|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
leo: All this PSA reminds me of what Dallas Willard called 'Vampire Christians' - obsssesed with blood.
Mudfrog: One word: eucharist.
Are we getting a bit confused here? As I understand PSA the atonement is not a matter of blood in a sacrificial sense but of punishment in a judicial sense.
But PSA people quote 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission....
Is that not in your Bible then?
And in any case it can easily just refer to sacrifice with no penal context whatsoever.
[ 01. June 2017, 20:55: 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:
If we don't take the 'by his stripes we are healed' thing literally - as in physical healing say - then why do we take the 'he was bruised for our transgressions' thing literally in terms of seeing God the Son taking our punishment?
I've never thought of that before ... but it strikes me as something of a conundrum.
I'm sure it can easily resolved, but if nothing else it demonstrates what I've been saying all along about the interpretation, weight and slant we want to put on things ... [/QB]
quote:
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Is this not a case of where, in Hebrew poetry the same thing is said twice in different words?
punishment = wounds
peace = healed
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Kwesi: Are we getting a bit confused here? As I understand PSA the atonement is not a matter of blood in a sacrificial sense but of punishment in a judicial sense
Leo: But PSA people quote 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission...."
The point I would want to make is that there is a difference on the one hand between the shedding of blood as part of the Penalty or Sentence, passed by a Judge, including scourging and all the other elements of judicial torture associated with crucifixion, under PSA; and on the other Christ as a sacrifice, which is neither penal nor substitutionary, unless as a substitute for the animals which were normally sacrificed. The two are different but often misleadingly conflated.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know plenty of liberals who wouldn't be happy about the bloody bits but none that seem to pretend that they aren't there ...
Nobody has said that any liberals pretend that they aren't there, just that that they wish they weren't, because they find the concept of atoning blood sacrifice a rebarbative one, beyond which modern enlightened people (ie Westerners like themselves) have progressed.
Spong is an example.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, and arguably with some justification insofar as the scriptures - on one level - seem to chart some kind of progression 'away' from bloody sacrifices towards more 'moral' - and to some extent more 'interiorised' - but still communal - forms of faith/observance ...
And, of course, however we interpret the atonement there's the sense of it 'fulfilling' or completing the old sacrificial order ... which is one of the issues I have with dispensationalism as it seems to envisage a future renewal of sacrifices and so on ...
Also, as I've said previously, there was also a thing about the liberals reacting - or over-reacting - against some of the more grotesque portrayals of the blood themes in both popular Roman Catholicism and forms of populist Protestantism.
The Quakers saw themselves as some form of higher and more 'advanced' form of religious expression - getting to the nub of things beyond external ritual or the heat of religious enthusiasm - so it's hardly surprising that Latitudinarian and liberal churchmen were going to baulk at apparently 'primitive' notions of blood sacrifice - or else to recast these things in some way.
With Spong, of course, that led away from traditional concepts of theism itself.
So yes, but I suspect it's one of these action/reaction things.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Blood everywhere? That's just a wee bit of an overstatement. There's blood in the run-up to the Eucharist. That's it.
I simply meant that at every eucharist blood is mentioned and blood is seen.
And in many churches there is a eucharist at just about every service.
It's not what you said. It would have saved three posts if you had said what you meant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Spong is an example.
Spong's not a Christian though and as such is really irrelevant to the question at hand.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know plenty of liberals who wouldn't be happy about the bloody bits but none that seem to pretend that they aren't there ...
Nobody has said that any liberals pretend that they aren't there, just that that they wish they weren't, because they find the concept of atoning blood sacrifice a rebarbative one, beyond which modern enlightened people (ie Westerners like themselves) have progressed.
Spong is an example.
Not sute I know what rebarbative means, but for me, I rather find it a nonsensical idea - why would the blood of an animal or a person change God's ability or desire to forgive? I can make no sense of it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that there is quite some distance between believing in the Eucharist (and I'm not sure it really makes any difference for the sake of this point about transubstantiation) and believing that sins are washed away by blood.
I think one can talk about the blood as part of the Eucharist without getting into fountains of blood, the blood washing away sins etc.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Equally, though, mr cheesy, it is possible , as Kaplan indicates, to have a belief in the efficacy of Christ's blood to 'wash away sins' whilst acknowledging that such an idea is absent from the presentations of the Gospel we find in Acts.
If I were to lob a grenade into this discussion, it has occurred to me that one could also argue that there is as much NT data to support baptism as the means of washing away sins ...
