So Why Is The Gospel Still An Offense?

[sleepy_lioness]

There's a reasonable overview of what's known in theology as 'theories of the atonement', ie, theorizing about why Jesus died, here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm

 

[Elizabeth I]

No, I'm not saying this. I think that it's reasonably certain that a man called Jesus lived in Palestine and was crucified by the Romans for political agitation.

Them's the bare facts. What I'm saying is that Christians from the earliest days right up to the present have disagreed over the meaning and reasons for that crucifixion. That the interpretation that Jesus died as blood sacrifice to propritiate an angry God is just that, an interpretation, a way of making sense of the bare facts. One interpretation among several. And that the Christian position is that Jesus's death and resurrection is a mystery which we can't fully understand, and that all our ways of interpreting it, including as blood sacrifice, are only partial.

Whether it leaves him angry and vengeful or not, it still makes God pretty cruel and bloodthirsty, wouldn't you say? Or maybe disturbingly masochistic?

 

[truethat]

No, I'm not saying this. I think that it's reasonably certain that a man called Jesus lived in Palestine and was crucified by the Romans for political agitation.

Them's the bare facts. What I'm saying is that Christians from the earliest days right up to the present have disagreed over the meaning and reasons for that crucifixion. That the interpretation that Jesus died as blood sacrifice to propritiate an angry God is just that, an interpretation, a way of making sense of the bare facts. One interpretation among several. And that the Christian position is that Jesus's death and resurrection is a mystery which we can't fully understand, and that all our ways of interpreting it, including as blood sacrifice, are only partial.

I think you aren't seeing the obvious. You are over thinking this. It doesn't matter if the death has since been rendered metaphorical, the actual acceptance of death and murder for payment of sins IS a blood sacrifice.

It isn't a matter of interpretation on the actual reality. It is just that most Christians will ebb away from what is clearly obvious.

I mean if you go into a Catholic Church you will see a ritual altar with a dead body thrown up on the cross. The Eucharist is a cannibalistic symbolic rendering of pagan ritual, "eat of his flesh, drink of his blood."

Other Christians might dandily skip past the gory bits, but it still right there plain and simple. God demanded a blood sacrifice (or a killing) for the forgiveness of sins.


It isn't about what WE as people choose to interpret, it is what God said. It is plain as day.



One more thing, God demanded blood sacrifices elsewhere in the bible like in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was willing to do it so it couldn't have been that unusual.

This was a barbaric blood thirsty evil God and modern Christians have dragged this mutilated corpse into the modern era and tried to gussy it up by focusing on Jesus after he had risen again. But he was clearly murdered for our sins as God demanded. No and ifs or buts about it.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I may well be overthinking - people have often told me I have a tendency to intellectualize.

However, I'm not saying anything original or shocking - this is standard first-year-at-college theology. There's a whole sub-area of theology called 'soteriology' which studies the death of Christ and how it relates or doesn't to the salvation of humanity.

I think we have different terms of reference here, truethat. You make assertions like 'it is what God said. It is plain as day' or 'It isn't a matter of interpretation on the actual reality', which imply to me that you believe that we can know God and his plans directly, even while you seem to have a strong aversion to them. I put to you that this isn't the case.

OK, here's how I see it.

Actual reality: Jewish priests sacrificed lambs in the Temple at Passover.
Interpretation of why this happened: Either 1. God exists and has weird ideas about murdering lambs (literalist view), or 2. the Scriptures which mandate this give an account of how early Israelites understood their relationship with God, in light of the common religious practice at the time of sacrifice for propritiation, or, 3. of course, God doesn't exist and they made it up.

Now, of those options, I choose Option 2, as do many (most, historically speaking?) Christians. You, however, seem to be advocating Option 1.

A similar thing applies with Jesus's death. I think that theories which say Jesus was a blood sacrifice are religious rationalisations or explanations of the actual fact of his death.

Your example of the Eucharist seems to make this even clearer. There are a lot of debates about the status of religious language. The various theories of the Eucharist (transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, Real Presence, symbolism) and so on, all seem to be theological interpretations of Christ's original institution of the Last Supper, as described in the Gospels. Whether you're a Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, when the president at the Eucharist says 'this is my body' s/he is not making a simple statement of fact as if s/he was describing what s/he had for breakfast. Even the Catholics talk of the mystery of the Eucharist.

