I heard a minister say that “When someone says that they have the answer then we know it is time to call in the atheists to set things straight.”
I have no idea why you say that I won’t allow anyone to argue my hypothesis. Who’s stopping you? At least I’m not hiding behind some mumbo-jumbo pie-in-the-sky statement. That may be your idea of “our life” and if it is I don’t agree. It is actually very close to what Marx called the “opiate of the people”. Where do we send our money to find out how, when and where to find Love?
In the Jewish faith ( as practiced in the time of the bible), much stock was set in the idea of the scapegoat. NOTHING is free. There had to be payment made for each wrong done, and for each sin committed. Since it is impossible for everyone to make up for each individual sin they commit, it was necessary to have one big scapegoat for everyone. Hence Jesus. By the beliefs of the Jews, God could not just say “you are forgiven”. Someone HAD to pay for the sins that had been committed. Jesus was the ultimate scapegoat.
one thing that always makes me giggle is when christians tell me “god made the ultimate sacrifice of his son for our sins.” … well, when jesus died, where did he go? Right back to heaven with daddy. God didn’t lose anything… he got his son back. If jesus were in hell burning for eternity for OUR sins… that would be something. But just dying on the cross and then going back to heaven doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice to me. In fact, i’m sure god was really happen when his son “came home.”
I am always amused when chess players tell me they have sacrificed their queen… well, where did their queen go? Right back on the board when they pushed the pawn to the eighth rank! I’m also amused when people say that so-and-so sacrificed his life for a friend… well, where did their friend go? Right on to Heaven to sit at God’s right hand! Phooey! And what about those mothers who say they sacrificed for their children? Where’s the sacrifice? I mean, they got their children’s love and adoration didn’t they?
kniz
You’re entitled to your opinion means that you’re entitled to your opinion. In my opinion means that what follows is my opinion. Somehow, you interpreted those to mean that I assert that my opinion is right and yours is worthless.
My opinion is that Jesus is telling the truth when He says, “He who believes in me shall not perish, but shall have life everlasting.” That was my opinion, and is not to be construed as binding on you or anyone else. You have your own decisions to make in these matters without my judgment bearing upon them.
I don’t have Internet access on the weekends, so I never get into these interesting discussions until they are well started. I hope I don’t offend anyone by jumping into the middle of all this starting at the OP. I am not trying to ignore any of the excellent answers that precede me.
I pause here. I don’t begrudge the thread; I like talking about this stuff, and it is a legitimate question. But keep in mind that we are almost sure to get it wrong, no matter how we try to figure it out. This is hard stuff. But also keep in mind that it doesn’t matter. Jesus did not say, “Come unto Me, and if you get the right answers on the test, and figure everything out correctly, I’ll let you into Heaven with any score above 90%.” I am going to repeat a lot of my standard themes in this message, so here comes the first: the relationship is what matters, not the theological niceties. However it works, one thing we know: this guy hung up on a cross for us, for me. The center of that is its ability to reach out and grab me with it’s love, to repair the relationship that I damage daily each time I turn away from Him. Everything else I say here is decidedly secondary.
I actually think you are pretty close.
Two more of my themes are: the Bible is hard because it has to speak to all people, in all times, in all lands; and God works not in scientific fact (all the time), but in myth, metaphor, and story, twisting us around to face Him with things that grab at our deepest roots — if we let them.
Blood is a powerful thing. It was (and is) even more powerful for the Hebrews of that time (and now) then it is for us. But we know the power of a friend that throws himself on a grenade so that his buddies can live. That someone bleeds and dies for us is that kind of life turning, wrenching around thing, something that can repair our broken relationship and make us whole again after any kind of sin. It speaks to the Jewish and Pagan rites of sacrifice, making Him a sacrifice for all of us, once and for all (and the Bible talks about this aspect of it again and again). It clearly makes Him an innocent in a world of guilt, placing him squarely against the powers that be in the world, lifting up the poor, the downtrodden, and the spat upon for all time. Nothing has been more uplifting to more beaten, wretched people than Christ on the cross. Slavery, civil rights, and a great many other evils have been fought and changed not through miracles, but through the simple image of Him suffering for us, without violence or hatred.