However we cut it, there's a wealth of NT 'washing' and cleansing imagery that concerns water - physical and metamophorical, the 'word' - and so on - 'washing by water and the word' - as well as blood.
Mudfrog's used a 'dry-cleaning' analogy before now too.
Which brings me back to the rather obvious point I made that there is plenty of blood - and indeed water - in the NT and it all comes down to interpretation and the relative weight we apply to all these things.
On the liberal thing ... I think Spong is germane to this discussion as he is someone who started out within the orbit of the received Christian tradition (small t) and yet who moved beyond / outside it - and with reservations about the whole idea of blood and sacrifice forming part of that process.
He's probably less pertinent from an Orthodox perspective as those aspects are understood in a less juridical way in the Eastern Tradition.
That doesn't mean that he's completely irrelevant, but it does mean that the 'fastidious progressives' tag is less meaningful in that context as the Orthodox don't view the blood-sacrifice elements in quite the same way as many Westerners do.
--------------------
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
I suppose I was mostly trying to say that talking about blood might be common features of church vocabulary, but it doesn't follow that the metaphors being used are actually the same.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Karl--
Re blood sacrifice:
This is probably TMI, so feel free to skip.
Blood sacrifice has been around since ancient times. There's a theory (and this is the TMI bit) that blood sacrifice was invented by men, because women could bleed monthly without dying, and men couldn't. That part of a woman's cycle was often considered sacred and powerful. Until someone decided women were simply dirty at that time (and in general), and came up with a bunch of restraining rules.
I don't know whether or not that's factual, but it's pertinent to what you said. Controversial archaeologist Marijah Gimbutas believed it and wrote about it. When I was searching for info, I came across a Google summation of "Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World", by Judy Grahn. I haven't read the book, but it looks interesting.
(/end TMI)
Alternatively, there's the comment by Spike, the gradually-repenting vampire from "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (TV version). "It's *always* about blood--ALWAYS!"
(Referring to general principles, magic, metaphysics, etc.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Does it need to be pointed out yet again Christ's forgiveness of sin is not a consequence of his work on the cross? Christ forgave sins because of who he was, and exercised his power on earth to forgive sins throughout his ministry. Rather the cross is about atonement, reconciliation, something that takes place involving an interaction between humanity and God. For me, the symbolism of blood, after Alison's insights, is the 'sprinkled blood', where the God shares his life with his people, sealing the New Covenant. Or, after Charles Wesley: 'Send him the sprinkled blood to apply/ Send him our souls to sanctify/ and show and seal us ever thine."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems to me that there is quite some distance between believing in the Eucharist (and I'm not sure it really makes any difference for the sake of this point about transubstantiation) and believing that sins are washed away by blood.
I think one can talk about the blood as part of the Eucharist without getting into fountains of blood, the blood washing away sins etc.
Yeah, but then you'd have to do away with some fairly substantial Bible references:
quote:
but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 1 V 7
quote:
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9 v 14
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
You don't have to ignore them, you just have to say that you don't think the metaphor is one to repeat endlessly.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Karl--
Re blood sacrifice:
This is probably TMI, so feel free to skip.
Blood sacrifice has been around since ancient times. There's a theory (and this is the TMI bit) that blood sacrifice was invented by men, because women could bleed monthly without dying, and men couldn't. That part of a woman's cycle was often considered sacred and powerful. Until someone decided women were simply dirty at that time (and in general), and came up with a bunch of restraining rules.
I don't know whether or not that's factual, but it's pertinent to what you said. Controversial archaeologist Marijah Gimbutas believed it and wrote about it. When I was searching for info, I came across a Google summation of "Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World", by Judy Grahn. I haven't read the book, but it looks interesting.
(/end TMI)
Alternatively, there's the comment by Spike, the gradually-repenting vampire from "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (TV version). "It's *always* about blood--ALWAYS!"
(Referring to general principles, magic, metaphysics, etc.)
Yes, but why does all that make a difference to God?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You don't have to ignore them, you just have to say that you don't think the metaphor is one to repeat endlessly.
Endlessly?
That does make it sound like we talk about nothing else when, in actual fact, we takk about many more things.
The blood of Christ is an integral part of the Gospel but it isn't every part. There will be many occasions wen the blood of Jesus is not specifically mentioned, even though the cross (as a concept and as the event) will nearly always be mentioned.
After all these months I do get the impression that there are those who just won't let evangelicals say anything else other than to talk about blood and PSA (bearing in mind that blood is not always shed in a penal substitution context); and as I have said above, the Catholic church talks about blood an awful lot more than many of us do.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
After all these months I do get the impression that there are those who just won't let evangelicals say anything else other than to talk about blood and PSA (bearing in mind that blood is not always shed in a penal substitution context); and as I have said above, the Catholic church talks about blood an awful lot more than many of us do.