Of course, many fundamentalists and literalists have mistaken the map for the territory and speak as though various theories and bits of religious language - Christ's death as blood sacrifice, or transsubstantiation at the Eucharist - were propositional statements rather than interpretations of a bigger mystery. However, I would argue that they do not represent the whole of Christianity, by any means. And that I am being entirely orthodox in saying so.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I may well be overthinking - people have often told me I have a tendency to intellectualize.

However, I'm not saying anything original or shocking - this is standard first-year-at-college theology. There's a whole sub-area of theology called 'soteriology' which studies the death of Christ and how it relates or doesn't to the salvation of humanity.

I think we have different terms of reference here, truethat. You make assertions like 'it is what God said. It is plain as day' or 'It isn't a matter of interpretation on the actual reality', which imply to me that you believe that we can know God and his plans directly, even while you seem to have a strong aversion to them. I put to you that this isn't the case.

OK, here's how I see it.

Actual reality: Jewish priests sacrificed lambs in the Temple at Passover.
Interpretation of why this happened: Either 1. God exists and has weird ideas about murdering lambs (literalist view), or 2. the Scriptures which mandate this give an account of how early Israelites understood their relationship with God, in light of the common religious practice at the time of sacrifice for propritiation, or, 3. of course, God doesn't exist and they made it up.

Now, of those options, I choose Option 2, as do many (most, historically speaking?) Christians. You, however, seem to be advocating Option 1.

A similar thing applies with Jesus's death. I think that theories which say Jesus was a blood sacrifice are religious rationalisations or explanations of the actual fact of his death.

Your example of the Eucharist seems to make this even clearer. There are a lot of debates about the status of religious language. The various theories of the Eucharist (transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, Real Presence, symbolism) and so on, all seem to be theological interpretations of Christ's original institution of the Last Supper, as described in the Gospels. Whether you're a Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, when the president at the Eucharist says 'this is my body' s/he is not making a simple statement of fact as if s/he was describing what s/he had for breakfast. Even the Catholics talk of the mystery of the Eucharist.

Of course, many fundamentalists and literalists have mistaken the map for the territory and speak as though various theories and bits of religious language - Christ's death as blood sacrifice, or transsubstantiation at the Eucharist - were propositional statements rather than interpretations of a bigger mystery. However, I would argue that they do not represent the whole of Christianity, by any means. And that I am being entirely orthodox in saying so.

You still seem to be waving off the actual facts of the manner of Jesus' death. "Yes, I know we might think this to be brutal, but in God's plan it's actually all bunnies and tulips."

 

[truethat]

You are not intellectualizing, you are "rationalizing" which is two different things.

Of course from a religious end people are going to render as "metaphor" what is unethical behavior. There are only two courses of action in this kind of problem: either state "God has a plan" or state "It was only a metaphor"

However it is pretty stupid to suggest that Jesus Metaphorically died for our sins. OF COURSE the "forgiveness of sins" part was metaphorical, but he actually was nailed to a cross and died in order to manifest or symbolize this gesture.

You are suggesting that he didn't DIE? You aren't making any sense at all.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

You still seem to be waving off the actual facts of the manner of Jesus' death. "Yes, I know we might think this to be brutal, but in God's plan it's actually all bunnies and tulips."

I don't actually think I am. I don't know why Christ died - I accept that it's a mystery about which we can tell stories (including blood sacrifice) and that it has something to do with living in a world full of sin, but that's all. Christ's death was just as brutal if it was about setting us an example of what pure self-giving love looks like, after all. In fact, I think that the Gospels tell us that Christ died cut off from God, in utter despair (my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?) - not that he knew it was all part of some great over-arching plan.

I don't know any more than that, and I don't know how (if) Christ's death relates to God's plan at all.

 

[truethat]

So you suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross for the sins of man? I don't think you will find too many Christians that agree with that sentiment.

I just want to be clear


You think Jesus's death had nothing to do with atonement for sin?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

You are not intellectualizing, you are "rationalizing" which is two different things.

