manwithdream

I think Mark 2 says that J forgave a paralyzed man's sins, but it does not say there was any blood atonement for the sin. I thought that Christianity says that forgiveness requires blood atonement. How do they explain this story?

show_no_mercy

Penal substitution theory (a later invention by Christians) probably wasn't in mind when Mark wrote that story.

rhutchin

For context, we read:

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

We see that the scribes do not think as you might have advised them and complain that no blood has been shed. Instead they think to themselves, "who can forgive sins but God only?" Thus, they clearly grasp the import of what Jesus is doing. However, the point to be made is that God can forgive the sins of anyone He chooses and can do so without the shedding of blood or any other requirement.

What happens if God does not choose to forgive your sins? Do you have any recourse?

Under the OT, God made a covenant with Israel that allowed a person to seek forgiveness for his sins by taking an animal to the priests who would then present that animal to God and sacrifice that animal. God then accepted the death of the animal in payment for the person's sins rather than requiring that the person personally pay for those sins through his death.

In the NT, God made a new covenant with people and established that covenant through Christ's death on the cross. Under this covenant, God stands willing to redeem (which includes the forgiveness of sin) all those who come to Christ in faith.

show_no_mercy

There's no support for this conjecture in the Tanakh. The price of any sin in the Tanakh isn't death; that a wholly Christian (or Hellenistic era) idea.

aa5874

But, isn't it odd that a LATER invention is found in a supposedly early writing?

Later Christians invented the penal substitution theory.

The Pauline writings advocate the penal substitution theory.

The Pauline writings are most likely late or written by later "christians".

Now, this is what the Synoptic Jesus TAUGHT his disciples about his death.

Mark 9:31 - Mark 10:33-34 The Synoptic Jesus simply taught that he would resurrect on the third day. That's all.

DCHindley

They only say that Jesus' death served as a blood sacrifice that made any others unnecessary. Later on, they also came to believe that after his resurrection, Jesus now serves as a heavenly high priest.

If you're thinking of actual blood atonement while Jesus was still alive, then there really isn't enough info to determine whether he approved of them. He could also have approved of them, but didn't approve of the priesthood officiating in the temple of his day (Essene style).

Today, the only Christians who might say that blood atonement is still a valid way to remove sins, at least in some cases, is by fringe LDS or RLDS sects. Here in Ohio in the late 1980s, a renegade RLDS "prophet" named Jeffrey Lundgren ordered his cult followers to kill a family of four for being weak in faith in him, reasoning that their deaths would serve as blood atonement for their sins. In his mind he was doing them a favor! What a guy!

That is a really creepy story, especially considering my wife and I both worked with one of the sect members (he and his wife weren't present for the killing, but likely would have been next to get killed if police hadn't discovered the dead bodies buried under trash in an old barn, and tracked them down to their campground hideout). He was, FWIW, a very nice man, but would tell weird stories about seeing robbers surrender to Mexican police in an alley in Mexico City only to be shot dead by the Federalis... makes me wonder if he was really talking about Mexico and not Kirtland, Ohio.

But I digress .....

DCH

Petergdi

As I understand things, the idea of blood-sacrifice in the way that Manwithdream seems to mean isn't really a part of any of the major atonement theories. There is no single orthodox atonement theory, and many Christians aren't really happy with any of them. One thing that orthodoxy seems fairly clear on is that the value of the old sacrifices was based on them looking forward to Christ and not in any efficacy they had in themselves.

Some teachers have been under the misapprehension that Second Temple Judaism taught the theory of blood sacrifice that Manwithdream is thinking about. I think this is the result of early 20th century (oddly largely liberal) theologians not talking with Jews very much and forming their own odd ideas. Somehow this has worked itself into some conservative teaching on the attonement, but it doesn't seem to have been a Reformation view. I don't know enough Roman Catholic theology, and I don't understand some of what I know, but I suspect that it is also not based on an idea that blood sacrifice is something effective in itself. (maybe Roger Pearse knows more and can comment.)

While I'm not sure that we can determine exactly what range of ideas second-temple Jews had, it is clear that Paul ties sacrifice closely to obedience to God. In Romans 12, he writes of a life of obedience to God as being a "living sacrifice." And Paul also speaks of the death of Jesus as an act of obedience more often than he calls it a sacrifice. The idea that Jews in the late second temple period thought of sacrifices as acts of obedience to God rather than somehow efficacious in themselves makes sense based on what I know of Judaism.

Peter.

rhutchin

The OT sacrifices could only atone for the sins that a person had committed in the past. Those sacrifices could not atone for any future sins the person committed. In addition, those sacrifices did not change the character of the person. The person was born a sinner and this is the reason he sinned. The OT sacrifice could atone for the sine already committed but the person remained a sinner and would go out and sin again necessitating another sacrifice and that cycle would be repeated until the person died.

In looking forward to Christ, a person looked for the day in which he would be redeemed from being a sinner.

aa5874

So are you implying that you longer sin?

According to you, before Jesus, when a person sinned they must sacrifice, now they just sin and still go to heaven once THEY believe Jesus died for THEIR sins.

RIGHT!!!!

rhutchin

Not at all. The people who God has redeemed have their sins forgiven but can hardly be said to no longer sin. To avoid sin requires that one be omnipotent and omniscient.

That's basically it, as far as you take it. In the OT system, an Israelite would offer a sacrifice for their sins and this would be an ongoing activity as they would continue to sin.

A person who places his trust in Jesus would start doing things the way Jesus said and stop relying on sinful activities in his life. Thus, we would observe a significant decline in his participation in, and reliance on, sin.