You seem to forget that some of us have been in Evangelical churches for decades, and that we have experience of how things are done. I know several churches where PSA is preached during a "gospel" service every week.
I'm not really interested in the RCC, mostly because I know nothing about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You seem to forget that some of us have been in Evangelical churches for decades, and that we have experience of how things are done. I know several churches where PSA is preached during a "gospel" service every week..
I did not know that you had lived in Sydney. PSA is
the defining doctrine of Sydney Anglicanism. A quick read of this article casts some light on how the doctrine is viewed here.
As an aside, APBA was adopted by Sydney Synod, with the proviso that it could only be used in parishes given special permission by the Archbishop.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Spong's not a Christian
Many Christians (including me) would sympathise with your assertion, but the inconvenient truth remains that he is an ordained cleric of the Episcopal Church and of the worldwide Anglican communion, and therefore, like it or not, recognised as a Christian within the broad context of Christendom, albeit at one extreme of the liberal spectrum.
We are certainly free to criticise, and disagree with, aspects of his theology, but only God knows whether he is a Christian or not.
You don't.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I get criticised for bringing the Orthodox into discussions of this kind - particularly when I'm not Orthodox myself ...
However, it is pertinent - and as Mousethief keeps reminding us - to consider that there are 'other' ways of approaching this whole issue.
The Orthodox represent that.
The whole blood thing certainly isn't absent among the Orthodox but they don't approach the issue in the same way that we Westerners - whether RC or Protestant - do ... and to the Orthodox the RCC and the various Protestant confessions, traditions and denominations are simply two sides of the same coin.
Just as Mudfrog feels frustrated at what he sees as misrepresentations of his own evangelical position on this thread, I'm partly frustrated at the way everyone - apart from Mousethief and one or two of the 'Western' posters - seem to assume that there's only one way to approach the issue ie. their own.
Of course, we all of us use our own perspective / position as the 'standard' and regard any variations to be deviant in some way.
So, it seems to me, Mudfrog, Kaplan and other evangelicals - with Jamat being the most strident - seem to regard their own position as quintessentially the most 'biblical' and the most orthodox (small o), with any other viewpoint being suspect to a greater or lesser extent.
'This is what the Bible says - there, look, it's got blood in it ...'
Well yes, of course it has and yes, Mudfrog is right to cite the verse he has done in order to demonstrate that there's certainly a biblical basis for a belief that 'the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.'
The issue isn't whether the Bible says that, the issue is how we understand that, what we take it to mean.
That's done collegially and corporately - and within the context of interpretative frameworks and traditions. So, inevitably, within each tradition or Tradition there is going to be a particular emphasis or weight put on particular aspects and there are going to be variations in understanding. As sure as eggs are eggs.
By acknowledging that, I'm then accused of relativism or post-modernism or whatever else ...
But however much we puff and pant and huff and puff, that's what it boils down to - collective and collegial interpretations of the available data.
It isn't so much that whole swathes and sections of Christendom are ignoring or over-looking particular verses or passages, more that they have genuinely and sincerely come to different conclusions as to what they mean.
That's an obvious point, but one that may need reiterating at this stage.
Meanwhile, from what I know of Sydney Anglicanism and other forms of very full-on conservative evangelicalism - it seems pretty apparent that PSA is elevated to the rank of non-negotiable in a similar way to the Trinity and deity of Christ, deity of God the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Does it need to be pointed out yet again Christ's forgiveness of sin is not a consequence of his work on the cross?
You have not "pointed out" any such thing, merely argued your own idiosyncratic opinion.
A very strong counter-argument for a relationship between forgiveness and Christ's death on the cross can be mounted on the basis of Hebrews 9:22 and related NT material.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Karl--
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but why does all that make a difference to God?
{Apologies if this wanders. I'm tired; but this subject is important to me, even if I don't talk about it much. So I gave it a try.}
Well, depending on which "people of the Book" you're talking about, and which group within it, there's an idea that sins need to be paid for, and that's built right into the world. God set up that rule, and won't break it. But God loves us, so sent Jesus to pay for our sins. (E.g., "Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". In the OT (Torah part, I think) there's practice of sort of theological and psychological drama, where a person lays their hands on a sheep or goat to get rid of their own sins, then sends the animal off into the wilderness.)