Of course from a religious end people are going to render as "metaphor" what is unethical behavior. There are only two courses of action in this kind of problem: either state "God has a plan" or state "It was only a metaphor"

However it is pretty stupid to suggest that Jesus Metaphorically died for our sins. OF COURSE the "forgiveness of sins" part was metaphorical, but he actually was nailed to a cross and died in order to manifest or symbolize this gesture.

You are suggesting that he didn't DIE? You aren't making any sense at all.

No, as I've said, he did die. He was a man and he died a hard, agonising death. It's the 'for our sins' bit that is the interpretation. I don't disagree with you here.

I think our disagreement may relate more to Bible interpretation (literalism vs historical-critical and other approaches) and/or to Christology (who Christ was, whether he was human and/or divine and in what measure, what his self-understanding of his mission was, etc). Perhaps I am starting from Jesus the man, while you're starting from Christ the divine. And I'm starting from the premise that the Bible is a book written by diverse humans in which they tell us their experiences of God, while you're starting from the premise that it really tells us what God thinks about stuff in a single coherent message. I don't know.

I suppose my theology here could be summed up as '**** happens, then people tell stories about it'. The historical man Jesus died under the Romans for being a political agitator, and Christians then interpreted his death in various ways, ONE of which was as a continuation and fulfillment of OT sacrificial practice. This ONE was really invented in the C11th and, while popular today, is by no means full and sufficient on its own.

Anyhow, gotta go - Evensong.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

So you suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross for the sins of man? I don't think you will find too many Christians that agree with that sentiment.

I just want to be clear


You think Jesus's death had nothing to do with atonement for sin?

I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I think that because of sin Jesus died on the cross. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was a 'blood sacrifice', however. Did you read the link I gave upthread about theories of the atonement?

I also think you'll find that, again, all I'm telling you is first-year college theology. I'm not a radical here, I'm being entirely orthodox. That *you* have experienced Christians saying and doing other things doesn't change this fact.

 

[Hokulele]

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by this - could you explain a bit further and I'll try to answer?

Sure, it is the whole James vs. Paul, Catholicism vs. Protestantism debate over which is more important to a Christian, belief or actions. Metaphorical or not, it is what Jesus did, not what he believed, that is supposed to be important. The words he cries out at the end as recorded in Mark can be interpreted to mean that even Jesus can lose faith.

KK is a classic example of someone who believes that faith is more important than works.

 

[truethat]

I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I think that because of sin Jesus died on the cross. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was a 'blood sacrifice', however. Did you read the link I gave upthread about theories of the atonement?

I also think you'll find that, again, all I'm telling you is first-year college theology. I'm not a radical here, I'm being entirely orthodox. That *you* have experienced Christians saying and doing other things doesn't change this fact.

Yes I did and it means nothing. I think you just don't like the reality of what a blood sacrifice means.

If he died on the cross, do you suggest he didn't die? Are you suggesting that God didn't want him to die and tried to prevent it?

Since I'm going for a second Masters in Divinity, as part of my theological education, I don't agree that this is first year college theology. What college do you go to that teaches Jesus didn't die on the cross fulfilling the requirement set by God?

Unless you are claiming Jesus was not the messiah, in which case we're not talking Christianity.

You seem to be jumping back and forth. Instead of sending me to a site perhaps paraphrase what you think the difference is?

 

[Elizabeth I]

I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I think that because of sin Jesus died on the cross. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was a 'blood sacrifice', however. Did you read the link I gave upthread about theories of the atonement?

I also think you'll find that, again, all I'm telling you is first-year college theology. I'm not a radical here, I'm being entirely orthodox. That *you* have experienced Christians saying and doing other things doesn't change this fact.

So is this your position?

• Somebody - an actual historical person - named Jesus was crucified by the Romans for political agitation.
  
• The Jesus who was crucified might or might not be the Christian Jesus.
  
• If the crucified Jesus were the Christian Jesus, he might or might not have been crucified as atonement for humanity's sins but he was crucified "because of sin." (What does that even mean?)
  
• If the crucified Jesus were the Christian Jesus, his crucifixion might or might not have been part of God's plan.
  
• Whatever happened, mere humans can't hope to understand it because God is ineffable.