I honestly think there is something else going on here as well, something mysterious that I don’t understand, something magical and miraculous beyond my ken. But I don’t need to understand that part. The first part is enough. My Lord died for me, and cared enough for me to not only die for me, but to live again for me (which is often much harder, as any cancer victim will tell you). That is more than enough; enough to create a universe and keep me past its ending.
We will never know all the details of the Big Transaction. I submit we know enough: that there was love at the heart of it, and love bursting from it, enough love to lighten the entire cosmos. As the bishop said to the actress, further I need not inquire.
That’s all I offered. Kniz, I don’t care if you agree with it or not. You’re not hurting me by picking at what I wrote, as it’s not a belief that I hold in the first place. I was attempting to help Milo, per his request, not satisfy your personal theology. I would, however, offer you some food for thought.
I am not aware of any instances in the Bible, even in Job, where it is stated that God enjoys watching his children suffer. If you know of one, please provide it.
So it would seem, I suppose . . . if you assume you know God’s mind.
Fine by me. So you believe that Christ’s suffering on the cross was sufficient punishment for all the sins of the World?
OK, that’s really cool, and not something I’ve encountered before. What denomination/sect/faith teaches this? I’m very interested.
Ditto this one. A very interesting belief, and not one I’ve heard before. What’s the basis?
As for the rest of your assertions (that Christ was not God, your take on faith vs. works), you believe what you wish. But don’t you dare claim to have the answer.
My understanding of the Jewish faith is that blood sacrifice was NOT necessary for atonement and saying otherwise is Christian elaboration to justify Jesus’ death. Blood sacrifice was for unintentional sin, and in Micah it states that this wasn’t necessary either (my guess is due to the destruction of the first temple). Over and over again in this thread people alude to the need for a scapegoat and for vicarious atonement in the Jewish faith, which I don’t think is the case. Maybe Chaim or Zev can elaborate on the need for sacrifice in the OT.
If sincere confession to God and restitution to the wronged party (if they exist) was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins in the OT, than what need is there for Jesus’ Big Transaction?
Cmkeller will argue that it is a mistranslation, but Dt. 28:63 says:
Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.
Read the previous chapter to see exactly what sort of ruining and destroying God is planning on doing. It’s some pretty nasty stuff.
Mayor Quimby is partially right that ancient Israelites did not see sacrifice as necessary for sin. In fact, there was a great controversy between the priests and prophets on this very issue. Needless to say the priests who benefitted from the sacrifices favored them; the prophets did not.
I am in total agreement that sacrifice is a hideous interpretation of Jesus’ life. If you’re going to be a Christian, you can at least take Luke’s argument that the resurrection was intended to right the injustice of the crucifixion.
Before posting on any other subject I feel that I need to explain something that seems to have caused problems. At my age I am still working things out and about the only two things that I’ve arrived at is that 1. God is good and I need him in my life*. 2. No one has the answers.
I consider this board a means of discussing religion and to get other people’s point of view. It seems that I have given the impression that I am trying to force something across, when I’m not and that is why I am writing this.
If I say I believe then that is my opinion and I don’t expect anyone to accept it. In fact I know that some of my beliefs are a little off the wall.
I have also made statements that aren’t my opinion or belief for the purpose of giving an opposing view.
Lib and andros are the main members that this is aimed at, but I offer my apologies to anyone I have offended. I have learned something from every poster and hope that some of my posts will give someone food for thought (and nothing more).
*In my opinion, God is what is in your heart and not necessarily how he is depicted in the bible (however that does not mean that the bible is always wrong).
Because Christians have misinterpreted Jewish teaching to say that sacrifice is neccesary for forgiveness of sins, because that gives Jesus’s death meaning.
I did not mean to give the impression that I was picking on you. I realize that you were not stating your own beliefs and maybe that caused me not to make it clearer that I meant no malice toward you or what you said.
One problem that I have with the bible is that He does at times treat his children differently. There are numerous cases where their enemies don’t get the same treatment.