My childhood church was very much of the "God hates sin, and it has to be paid for; because of the Fall, we're all naturally on Satan's side, and can't do any good on our own; we all deserve death/damnation for our sins; God sent Jesus to pay the price for anyone who would accept Jesus; God's wrath was vented on Jesus; God loves us" school; and, among people who believe that way (depending on denomination/church) "once saved, always saved" or "anyone can go to hell"; and "God will take believers to be with God forevermore".
Have you read "The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe", by CS Lewis? (Explanation ahead for anyone who hasn't.) It takes place in Narnia. There, Jesus is known in the person of a lion named Aslan, who is the son of the Emperor-over-sea. The law of paying for (certain kinds of) sin is built right into the world. An evil witch wants to kill a child who's been a traitor, and reminds Aslan of that fundamental law. However, there's also a codicil that an innocent person can be killed instead, and that various good things will follow. Aslan takes the child's place, is brutally sacrificed, dies...and is resurrected. He mentions that he didn't know if the whole thing would work, because "the Emperor's magic has never been tried".
That's my long-winded, cross-referencing way of explaining the idea that God, in God's wisdom, built the whole sacrifice/atonement thing into the world. Basically, God is very good, and hates evil. We're evil, but God loves us, and took our punishment.
The whole thing is full of contradictions, IMHO, about God's nature. (It promotes what I call "the ogre God", and is why I've pretty much given up any belief in atonement theory.)
ISTM that, very early, some humans got the idea that they had to pacify their deities with sacrifice--maybe just because they were dealing with life/death situations; and making a sacrifice might keep the deities from coming after *them*. If religion started in trying to explain and survive the world, in coping with fear, trouble, and natural disasters, then sacrifice makes a certain kind of sense. Maybe they'd tried offering other gifts, and trouble kept coming, so they tried offering the ultimate gift--a life.
I'll stop now.
[ 02. June 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday quote:
Kwesi: Does it need to be pointed out yet again Christ's forgiveness of sin is not a consequence of his work on the cross?
Kaplan Corday: You have not "pointed out" any such thing, merely argued your own idiosyncratic opinion.
A very strong counter-argument for a relationship between forgiveness and Christ's death on the cross can be mounted on the basis of Hebrews 9:22 and related NT material.
In defence of my "idiosyncratic position", might I quote a gospel passage?
quote:
Mark 2: 2 When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people[a] came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.” 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
In other words Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did (on the cross) but because of who he was (the incarnate God). Isn't that bread and butter theology?
I would suggest Jesus trumps Hebrews 9:22: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Surely you are not arguing that Jesus is under the law, are you?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
GK, I know this is a long thread, but we've already discussed CS Lewis in quite a lot of detail.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mr cheesy--
Apologies. I didn't know. I've only peeked in, now and then, because this is a difficult subject for me.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, just in case you were wondering why nobody was responding to you..
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Yes, GK, I know the theology, and I can imagine how it came about with a belief in capricious deities and magical thinking. I have read all the Narnia books and watched the Whicker Man. That's not the issue. It's that it makes no sense with a non-capricious God and in the absence of magical thinking where the magic binds the deity. Even C S Lewis, on a surface reading at any rate, makes that identification; he even calls it the Deep Magic, binding Jadis, Aslan and the Emperor over the Sea. God is not bound.
[ 02. June 2017, 12:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Kwesi ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
leo: All this PSA reminds me of what Dallas Willard called 'Vampire Christians' - obsssesed with blood.
Mudfrog: One word: eucharist.
Are we getting a bit confused here? As I understand PSA the atonement is not a matter of blood in a sacrificial sense but of punishment in a judicial sense.
But PSA people quote 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission....
Is that not in your Bible then?
And in any case it can easily just refer to sacrifice with no penal context whatsoever.
Agree - but PSA types quote it ad nauseam.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Karl--
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but why does all that make a difference to God?
{Apologies if this wanders. I'm tired; but this subject is important to me, even if I don't talk about it much. So I gave it a try.}
Well, depending on which "people of the Book" you're talking about, and which group within it, there's an idea that sins need to be paid for, and that's built right into the world. God set up that rule, and won't break it. But God loves us, so sent Jesus to pay for our sins. (E.g., "Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". In the OT (Torah part, I think) there's practice of sort of theological and psychological drama, where a person lays their hands on a sheep or goat to get rid of their own sins, then sends the animal off into the wilderness.)
My childhood church was very much of the "God hates sin, and it has to be paid for; because of the Fall, we're all naturally on Satan's side, and can't do any good on our own; we all deserve death/damnation for our sins; God sent Jesus to pay the price for anyone who would accept Jesus; God's wrath was vented on Jesus; God loves us" school; and, among people who believe that way (depending on denomination/church) "once saved, always saved" or "anyone can go to hell"; and "God will take believers to be with God forevermore".
