Oh yeah, that’s right–he must have forgotten that there are no protestants around. Certainly not in the US. Nope. OK, maybe three. Well, at least 40–given that every Pres of the US except Kennedy was (am I right here? Was there one other). And maybe some of the people who voted for them.
I mean, who put the “P” is WASP?
(all together now) “Protestants”
(FTR, I’m not one.)
oh and gigi,
this sounds exactly like the exhortations of the priest which started the whole thing going in my head.
It most certainly is a widely held belief. It may not be the most widely held belief, but there are many millions of Protestants who will tell you that Adam’s actions caused God to punish all mankind. While the RCC may have more adherents worldwide than any single Protestant denomination, do they have more than all other denominations? Even if so, is Truth subject to popular vote?
That’s just it–you can’t use anthropomorphizing to “analyze” God’s actions. You’re starting from a false perspective. God is. He “is who is”. He is not human or ruled by human norms. Even if you take the flood as God’s punishment, it’s anthropomorphizing to believe that He did it out of anger, rather than justice. God is, regardless of the changes man goes through. Even if no one believed in Him, He would still “be” the same. Jesus suffered and died for our sins so we could be saved, so God is not angry that He was put to death. Sorry I can’t do more than agree with the homilist, but it seems that judging God using human standards is faulty from the beginning.
You are right – forget what I said.
It would seem to me that it was, in fact, part of the plan. From the prophecy of Isaiah, ch. 53, RSV:
It’s important to remember that this is Old Testament scripture–that is to say, it’s not a post-crucifixion rationalization of why we did our awful things, but a pre-Messianic prophecy of God’s will for His son and His people.
The whole argument hinges, of course, on whether we accept Isaiah’s message as true prophecy, that is, as the word of God given to man. But inasmuch as Jesus made frequent reference to it (and in doing so, affirmed its veracity), to the degree that we accept Jesus’ story, we ought to accept Isaiah’s prophecy.
Respectfully,
Ben
Isn’t there a pronoun missing here? Is he making for himself an offering for sin, or making of himself an offering for sin? Sounds like a stretch of translation to me. Does anyone know where I can find an english translation of the OT online without a christian slant?
mipsman said:
Wrong.
As Ptahlis has already demonstrated, I was perfectly accurate in what I said. And if you doubt it, please point the specific part that is wrong. Otherwise, I will await the retraction of your accusation that I made “(probably) deliberate misunderstanding of their beliefs.”
Actually David B., you might very well have looked into some one’s soul and seen what he or she believes. If that is the case, I’ll stand corrected.
I don’t need to look into somebody’s soul (which would be difficult, since there is no evidence they actually exist). You see, there is something called a message board – perhaps you’ve heard of it? And people on these message boards talk to each other. In one that has an area for “Great Debates,” people often tell of their religious beliefs.
Amazing!
jmullaney-
No missing pronoun. The idea that God made himself (in the person of Jesus of Nazareth) a sacrificial offering for the reconciliation of man to himself is a fundamental tenent of many Christian faiths.
The bits I quoted were taken from the Revised Standard Version available online at the University of Virginia’s eText Center. The RSV is the generally accepted scholarly translation.
Respectfully,
Ben
Thanks, Ben. I don’t know, but at http://bible.gospelcom.net/, almost every major translation of this text comes out different. I am exactly suspicious because this translation just happens to support this tenet of some xtian faiths. I would be curious to see what the translation of this book would say in English if done for Judaism also, but I have been unable to find this online anywhere (I’ve found some of the OT, but not this book.)
Noticed the same thing immediately after posting last reply… the KJV goes into “thou” making a sacrifice. At best, that muddies the waters.
The best I can hope for is to read the passage in context. Since the rest of the chapter is about the “he” upon whom God laid our iniquities, and since I believe the “he” to be Jesus, God himself, then the conclusion about God making himself an offering for sin follows quite naturally.
I’ll keep reading.
Thanks for demanding accuracy,
Ben
Every one is different. Sometimes, he himself offers himself for sin. Sometimes, you offer him for sin. Sometimes, the Lord offers him for sin. Sometimes, he offers his soul for sin. Sometimes, he offers his soul for guilt. Sometimes, you offer his soul for guilt. None of them seem to make clear the “he” is supposed to someone be also “He” (i.e. God) except for one translation which merely capitalizes “he.” The word “for” also has a dozen different meanings in English – I fail to see why the translation can not be more exact. Because of? In exchange for? In order to recieve? Or as you might gloss it, to free from?
I wouldn’t say we’ve entirely entered the realm of Nostrodomus-like twisted translations-- but it sounds like Isaiah could be describing almost any saint or prophet (at least male ones) put to their death for their beliefs.
JMullaney
Please understand that a translation is not (necessarily) a transliteration, and in fact, a transliteration is (more often than not) a mistranslation.
I translated John for myself form the original Greek, and I know that the NIV is a very good translation of the New Testament. Not sure about Hebrew, but I did know (and do trust) one of the NIV Hebrew scholars, whom we called “the Reverend Doctor Doctor”.
Strongs gives Isaiah 53:10 this way: “02654 03068 01792 02470 07760 05315 0817 07200 02233 0748 03117 02656 03068 06743 03027”
Transliterated, that becomes: “(Yet it pleased) (the Lord) (to bruise) (make him grieve) (when you shall make) (his soul) (an offering for sin) (he shall see) (his seed) (he shall prolong) (his days) (the pleasure) (of the Lord) (shall prosper) (in his hand)”
The Hebrew (using English letters and symbols) is given as: “chaphets Y@hovah daka’ chalah suwm nephesh 'asham ra’ah zera` 'arak yowm chephets Y@hovah tsalach yad”
The NIV gives this translation: “Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.”
Hope that clears it up.
:eyes glazed over: Um, OK.
But, yes – thanks for clearing that up. It makes perfect sense to me that Hebrew would have one word for “offering for sin.” Sorry to have prattled on y’all.
JMullaney
If you were translating “John was beating his brains out to solve the puzzle” into another language, you would say (in that language) “John was trying intently to sovle the puzzle”. The literal translation (or transliteration) might cause some misunderstandings.