God somehow accommodated himself to all the nasty Bronze Age / Iron Age sacrificial malarkey until such time as human capacity / understanding developed to the extent that we didn't need it any more?
Christ died. Christ rose again. Are we saying that was metaphorical too?
Or are we talking about literal events to which metaphors and tropes are then attached in an attempt to make sense of it all?
Or are we talking about all those things at the same time?
And more ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are we saying that God, in Christ, was saying, 'Look, you really don't need all that nasty, messy sacrificial stuff and to prove it I'm going to take it all on myself and bear it all for you ...'?
No, I think it was more "if you want to be like God, then you need to be like Jesus - who was so close to God that he was God - and you need to follow his example and his command. And that involves picking up your cross and following, even if like him it ends in a disgusting death".
quote:
Or that God somehow accommodated himself to all the nasty Bronze Age / Iron Age sacrificial malarkey until such time as human capacity / understanding developed to the extent that we didn't need it any more?
I think it was more that people didn't understand the nature of God and instead insisted on doing things their way (eg like having a King Saul) and so God went along with it until such point as it stopped having any meaning whatsoever.
quote:
Christ died. Christ rose again. Are we saying that was metaphorical too?
I think you're muddling terms here a bit; "metaphorical" sounds like I don't think it happened and/or don't think the atonement is very important. The opposite of both of those is true, I believe in Christ's life death and resurrection and I believe that the atonement is the critical and pivotal part of the religion.
But at the same time, it clearly is metaphorical whichever model you are using. I don't think mine is really any more or less metaphorical than any other.
quote:
Or are we talking about literal events to which metaphors and tropes are then attached in an attempt to make sense of it all?
Mmm. I think it is complicated thing to understand and a lot of time and effort has gone into making it all about sin and then making God to be something he isn't.
quote:
Or are we talking about all those things at the same time?
And more ...
Maybe. Depends what you mean by them, dunnit?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
Or maybe the sacrifice - shock, horror - never had anything to do with God anyway.
Maybe sacrifice was always for mankind, never to placate God, never to win him over, never to pay Satan and never to blot out sin.
Maybe God is always the same as he ever was, and that the perfection we see in Jesus isn't a change but is actually his character - namely that he forgives the penitent, those who know that they've screwed up and those who are committed to forgiving others and putting things right.
Maybe then the sacrifice of a perfect and costly thing was about "sealing the deal" for mankind not for God. Maybe it was because humans do not value things offered freely that there needed to be a mechanism to show that this free gift actually required a costly response.
And maybe the atonement similarly wasn't about God, wasn't about Satan and wasn't about personal sin. Maybe the forgiveness is always offered freely and that the correct, and only, true Christian response to that loving offering is self-sacrifice.
That's exactly right, mr Cheesy. The OT covenant was sealed, ratified, if you like, with a sacrifice, it was what, in the ANE, gave legal validity to a contract. See, for example, Genesis 15. But it was the contract, or covenant, or rather God's honouring of the contract, that saved. The sacrifice merely pointed to, or recapitulated, the covenant commitment of God. The sacrificial system was intended to renew faith and confidence in the salvific actions of God and His commitment to His people. That's why the prophets point out that "to obey is better than sacrifice" - the sacrifice has no intrinsic value; it is of no use if it does not lead to renewed faith in God's saving intent. Biblical sacrifice is about many things, but one thing it is not about, contra the other religions of the Fertile Crescent, is placating an angry god.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: I do not agree the the OT sacrifices were temporary.
They were operative and effectual; and Jesus's sacrifice was not the 'real' sacrifice - it was the 'final' Mosaic sacrifice. It was the last sacrifice that was accepted under the Mosaic code, under the requirements of the Torah.
Semantics. They were certainly operative and effectual..temporarily..Until Jesus put an end to them by the sacrifice of himself..as the book of Hebrews states.
Jesus was indeed the real sacrifice real not meaning the others were unreal, rather that they were always intended by God only to prefigure the ultimate act of sacrifice which was Calvary. The OT sacrifices covered sin all right. It was just that people kept sinning under the law so new sacrifices were always required..until You know what.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, and people still go on sinning under the New Covenant too ...
Sadly.
'But with you there is forgiveness, which is why you are to be feared ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:. Biblical sacrifice is about many things, but one thing it is not about, contra the other religions of the Fertile Crescent, is placating an angry god.
quote:
But only a naive understanding of God's anger that conflates it unfairly with man's anger could say this and in doing so create a huge category error and suggest a straw man argument. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/five-truths-about-the-wrath-of-god
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
Will the real space cadet please stand up?
Did you not see "Back to the future?"
If time is as we know, a physical property, and God exists independent of his creation, outside all physicality, then he won't be too troubled by being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: . Although I feel a wee bit nervous with some of the things mr cheesy is saying ...
Be happy and learn,Grasshopper.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm equally unhappy about some of the hyper-Calvinists you display, Jamat ...
Grasshopper avoids both extreme liberalism and extreme fundamentalism.