Have you read "The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe", by CS Lewis? (Explanation ahead for anyone who hasn't.) It takes place in Narnia. There, Jesus is known in the person of a lion named Aslan, who is the son of the Emperor-over-sea. The law of paying for (certain kinds of) sin is built right into the world. An evil witch wants to kill a child who's been a traitor, and reminds Aslan of that fundamental law. However, there's also a codicil that an innocent person can be killed instead, and that various good things will follow. Aslan takes the child's place, is brutally sacrificed, dies...and is resurrected. He mentions that he didn't know if the whole thing would work, because "the Emperor's magic has never been tried".
That's my long-winded, cross-referencing way of explaining the idea that God, in God's wisdom, built the whole sacrifice/atonement thing into the world. Basically, God is very good, and hates evil. We're evil, but God loves us, and took our punishment.
The whole thing is full of contradictions, IMHO, about God's nature. (It promotes what I call "the ogre God", and is why I've pretty much given up any belief in atonement theory.)
ISTM that, very early, some humans got the idea that they had to pacify their deities with sacrifice--maybe just because they were dealing with life/death situations; and making a sacrifice might keep the deities from coming after *them*. If religion started in trying to explain and survive the world, in coping with fear, trouble, and natural disasters, then sacrifice makes a certain kind of sense. Maybe they'd tried offering other gifts, and trouble kept coming, so they tried offering the ultimate gift--a life.
I'll stop now.
But note that in LWW the sacrifice is paid to the White Witch, not to God. Lewis is using the ransom metaphor, NOT the PSA of your childhood church. That may have its own problems/ inconsistencies but at least it avoids the notion that God is repelled by us dirty sinners. Rather than being angry at our sin, God is moved by compassion for all us edmunds to move TOWARD us in self-giving sacrificial love
--------------------
"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:
I would suggest Jesus trumps Hebrews 9:22: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Surely you are not arguing that Jesus is under the law, are you?
No, he is merely implying 2 things.
Hebrews celebrates the sacrifice on the cross of the saviour because HIS sacrifice permanently dealt with what Mosaic sacrifice temporarily dealt with.
That sacrifice, LIKE Mosaic ones, involved blood shed. Blood shed means life taken. Life taken is about the cost. The cost of a life suggests that had it not occurred,(life taken,) OUR sin would have cost our lives.
If God could, just forgive, as you and Karl suggest, then quite simply, Jesus, would not have needed to die. However, he did, the cup could not pass. To proclaim forgiveness apart from the cross is consequently blasphemous because it devalues it.
The passage you quote from Mark 6 is not any kind of trump card. When Jesus forgave that man he was doing so in anticipation of the cross.
If Jesus is 'the same, yesterday,today and forever,' then as now: if he was, then as now, the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world', then this is not a problem since in God's eyes, that man was already covered by the blood.
In that passage, Jesus states he had authority to forgive sins and proved it by healing the man, an observable miracle. He did this as a proof to the Jewish leaders sitting in front of him, that he was the messiah. They, steeped in the scriptures, could easily have connected this with Isaiah 53 had they cared to do so, since that passage states the messiah will both save from sin and heal disease.
They did not.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat, I must confess I find your explanation unnecessarily complicated, unconvincing, and without support in what is meant to be a the straightforward gospel story about the right of Jesus to forgive sins.
Reference to 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world' should not be used as a get out of jail free card in the face of difficult evidence and reason; and in any case if the lamb was already slain why was it necessary for it to be repeated at Calvary? The image only makes it more difficult for you to sustain your position.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, Jesus WAS under the Torah.
He was born under it, he lived under it and he died in fulfilment of the Mosaic sacrifices to end the sacrificial system prescribed by the Torah.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, Jesus WAS under the Torah.
He was born under it, he lived under it and he died in fulfilment of the Mosaic sacrifices to end the sacrificial system prescribed by the Torah.
He was above the law. If he were under the law, healing on the Sabbath would have been sinful. You really can't have this both ways. He's not under the law except when he isn't. That's not what "under the law" means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what Jamat is getting at but agree that he's over-complicating things.
If we are forgiven at all, we are forgiven by Christ, if we are saved at all we are saved by Christ - and yes, that involves the cross, it involves the atonement - it requires the whole of the 'Christ-event'.
Which is why I keep saying that we can't disaggregate and fillet it all up into nice, neat, bite-size chunks.
