Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-10-2013, 05:15 PM

Discussion of authors of Petrine letters split

Sheshbazzar · 03-10-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Here are two Scriptures that convey the purpose of "dying for the sake of our sins":

Acts 3:25 - 3:26

(25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which יהוה made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first יהוה, having raised up his Son Yahushua, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

And:

2Tim 2:19

Nevertheless the foundation of יהוה standeth sure, having this seal, יהוה knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of the Messiah depart from iniquity.

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel. KB

Too bad it never worked.

spin · 03-10-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:56 PM

Quote:

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

It was the Lawgiver apologizing, repenting.

spin · 03-10-2013, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

It was the Lawgiver apologizing, repenting.

Why don't you explain that for Ken?

jakejonesiv · 03-10-2013, 10:42 PM

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps in a different context, so here it is again.

Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. (cf Eph. 1:7-8).

One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. Indeed, an all powerful God could simply forgive sins by divine fiat without anyone having to die.

The ransom is an indication that Christian origins were fundamentally dualistic (and hence "heretical" by orthodox standards). The highest God was not conceived-at least in the current age--to have authority over the powers of darkness (i.e. the god of this world and his minions), and thus had to bargain with that entity in order to secure the release of those who believed in Jesus.

But this doesn't work out too well for the orthodox Christianity theology.

They must say God paid a ransom to himself to satisfy his requirements for justice or some such nonsense. That the very God who casts souls into hell (blaming the victim for something over which they have no control) would then kill himself, or his divine Son, or an innocent man, or some combination of all of these is incomprehensible.

The proto-orthodox have a very hard time explaining to whom the ransom was paid. Clearly it was to the "god of this world" whether he be called the Demiurge or Satan.
Did any early Christian sect(s) believe this? The answer is yes, absolutely. But they lost the doctrinal wars of the 2nd thru 4th centuries.

Jake

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 10:49 PM

But at the core of Judaism is the concept of redemption too. I don't follow how this proves 'dualism' at the heart of Christianity. Isn't a straight line the best way to travel from point A to point B.

jakejonesiv · 03-10-2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at the core of Judaism is the concept of redemption too. I don't follow how this proves 'dualism' at the heart of Christianity. Isn't a straight line the best way to travel from point A to point B.

To whom was the ransom of Jesus paid?

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 11:44 PM

Obviously I don't know the answer. But I know that the Marcionite redemption rite is Jewish - lifted from the pages of Philo of Alexandria's treatment of Jacob at Bethel.

stephan huller · 03-11-2013, 12:04 AM

I was never able to reconcile this with the idea of a death of God on the Cross but that's all that is left for me to explain Marcionitism as a development of Alexandrian Judaism. Here's what I wrote after I had my revelation here at this forum developing one of my many thousand otherwise inane threads:

Quote:

This Jewish interpretation of Jacob 'switching' gods - going from 'the just Lord' to the 'kind God' at Bethel - must have included a specific liturgy for proselytes. The manner in which Philo and Clement present the theological understanding seems already connected to an establish gradiation within the synagogal community. One begins with fear of the just Lord and faith and then ultimately progresses to the 'love' of the kind God.

It would be interesting to see if Jacob's experience at Bethel is anywhere described as an 'adoption.' So too with respect to a specific commemorative date in the liturgical calendar. For the moment at least it is worth noting that we aren't even close to fully understanding Marcionite redemption. The major task at hand for us is to explain how Jesus's crucifixion = the redemption. In the words of Adolf von Harnack:

This much, however, is unmistakable, that Marcion succeeded in placing the greatness and uniqueness of redemption through Christ in the clearest light and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ, but chiefly in his death upon the cross. http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...edemption.html

About a year before this I was able to explain the Marcionite interest in Chrestos from Philo (also from my participation at this forum):

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...terest-in.html

and then the aforementioned Marcionite doctrine of redemption as it came from Philo of Alexandria:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ndria-was.html

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...anity-and.html

As I said, I am not sure death was ever a part of this understanding. I can't see how that comes from Philo. Maybe the death passages were later Catholic interpolations. Haven't looked at this stuff for a while. But I am sure you will see I got at least 75 % of core Marcionitism as developing from Philo or Alexandrian Judaism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2013, 05:15 PM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Discussion of authors of Petrine letters split

03-10-2013, 10:42 PM	#36
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps in a different context, so here it is again. Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. (cf Eph. 1:7-8). One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. Indeed, an all powerful God could simply forgive sins by divine fiat without anyone having to die. The ransom is an indication that Christian origins were fundamentally dualistic (and hence "heretical" by orthodox standards). The highest God was not conceived-at least in the current age--to have authority over the powers of darkness (i.e. the god of this world and his minions), and thus had to bargain with that entity in order to secure the release of those who believed in Jesus. But this doesn't work out too well for the orthodox Christianity theology. They must say God paid a ransom to himself to satisfy his requirements for justice or some such nonsense. That the very God who casts souls into hell (blaming the victim for something over which they have no control) would then kill himself, or his divine Son, or an innocent man, or some combination of all of these is incomprehensible. The proto-orthodox have a very hard time explaining to whom the ransom was paid. Clearly it was to the "god of this world" whether he be called the Demiurge or Satan. Did any early Christian sect(s) believe this? The answer is yes, absolutely. But they lost the doctrinal wars of the 2nd thru 4th centuries. Jake

03-10-2013, 10:49 PM	#37
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But at the core of Judaism is the concept of redemption too. I don't follow how this proves 'dualism' at the heart of Christianity. Isn't a straight line the best way to travel from point A to point B.

03-10-2013, 11:44 PM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Obviously I don't know the answer. But I know that the Marcionite redemption rite is Jewish - lifted from the pages of Philo of Alexandria's treatment of Jacob at Bethel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.