Not that I think mr cheesy is an extreme liberal,I have come across plenty of people who are more liberal in their theology than he appears to be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm equally unhappy about some of the hyper-Calvinists you display, Jamat ...
Grasshopper avoids both extreme liberalism and extreme fundamentalism.
Not that I think mr cheesy is an extreme liberal,I have come across plenty of people who are more liberal in their theology than he appears to be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Darn it ... I accidentally posted twice and also meant to type 'hyper-literalism' not 'hyper-Calvinism'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
Will the real space cadet please stand up?
Did you not see "Back to the future?"
If time is as we know, a physical property, and God exists independent of his creation, outside all physicality, then he won't be too troubled by being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Which world?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
This!
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Nick Tamen quote:
oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...
Of course, that is a problem with the crucifixion as perfect sacrifice, because Christ's body was clearly not without blemish after he had been scourged and he had already lost much blood.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps it's helpful (well, probably not to Jamat) to think of the OT sacrifices as-- sacramental-- making visible what was (at that point in time) the invisible work of God. Which moves the sacrifice off the transactional (the lamb died so your sin is forgiven... oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...) to the relational expression of God's great grace and mercy.
This!
I too found this helpful and insightful.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nick Tamen quote:
oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...
Of course, that is a problem with the crucifixion as perfect sacrifice, because Christ's body was clearly not without blemish after he had been scourged and he had already lost much blood.
I don't think that's a problem, not if the lack of physical blemish of the lamb was figurative, pointed by to the sacrifice who would truly be perfect. (That's leaving aside whether the scourging was separate from the crucifixion in terms of sacrifice.)
[ 20. May 2017, 14:40: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Sorry. Didn't catch the autocorrect. "Pointed by to" was supposed to be "pointing to."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
Will the real space cadet please stand up?
Did you not see "Back to the future?"
If time is as we know, a physical property, and God exists independent of his creation, outside all physicality, then he won't be too troubled by being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Which world?
The cosmos, Martin. It's a poor translation.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Yea, Nick, of course you're right. i wasn't particularly wanting to press the point- just trying to cause difficulty for the pedants!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nick Tamen quote:
oops, wait, it had a small blemish on the right buttock so deal's off...
Of course, that is a problem with the crucifixion as perfect sacrifice, because Christ's body was clearly not without blemish after he had been scourged and he had already lost much blood.
I don't think that's a problem, not if the lack of physical blemish of the lamb was figurative, pointed by to the sacrifice who would truly be perfect. (That's leaving aside whether the scourging was separate from the crucifixion in terms of sacrifice.)
And my point was that the "oops... blemish... deals off" was a human distortion of the sacrament. That if the OT sacrifices were sacramental rather than transactional, then something like a small blemish would not diminish its efficacy. If it's a transaction, then the sacrifice side of the equation has to measure up enough to satisfy the benefit side of the equation. But if it's a sacrament-- making visible the invisible divine work-- then it's not so important. Which I think aligns with Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and the money changers.
(full disclosure: I'm an evangelical so not fully versed in the sacramental language/theology of my more liturgical brethren, so y'all may need to sand off some rough edges. My reading of it may sound too memorialist or Reformed for your ears, as that's my background. I'm interested in how mousethief and others with a higher view of the sacraments would describe the notion of the sacrifices as sacramental)
[ 20. May 2017, 16:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
Will the real space cadet please stand up?
Did you not see "Back to the future?"
If time is as we know, a physical property, and God exists independent of his creation, outside all physicality, then he won't be too troubled by being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Which world?
The cosmos, Martin. It's a poor translation.
Ah hah Honest! If I may call you by your first name. So for all of the worlds in the insanely huge inflated universe? 10^70 x larger than the visible universe with its 10^24 stars. Which is but one scintilla in eternity.
Whoever, whatever is behind our infinitesimal and pivotal Jesus is a tad bigger than a man.
Reality is unbelievable. And THEN there's God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Yup! That's it (more or less).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60: Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is plainly stated. Jesus the MAN could only be slain in time. However, the mystery of the incarnation is unfathomable. Jesus as God obviously resided outside time. If he ducked within time's envelope from eternity for a brief 33 years and then ducked back, he was still himself.
Plainly stated by 'John' the author of the Book of Revelation yes. So? What about for the inhabitants of Arcturus and Andromeda and trillions of points beyond. Did He do it concurrently at all? Or can He only do it in series? And then there's all the other eternity of infinite universes of course.
Will the real space cadet please stand up?
Did you not see "Back to the future?"
If time is as we know, a physical property, and God exists independent of his creation, outside all physicality, then he won't be too troubled by being "slain from the foundation of the world."
Which world?
The cosmos, Martin. It's a poor translation.
Ah hah Honest! If I may call you by your first name. So for all of the worlds in the insanely huge inflated universe? 10^70 x larger than the visible universe with its 10^24 stars. Which is but one scintilla in eternity.
Whoever, whatever is behind our infinitesimal and pivotal Jesus is a tad bigger than a man.
Reality is unbelievable. And THEN there's God.
So it is official. Martin says there is a God.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