But to try to do so is a very human approach of course - and it's also a very 'Western' and propositional one, trying to hang the whole thing on a few salient points rather than simply going with the flow and taking as it comes.
What strikes me about the somewhat bizarre takes on the sufferings of Christ found at the outer reaches of Pentecostalism isn't so much the mysticism - which Mudfrog highlighted - although there is that - but rather the attempt to 'nail' things down - if I can say that in this context without being irreverent.
This wound does this, that scar does the other ...
We've all inherited this Latin and Scholastic thing about pinning everything down - literally. The old how many angels can dance on the point of a pin thing.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a systematic theology or that there isn't room for exploration or speculation. However, the thing that strikes me in the Gospels is how Christ sets out deliberately to subvert and surprise. He spits on soil and makes mud. He speaks a word or issues a command. He forgives sins. He is enigmatic.
He acts in response to faith but also when there is no faith apparent. Yes, there's enough for us to piece together some kind of coherent overview but the NT doesn't give us all the nuts and bolts. It gives us sufficient but it doesn't tie up all the loose ends.
--------------------
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
The simple empirical point I was trying to make was that in his ministry Jesus forgave sins without the shedding of blood, whatever the text from Hebrews asserted. The religious observers were outraged at his blasphemy because in their opinion only God had the power so to do. Q.E.D.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel quote:
I can see what Jamat is getting at but agree that he's over-complicating things.
Perhaps the rest of your lengthy post could have enlightened us as to exactly what you thought 'he was getting at."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, Jesus WAS under the Torah.
He was born under it, he lived under it and he died in fulfilment of the Mosaic sacrifices to end the sacrificial system prescribed by the Torah.
He was above the law. If he were under the law, healing on the Sabbath would have been sinful. You really can't have this both ways. He's not under the law except when he isn't. That's not what "under the law" means.
[EMAIL][/EMAIL]
As usual your lack of discernment defeats you.
Yes, Jesus was above the law. The son of man is lord even of the sabbath
Yes he chose to live subject to the law in order to demonstrate that he was a worthy sacrifice having kept it in all aspects.
No he did not break the law by healing on the sabbath since the law did not say this was forbidden. Jesus used the analogy of pulling an animal from a pit, a rescue, and likened healing to that. Thus, no Mosaic law was violated when he healed on a sabbath day.
In every other instance where Jesus was accused of violating the Mosaic law, he was confronting the unnecessary regulation the Jewish traditions had erected on top of it. An eg is the eating grain as they passed through the field. This was an interpretation of harvesting that was foolish.
Regarding Torah, Jesus kept the 613 commandments down to not wearing a garment of mixed threads. Witness the seamless robe at the crucifixion.
Kwesi, you might want to think about it a bit more. If the cross was not needed for redemption and the blood of Jesus did not purchase forgiveness, then what was the point of the crucifixion?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat quote:
Kwesi: you might want to think about it a bit more. If the cross was not needed for redemption and the blood of Jesus did not purchase forgiveness, then what was the point of the crucifixion?
The cross is concerned with Atonement or Reconciliation between God and Humanity, and should not be confused with forgiveness, an attribute of God that was exercised by the Father and the Son on numerous occasions before the crucifixion. As we are only too well aware, there are many different opinions as to how atonement comes about, which is the subject of our discussion. Forgiveness in the OT may have been associated with sacrifice, but there are significant occasions where God is forgiving without the need for blood.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In other words Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did (on the cross) but because of who he was (the incarnate God).
The passage from Mark 2 proves nothing.
You are setting up a false dichotomy.
There is no contradiction.
Jesus, the incarnate Second Person of the Godhead, forgives sins because he is the God who provides Calvary's atoning sacrifice on the basis of which he can justly do so - in the OT, in the NT, and now.
quote:
Isn't that bread and butter theology?
No, it isn't.
It is a demonstration of quixotic disregard for the soteriological theology of the NT which deals with the interrelationship of sacrifice, blood, atonement, expiation, reconciliation and forgiveness, and in which all Christian traditions believe in some form or another.
quote:
I would suggest Jesus trumps Hebrews 9:22:
"Trumps"? Seriously?
The writer to the Hebrews is using the OT sacrificial system as a typological preparation for Christ's once-and-for-all saving act, and only a deliberate rejection of the most basic principles of exegesis could ignore that.
Nothing remotely analogous to competitive card games comes into it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The cross is concerned with Atonement or Reconciliation between God and Humanity, and should not be confused with forgiveness, an attribute of God that was exercised by the Father and the Son on numerous occasions before the crucifixion
The reconciliation of God and humanity? Sounds nice certainly but totally meaningless apart from individual salvation based on ones acceptance of it and transformation by it.
