|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: Get behind me Satan. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Jesus saying that He surely must suffer because He was siding with the weak doesn't necessarily mean that He sought death.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
@deano
I suppose the straight answer - if your point of view is true - is that it's pointless trying to establishing any kind of objective Christian truth. We can all just use orthodoxy as a foil for the theologies we just make up as we go along.
No more and no less pointless than trying to understand quantum physics. Just because we can't, doesn't mean we should stop, and it doesn't mean we can't make use of what we find or the simple models we create.
After all, we don't understand quantum physics, but we use it all the time from CD's to GPS.
We can't understand God's nature, but we can use the absolute and unconditional love he displayed to live our own lives by.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but I'm going to expand a bit more on my reading of Mark 8:31–33.
quote:
31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
The word translated 'must' here is δεῖ. It seems to refer more to a necessity, an inevitability, rather than a command. It also seems strange that God would have commanded the elders, priest and teachers to reject Jesus.
quote:
32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
"My Lord and Master, you don't have to go through this! You're the Almighty, just summon your angels to save you!"
quote:
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
Jesus seems to refer explicitly to His temptation by Satan here. And in Matthew's telling of this story, Satan made the same proposal as I suggest Peter was making here.
[ 17. June 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
daronmedway
Your problem on this thread is that you are so concerned to prove God commanded Jesus to lay down his life for his sheep in the John passage that you are ignoring all the other scripture passages that do not support such an idea and reflect a more prophetic inevitability that Jesus will die in the cause of proclaiming the kingdom.
People are quite rightly pointing this out.
Why are you so hell bent on ignoring other parts of scripture? I can only assume because they do not fit your theology.
A more honest approach would be to accept the different writers of scripture had different understandings and agendas.
If you want to believe Jesus was commanded to lay down his life for his sheep by the Father because the Gospel of John says so, then by all means you are welcome to John's view.
But don't ignore everyone else's view. That's just eisegesis.
There is a reason no official atonement theology was agreed upon by the early church. There are at least seven or eight different atonement theologies that can be substantiated by picking out particular bits of scripture.
They are but theories after all.
Personally I think the only theory that covers all of scripture is moral example theory. It's not enough in my view - Jesus is a prophet but he is also more than a prophet after all, but all other atonement theories can easily accept the idea that Jesus said "do as I do".
"Take up your cross and follow me" is not a contentious issue in any area.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
True, but it sort of begs the question. Did Jesus die in that specific way because such a death was foretold in prophecy, was such a death prophesied because of the foreknowledge that such a death would be the fate of such a man living in that particular place and at that particular time?
Actually, I'm not sure what Daron is getting at here. Sure, there are powerful symbolic overtones associated with crucifixion, (the spreading out of the arms to embrace all, etc) but I'm not sure that, from an atonement point of view, this particular death would be any more effective than, say, stoning, which could conceivably have been His fate. Did Godself choose the Cross. Yes, of course. The precise process by which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity came to that choice is hidden from us; any hints that we have from scripture are bound to be a) reflective of some real truth, and b) a partial representation of Reality.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Did Godself choose the Cross. Yes, of course. The precise process by which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity came to that choice is hidden from us; any hints that we have from scripture are bound to be a) reflective of some real truth, and b) a partial representation of Reality.
The cross was an instrument of torture to display Roman imperial power and control.
The resurrection defies all that.
Very much a in your face Romans and power and evil and sin! kinda thing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
It's that word "had" that people seem to dislike, especially if the "had" originates in God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Do we not have to bear in mind that crucifixion demonstrated Jesus was under God's curse?
Deuteronomy 21:22-2
22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
I think orthodox Christians are agreed that you can't have a situation where the Father wills X, the Son wills Y and the Spirit wills Z. Now in Reformed circles this tends to be expressed as the Son showing complete obedience to the Father, whereas I think modernists would be more likely to imagine that the Trinity works by consensus - the Father doesn't will anything if the Son and the Spirit don't also will it.
ISTM that from the standpoint of eternity both interpretations are wrong, or simplifications, because they suppose a before and an after.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ricardus wrote: quote:
ISTM that from the standpoint of eternity both interpretations are wrong, or simplifications, because they suppose a before and an after.
Indeed so. In Johannine theology, the lamb is slain since the foundation of the world. The self-offering on the cross is identical with the self-offering in eternity.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What kind of language? What do you mean by a "real term"?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I don't understand the everyday, real life implications of the lamb of God being slain before the foundation of the world and the self offering on the cross (of God the Son?) that you were referring to.
What does it mean in terms of our everyday salvation?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ah, OK. I'll try to respond later but have to be away from the computer for the next few hours.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As to the 'cross' being the necessary death: what others have said.
I would add two things:
sacrifice and substitution.