This was for things that had been done by the Amalekites’ ancestors. The Israelites might have thought this was great, but to me the Azalekites may not have been the chosen but they deserved God’s love just as much. Since I am not Jewish then the Azalekites may have been my ancestors and I’m not sure how many generations ago.
Also this shows that I am not the only person that thinks the Book of Job applies:
**
This one was semantics and my fault. I would not have gotten confused if your original had said "God says our sins must be paid for in some manner.
However here is a biblical verse I would think is relevant:
I goofed here because I don’t believe this but said I did. This is an example of my giving what I’ve been taught in church (Methodist). I have been a Methodist for many years and have taken bible studies. What Jesus did for those three days has never been mentioned, so as far as I know the suffering on the cross was enough. They do not refer to it in the Apostles Creed and neither did the Presbyterians when I last attended.
I’d never heard the Apostle’s Creed before I went to an Episcopalian college, which required 35 daily chapels and 7 Sundy services per semester (I was Presbyterian). I took Religion 101/2) and learned about Jesus and Limbo. It was also mentioned in English when we covered Dante. In looking this up I found out that Calvin* didn’t agree with what I was taught. I still remember going home and they had started saying the Creed and I said “and he descended into Hell” and all eyes turned to me.
As to the rest, those were my opinions that you cited, but the very last thing I think was church doctrine. I will believe what I wish and I want you to believe what you wish and I think that when we find out the answers that what we were supposed to do is seek the truth and it will… I’m too tired to look that one up.
Fair enough, kniz . . . no harm, no foul. I’m very sorry if I sounded pissy.
IIRC, the Methodis Hymnal used to have a little asterisk in the Apostles Creed with “and descended into Hell” as an option. I’ve been to a couple of Methodist churches that say it as a matter of course, but not many.
I wasn’t aware that the Episcopalians taught limbo/purgatory, though I’m not too surprised. I’ll have to ask the SO–she was Episcopalian for a while.
In case you’re interested, the issue of “faith vs. works” has been debated since Pauline times–though you’re right that most mainstream Christian sects now embrace salvation by faith alone. Sadly, may do so at the expense of being nice people, and few understand that while good works can exist without faith in Christ, the latter is not the case.
No problem. We’re all, strike that, most of us are still learning. Others are not able, say, to understand the difference between the eternal Life of the Spirit, which is the Life that Jesus has saved, and a seventy year fart in the wind — even if you have explained it many times.
There are a few people around here who are positively anal about having others prefacing every philosophical statement with an opinion disclaimer. There are others who will tease a person for doing so. I’m fast learning that you can’t please everyone.
Actually, sacrifice was an essential part of traditional Jewish lore. See Genesis, see Leviticus, see Deuteronomy. It was ESSENTIAL in many cases to have a blood sacrifice. How can you not read the bible and see this? God suggests that Abraham sacrifice his son (hah…great joke God). Blood sacrifice was a major theme in many parts of the OT. Christ supposedly was the last one necessary. The grand daddy of them all. So now, sacrifice is no longer necessary. But it is quite clear that it was a very big part of Jewish beliefs.
Tornado Siren:
Please tell me were I said that sacrifice was not a part of the OT? I believe I said that in Judaism, blood sacrifice was not necessary for the atonement of sins. In fact, blood sacrifice was not sufficeint for sins committed intentionally. The verse I alluded to was in Hosea (not Micah) that says in the absence of the temple (which was an essential component for sacrifice) prayer would suffice for the atonement of sins. And human sacrifice was expressely forbidden. Sacrifice wasn’t necessary long before Jesus came along, and a man’s death could not atone for sin, ever.
If you can tell me where blood sacrifice was ESSENTIAL, please correct me. But I guarantee that a learned Jew would tell you that you are quite wrong and more than likely misinterpreting something or taking it out of context.
And again, this is my understanding of Judaism. I’m quite aware of the Christian stance on the whole deal, but it seems more of a Pagan concept than a Jewish one. The difference of sacrificing a baby to a god because it was sinless and a man because he was (supposedly) sinless is what?
But I like what you are saying and would love to see some confirmation. I’m not questioning you or asking you to put up or shut up, just simply because I’m interested.