You are not listening. The numerous examples you refer to look forward to the cross just as mine and your forgiveness look backwards to it.
This is pretty standard stuff.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The cross is concerned with Atonement or Reconciliation between God and Humanity, and should not be confused with forgiveness, an attribute of God that was exercised by the Father and the Son on numerous occasions before the crucifixion
The reconciliation of God and humanity? Sounds nice certainly but totally meaningless apart from individual salvation based on ones acceptance of it and transformation by it.
Can we expect you at any time in the near future to address the actual point being made here?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Kwesi, apologies for my lengthy post. I didn't have time to write a short one.
Jamat made his point. It's pretty much identical to Kaplan's. It's that the divine economy operates with and through the cross and its soteriological and transformative impact.
How he's developed his point is what I understood him to be saying.
Mousethief seems to think Jamat's not addressing your point though - if I understand him correctly.
FWIW, in irritating Gamaliel fashion, I'm going to say that it's one of these both/and things. Yes, Jesus forgave people unconditionally. He is God. He can do that.
He didn't need to prick his finger to draw blood or have one of the disciples stick a pin in his arm in order to declare, 'Your sins are forgiven ...' or 'Arise, take up your bed and walk.'
But there would come a time when he would 'be crucified, dead and buried' - and when the blood of Christ would 'cleanse us from all sin' - however we understand that.
Which is the point I was trying to make about not disaggregating these things and trying to separate them all out. Yes, Jesus had 'power on earth to forgive sins', yes he also 'gave his life as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.'
We live on this side of the cross and resurrection. The one to whom our Lord said, 'Your sins are forgiven,' lived prior to that. We are both one side or the other of Calvary.
As for Mousethief's point. I'll let him develop that.
--------------------
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
Sorry to double-post ...
On the issue of Christ both submitting himself to the Mosaic Law and fulfilling it - yes, absolutely.
'Go show yourself to the priests ...'
The issues he confronted the Pharisees over were to do with fastidious observance at the expense of justice and mercy - the letter rather than the spirit of the Law.
In some sense we could argue that 'kenosis' came into play here too. Although 'above' the Law, the Incarnate Word submitted himself to it - part of the whole identification / Incarnation thing - in order both to conform to it and transcend and fulfil it ...
On Jamat's interpretation of the 'seamless robe' not having mixed fibres. Not sure how that follows necessarily but it's an interesting idea. I'd prefer that interpretation of it than the one I've heard from health-wealth prosperity Gospellers that a seamless robe was expensive so Jesus was wearing the equivalent of a Savile Row suit and so, therefore, should we ...
Again, it shows what happens when you latch onto a particular theme or idea. You begin to start applying it to each and any scriptural reference. We've seen that in the way Jamat reads penal or juridical themes even into verses that don't necessarily lend themselves to that interpretation.
At the same time, of course, those who are less PSA-ish or anti-PSA might be accused of bending over backwards not to see these things ...
And so it goes on ...
--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday quote:
Kwesi:In other words Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did (on the cross) but because of who he was (the incarnate God).
Kaplan Corday : The passage from Mark 2 proves nothing.
You are setting up a false dichotomy.
There is no contradiction.
Jesus, the incarnate Second Person of the Godhead, forgives sins because he is the God who provides Calvary's atoning sacrifice on the basis of which he can justly do so - in the OT, in the NT, and now.
I find the assertion “Mark 2 proves nothing,” quite remarkable.
At the risk of yet again repeating myself, a position of frustration shared with Mousethief, whose support I appreciate, there is a very important distinction to make between who Jesus was, on the one hand, and what he did on the other, in relation to the forgiveness of sin. If he forgave sin because he was God then the cross is not crucial, if, however, it was a power conferred because of what he did on the cross i.e. conditional on what he did, then the cross is essential.
The scribes were quite clear that it was an intrinsic attribute of God: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus agrees with them on the last point: “ But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.”
Kaplan Corday and Jamat on behalf of PSA disagree. Their position is that when Jesus forgave his authority to do so rested not on his position as part of the trinity but was contingent on what he was to do on the cross. As Kaplan Corday states: “Jesus, the incarnate Second Person of the Godhead, forgives sins because he is the God who provides Calvary's atoning sacrifice on the basis of which he can justly do so - in the OT, in the NT, and now.” So, the Godhead, the Trinity, did not have an intrinsic power to forgive sin but depended on a right acquired through the completion of the crucifixion.