The cross isn't an altar, of course, but was the best where blood was actually spilt - and the Bible tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. The blood of Jesus had to flow at the hand of another. It didn't matter that the perpetrators were not priests or that they didn't intend this to be a sacrifice; the fact that Jesus said 'No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own free will' shows that in his own eyes Jesus was a sacrifice.
The other is the substitution.
I love the story of Abraham and Isaac and the great faith Abraham had that even though he was taking his son to the place of sacrifice he was able to say to his servants, "We will come back to you". He believed that God could raise his son from the dead (See Hebrews 11 v 17 - 19).
In the end, the faith of Abraham that "God will provide the lamb" was fulfilled and there, on the mountains of Moriah, caught in thorns, was the lamb provided by God.
Jesus' head was encased in thorns, he was killed on the Mountains of Moriah, and he was God's lamb, provided in our place.
I love the prefiguring of Jesus in the Abraham story.
The cross is necessary because, although it was a very human invention, it fuilfilled the requirements in reality of the atoning death.
--------------------
"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
Mudfrog quote:
I love the prefiguring of Jesus in the Abraham story.
Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
In my book the significance of the Abraham/Isaac incident is that it demonstrated that the God of the patriarch did not demand human sacrifice. That is one reason why I find the notion that God the Father could only be satisfied through human blood sacrifice rather strange.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Kwesi: Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
I've heard and read at least 10 different opinions about this story, and everyone was equally convinced that theirs was the only possible opinion. It's one of my favourite stories in the Bible.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The view I have suggested does not exclude the idea that God does not demand human sacrifice in the context of what other nations were demanding of their people. That's why Abraham was willing to do it - it was part of the norm for such cultures. In Christian terms, we do not have to perish because God has given his only begotten Son in substitution - like that ram caught in a thorn bush.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: God has given his only begotten Son in substitution
To whom?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
I'm convinced that is does. ISTM, that there is an Arian trajectory in the anthropomorphic imagery of divine child abuse that many liberal protestants raise in objection to the idea of penal satisfaction in the atonement. They have a "chopped up God" and a sub-divine Jesus and therefore don't cope very well with notions of intra-trinitarian relationship.
I'm certainly not saying that all objections to penal satisfaction are inherently Arian. For example, I'm perfectly aware that the Orthodox position couldn't be further from Arianism and yet it rejects penal satisfaction in the atonement. I just think a debate founded on a more small 'o' orthodox doctrine of the Trinity would be more fruitful than some of the craziness that my liberal friends seem to mistake for theology. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 18. June 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog: God has given his only begotten Son in substitution
To whom?
Funny thing, I don't remember "in substitution" being in John 3:16 in any of the Bibles I've read. Bad translations, I suppose.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
It means that the Son had willingly purposed from eternity to obey the command of the Father to lay down his life for salvation of humankind. This decision was made from eternity, and wasn't just an event of pragmatic or emerging happenstance within the earthly ministry of the incarnate Son. The death of Jesus, the incarnate Son, on the cross for sin was, is and always will the will of the Trinity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
God gave his Son to us, to the world.
In the same way he gave the ram to Abraham.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: God gave his Son to us, to the world.
In the same way he gave the ram to Abraham.
And then the ram was slaughtered in an offer to God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog: God gave his Son to us, to the world.
In the same way he gave the ram to Abraham.
And then the ram was slaughtered in an offer to God.
Precisely.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, it was a sacrifice asked for by God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: Yes, it was a sacrifice asked for by God.
Great. I want to have nothing to do with that God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Why? Have you gone through your Bible and deleted every single reference to sacrifice - including all those that refer to Jesus Christ?
You can of course do that but what's left will be be a very different Faith to the one we now by Scripture and Tradition.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: Why? Have you gone through your Bible and deleted every single reference to sacrifice - including all those that refer to Jesus Christ?
I guess you should know by now that there are different ways in how we see the Bible and which place we give it in our faith. And even given that, this thread has shown that there are different ways in which we can interpret the references to sacrifice in it.
quote:
Mudfrog: You can of course do that but what's left will be be a very different Faith to the one we now by Scripture and Tradition.
I already answered your statement about Scripture above. My church doesn't have a Tradition that it recognizes as its base (although it respects Tradition as a source of inspiration). And if my faith is different than yours, then so be it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog: Yes, it was a sacrifice asked for by God.
Great. I want to have nothing to do with that God.
Don't worry. You probably haven't.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Toxic faith
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You make the case for even more attractive, if that were possible.
quote:
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: if your theory of the cross completely contradicts everything Jesus stood for and taught… it’s probably wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
I could make the 'another heresy to add to my list!' joke again, but I guess you realize by now that accusing me of heresies doesn't really disturb me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
I'm convinced that is does. ISTM, that there is an Arian trajectory in the anthropomorphic imagery of divine child abuse that many liberal protestants raise in objection to the idea of penal satisfaction in the atonement. They have a "chopped up God" and a sub-divine Jesus and therefore don't cope very well with notions of intra-trinitarian relationship.