It really looks to me like you are creating mysteries (in the religious sense), no matter how "basic" the theology, in order to hide from yourself the fact that a loving, omipotent, omniscient God allowed - if not caused - terrible cruelty in his name; and to hide the fact that these things (God is omipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and at the same time a brutal, jealous deity) can not be true at once.

If, boiled down to the bones, your argument is "we can't understand God's mind," and you are satisfied with it, that's fine, but shouldn't you say that instead of going through all this stuff about how other people have interpreted Jesus' death?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I suppose my theology here could be summed up as '**** happens, then people tell stories about it'. The historical man Jesus died under the Romans for being a political agitator, and Christians then interpreted his death in various ways, ONE of which was as a continuation and fulfillment of OT sacrificial practice. This ONE was really invented in the C11th and, while popular today, is by no means full and sufficient on its own.

Anyhow, gotta go - Evensong.

Lioness, with all due respect, even the first version of the Nicene Creed (you know, 325 AD) includes that (A) Jesus came down for our salvation, (B) suffered and died _for_ _us_, and (C) that the whole death and resurrection thing fulfilled the scripture's prophecies. (Ok, they said the resurrection in the exact creed text, but it makes no sense to foretell a resurrection without a death

Now you can trace some changes and differences between eastern and roman versions at the time, culminating with the great schism in the 11'th century. Most notably the "and the son" addition in a couple of places, which played a great role in that schism.

But none of that affected what I wrote in that first paragraph.

So maybe some details of the interpretation were from the 11'th century or later, but the idea that Jesus had to die for the sins of the humans was there all along. (And God said it in advance, supposedly.) You know, ever since they standardized wth _does_ a christian believ in.

Not to mention that it's in the Bible itself.

So maybe it's debatable whether you want to call it a blood sacrifice or not, but I don't think anyone can take a position of basically "maybe he died for our sins, or maybe not" and still really call himself/herself a Christian.

And even if we take the position of "or maybe it was just an unnecessary death", then the whole thing becomes even more weird. Then why the heck does God want him to die a horrible death anyway? Just as a sadistic entertainment?

 

[Neverfly]

In the days prior to Christ, the Jews had to Slaughter a lamb for God. This blood sacrifice was to atone for sin.

In Christianity, Jesus was considered the Lamb. He is very often referred to as such. Essentially, he replaced the blood sacrifice of the lamb.

 

[truethat]

In the days prior to Christ, the Jews had to Slaughter a lamb for God. This blood sacrifice was to atone for sin.

In Christianity, Jesus was considered the Lamb. He is very often referred to as such. Essentially, he replaced the blood sacrifice of the lamb.

Exactly. I do know, that some religions take it more literally than others but the bottom line is there.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In the days prior to Christ, the Jews had to Slaughter a lamb for God. This blood sacrifice was to atone for sin.

In Christianity, Jesus was considered the Lamb. He is very often referred to as such. Essentially, he replaced the blood sacrifice of the lamb.

Yes, but. after the lamb was sacrificed by having its throat cut and a light searing, its body was taken round the back of the temple and turned into lamb chops, leg-o-lamb and lamb stew for the delight of the priests. Does this mean the explanation for "the empty tomb" was that JC's remains were treated the same way? and and ing.

 

[Robin]

In the days prior to Christ, the Jews had to Slaughter a lamb for God. This blood sacrifice was to atone for sin.

In Christianity, Jesus was considered the Lamb. He is very often referred to as such. Essentially, he replaced the blood sacrifice of the lamb.

In every Catholic Eucharist for example are the words "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" repeated three times.

 

[Minarvia]

In every Catholic Eucharist for example are the words "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" repeated three times.

In the Methodist church my sister-in-law attends they also have the Eucharist and say that Jesus said to his disciples the "this is my body, this is my blood which shall be shed for you," thing and then they take the bread and wine.

 

[truethat]

Lioness will argue that these are branches off of Christianity that emphasized the pagan rituals, however even if you disregard the gross demonstrations of this aspect, even in the mildest of religions if you ask a Christian why Jesus died on the cross it will be "to take away the sins of the world" if you ask why they usually will say God needed a blood sacrifice. I'm not sure who wouldn't but I guess some people might not, maybe Mormons? But in general Jesus was regarded as a blood sacrifice.