I rest my case on the evidence of the scribes and Jesus.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, on the Jesus being under the Torah stuff, Gamaliel has beat me to it; but I would just quite Scripture (because that's all we have):
quote:
4But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons.…
Galatians 4 v 4,5
Sometimes I think if we went to the Bible first and then discussed things we might have a little more light on what we say.
Yes, Jesus did upset people by things he did, but it wasn't the Torah he was breaking but all the little interpretations and man-made additions.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I rest my case on the evidence of the scribes and Jesus
So do those who do not agree with you.
If Jesus operated on the basis of his divinity, then that makes nonsense of the whole deal of the incarnation. To redeem man, he had to do it from inside humanity.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I rest my case on the evidence of the scribes and Jesus
So do those who do not agree with you.
If Jesus operated on the basis of his divinity, then that makes nonsense of the whole deal of the incarnation. To redeem man, he had to do it from inside humanity.
No, it doesn't make nonsense of the whole deal of the Incarnation, rather it makes full sense of it.
Christ is 100% God and 100% man. He's not 50/50 or 60/40 or 30/70. He is the God-Man.
Jesus was operating on the basis of his divinity when he became Incarnate. He didn't 'lose' his divinity through the Incarnation - but in the process we refer to as 'kenosis' he set-it aside or sublimated it if you like ...
There's the famous passage in Philippians 2 that we can refer to for that.
Philippians 2:5-11
Meanwhile, the Bible isn't 'all we have' - however much we may fondly imagine that to be the case.
All of us here are using the Bible plus tradition ... whether small t or Big T.
There is no way any of us are using the Bible 'alone'. That's a physical impossibility. It's a nonsense to even claim such a thing.
Jamat is quoting the Bible mediated through tradition, Mudfrog is quoting the Bible mediated through tradition, Kaplan is quoting the Bible mediated through tradition ... so am I.
So is Kwesi. So is Mousethief - although in his case it's a Big T Tradition ...
So less of this, 'If only we looked at the Bible on its own ...' stuff - because none of us are doing so and none of us can do so.
It's like the ridiculous statement that Campbell, founder of the Churches of Christ, made when he said he wanted to read the scriptures as if he were the first person ever to do so ...
Of course he couldn't do that. None of us can.
Anyhow, back to the plot ...
It seems to me that we have two equal and opposite dangers/potential errors here.
On the one hand, we run the risk of limiting God in some way, making him subject to his own sense of justice, as it were ... boxing him into something that is 'bigger than himself' as if that were possible.
God can't possibly forgive anyone unless he first satisfies his 'need' for justice or having his wrath assuaged ...
God doesn't 'need' anything. There is no 'lack' in God. He is all-sufficient. Are we saying that his wrath is 'bigger' than he is?
Now, I know that runs the risk of caricature - and that PSA-proponents would argue that they aren't putting any shackles or limits on God but simply stating that he acts in accordance with his 'character' and his righteousness ...
But it does seem to me that if we ratchet the penal and juridical elements up so tightly, that's where we inevitably end up.
Of course, there is an equal and opposite error of thinking of God as so wishy-washy and soppy that he overlooks any need for justice and punishment ...
Where I think Mousethief is coming from is from a different direction entirely - and one which is very alien to particular 'Western' Christian thought-forms - as steeped as we are in the juridical and penal ...
Which is why we are going round and round and round.
Let's call these views X and Y - and I'm simplifying for the sake of clarity:
View X: God can't possibly forgive us unless sin is paid for and punished in some way. He does that himself by allowing his Son Jesus Christ to take the penalty in our place through his death on the cross.
View Y: God is God and can do what he likes. He is loving and just and so can forgive our sins if he sees fit. Sin isn't a 'problem' to God, it's not a problem to be solved but a condition to be healed. Christ did that by sharing our humanity and sharing our death and by defeating sin and death on the cross and overcoming them both by his glorious resurrection.
Would that be a fair summary of the opposing views here?
If so, then there may or may not be ways to reconcile them - to see them as two aspects of the same thing ...
I don't know. I'm thinking aloud and punting out some possibilities.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If I am reading Galatians 4 through the lense of a tradition, first of all I would like you to tell me what tradition says that differs to the original meaning of 'Christ was born under the Law, and then tell me what another tradition says that is different.
How many different ways can you interpret Christ was born under the law??
Does 'born' have different interpretations?
Does 'under' have different meanings?
Are there different 'Laws' depending on your tradition?
The clear meaning of the text is the Christ was born subject to and into the Torah.
What other meaning is there?
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