What a load of hypocritical rubbish.
Penal substitutionist deny Jesus' humanity. That's why they have no problem with divine child abuse.
People that have trouble with it don't deny his humanity and are therefore more orthodox.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why? Have you gone through your Bible and deleted every single reference to sacrifice - including all those that refer to Jesus Christ?
You can of course do that but what's left will be be a very different Faith to the one we now by Scripture and Tradition.
You mean the one that God says I desire mercy and not sacrifice?
Come come Mudfrog. You're showing your scriptural narrow mindedness again. You do have to look at all of scripture remember?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Did God determine that the free will of some of the people would not exist? That they would necessarily do things and decide such that Jesus would get killed? Acting out the command thing?
A fair number of people are simply pawns, 2 dimensional, ignorable, and I guess God doesn't really care about them very much from this perspective?
After I recovered from this sort of theology, I understood that the killing of Jesus was what the people did, and then they explained their behaviour away excusing themselves with the notion it was all God's idea. Writing up the bible with the pamphlets/books that supported their exculpatory explanation. Well, just because God might be able to do something positive with it, doesn't mean it was either necessary nor good. I'm with LeRoc on this one. Preferring a non-asshole God.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
After I recovered from this sort of theology, I understood that the killing of Jesus was what the people did, and then they explained their behaviour away excusing themselves with the notion it was all God's idea.
Most of the scriptures don't think it was God's idea to kill Jesus. Atonement theory has put his idea onto scripture.
I was reading Acts yesterday for an exam.
It's quite clear who killed Jesus:
quote:
‘You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24But God raised him up , having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
quote:
‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
so he does not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
quote:
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. 14But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.
People killed Jesus. God raised him (according to his plan and foreknowledge - he knew Jesus would inevitably be killed by people).
Justice was denied Jesus on the cross, but God rectified that by raising him from the dead.
The book of Acts is a follow on from the Gospel of Luke of course so accords with the atonement theologies of the synoptic gospels rather with a more Johannine or Pauline version.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
It means that the Son had willingly purposed from eternity to obey the command of the Father to lay down his life for salvation of humankind. This decision was made from eternity, and wasn't just an event of pragmatic or emerging happenstance within the earthly ministry of the incarnate Son. The death of Jesus, the incarnate Son, on the cross for sin was, is and always will the will of the Trinity.
God kills godself.
That's nice.
So what?
[Edited to say: No, don't answer that. The whole theory gets totally ridiculous and unrealistic from that point on and has no bearing on reality. It's not a line of theology worth pursuing.]
[ 19. June 2013, 05:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Edited to say: No, don't answer that. The whole theory gets totally ridiculous and unrealistic from that point on and has no bearing on reality. It's not a line of theology worth pursuing.]
translation: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR ANY THEOLOGY I DISAGREE WITH LA LA LA LA LA
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian. It relies upon semi-Arian notions of coercion between a sub-divine Jesus and an evil Father.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Edited to say: No, don't answer that. The whole theory gets totally ridiculous and unrealistic from that point on and has no bearing on reality. It's not a line of theology worth pursuing.]
translation: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR ANY THEOLOGY I DISAGREE WITH LA LA LA LA LA
I've heard it. Tons of times.
I just no longer feel the need to listen to garbage.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Compare and contrast:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't know if we agree. You just keep restating your opinions and not engaging with mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've heard it. Tons of times.
I just no longer feel the need to listen to garbage.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian. It relies upon semi-Arian notions of coercion between a sub-divine Jesus and an evil Father.
Yes, and it's that very sub-trinitarian position that is being argued against by such as Martin. Now you might well feel that a straw man is being attacked here, but the grounds on which it is being attacked are that it comes across as being christologically "low" rather than "high".
In other words, both sides are appealing to a high christology in support of two diametrically opposed positions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
I love the prefiguring of Jesus in the Abraham story.
Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
In my book the significance of the Abraham/Isaac incident is that it demonstrated that the God of the patriarch did not demand human sacrifice. That is one reason why I find the notion that God the Father could only be satisfied through human blood sacrifice rather strange.
I think it is a mistake to conflate the idea of the shedding of blood in sacrifice with satisfaction. That is a pagan, not a Jewish, understanding. The purpose of OT sacrifice was that it was supposed to point people back to the covenant. It was the covenant that saved, and the shedding of blood had the same function as a seal on that covenant. It ratified the terms and conditions of both parties, and affirmed their assent to them. That is why there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. It's not that "someone must be punished to pay for the sin" (ie, satisfaction) but rather "sin can only be dealt with in a covenant of grace" - no-one can pay the price of forgiveness, it can only be received as a gift, but the covenant is a covenant of grace, and it has been duly ratified by the appropriate sacrifice. Of course, the twist in the tail is that the commitment of the one party, God, is that He, Himself, sheds His own blood - he is both party to the agreement and the sacrifice which ratifies it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
