Jim Larmore

Theophage.
An integral part of the Temple worship system was the sacrifice of animals. The fact that the sacrifice of animals was not mentioned in gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins. This practice was so engrained into their culture/religion that it would have been rediculous to state it. One of the things Jesus did was to purge the money changers out of the Temple for selling animals for sacrifice right in the Temple itself. So this shows "indirectly" that the practice occurred regularly.

To reply to your statement concerning the forgiveness of sins before Jesus' crusifixion, the sanctuary sacrificial system allowed for the forgiveness or setting aside of sins before the 1st advent of the messiah as a " foreshadow" of the "true". If the messiah had not come then their sins would have remained. The people confessed their sins over the animal to be sacrificed and God forgave them based on their faith in the "true" sacrifice to come. The entire old testament is a testimony of the comming messiah. There are over 300 messianic prophecies 60 of which are major.

In 1 John 3:4 it says that sin is the transgression of the law. The eternal law of God is a reflection of His characterand holiness. The violation of His law brings with it the death penalty, sin causes death, i.e. in the N.T. in Romans it says the wages of sin is death. We cannot escape this death penalty without the sacrifice of the messiah. The bible says all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. When the messiah came He took what we deserved to take, He died in our place. He became the "lamb of God" that took away the sin of the world. If we accept this sacrifice we can receive pardon for our sins and live for Him. Some day when He comes back we will go home with Him . We don't have to accept this because God gives us the freedom of choice but nothing in this universe can change what was done on calvary. The sin problem is and will be resolved when He returns to raise the dead in Christ and rapture those who accept Him.

CJD

Greetings, Theophage. Thank you for your response.

First, let me voice the hint of uncertainty that accompanies my beliefs. I do not wish to "take for granted" any theological system.

That said, let us start from bottom up.

1. "I must object due to simple reason alone."

From my perspective, this sounds little different than "I don't like the rules God established." If God is omnipotent, and if the only way he remits sins is through the shedding of blood, then in his omnipotence he will do so. Thus, the question is not "Why the blood (since presumably he can do otherwise)?" but "What blood?"

What I am saying is that you're simply assuming that it would be better for God to remit all sins without the shedding of blood. Besides, there is a biblical logic for the shedding of blood to remit sins: blood=life; sin=death. The shedding of perfect blood for sin restores life to death. The images are consistent throughout the text.

2. "The second objection to the explanation you've offered comes from the meaning of the stories I gave reference to in my OP. . . . The people were not shocked that there was forgiveness without sacrifice." Good to point out. Those who knew the Tanak, knew that trusting solely in the the blood bulls and goats trusted was worthless in this regard.

"There is a clear implication here that God himself could have forgiven those sins even without sacrifice . . . ." What is clearly promulgated in all of these gospel texts is that Jesus came with the authority of God himself to forgive sins. I'm not sure what you suggest is clearly implied, especially in light of clearly explicit texts elsewhere that speak of the Messiah's atonement as perfect and "once for all." Is this really an aggregious assumption on my part? Am I restricted to look at the particulars of a text at the expense of the universal? Is that a fair hermeneutic?

I grant that if I thought "atomistic exegesis" to be a valid hermeneutical method, then you'd be right: sins could be remitted without the shedding of blood.

3. Finally, the retroactive bit. This is just a result of my a priori commitments (deduced from other portions of Scripture). If the blood shed was sufficient to be "once for all," and if believers before the actual time of the Messiah are part of the same covenant (though not without distinctions, to be sure), then the atonement covered them, too.

Off for the weekend, sorry so short and anti-climatic.

CJD

Dominus Paradoxum

CJD, the problem with your theology is that the Bible clearly teaches there can be forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.

See:http://www.outreachjudaism.org/response.html

and:http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

Doctor X

Awhile back I mentioned I was reading a book on sacrifice of the "beloved son"--by Jon Levenson. I was interested in it because it discussed the tradition of child sacrifice in the OT. "Bring back that ol' time religion!" I always say. . . .

Anyways, I finally finished it, and Prof. Levenson does feel that the crucifixion is cast as a sacrifice as understood in OT literature--akin to the sacrifice of a "beloved son." Now these sacrifices--Isaac, Joseph--are often more an ordeal. He does not believe the original Isaac story--in E--has Isaac actually "get it" . . . I disagree because I do not think he deals with the multiauthorship problem well.

[ZzzzZZZZzzzZZZzz--Ed.]

Anyways, he discusses the concept of the sacrifice removing "sin" or more properly renewing the entire people. So . . . to make a long work short . . . the concept of "dying for sin" may actually be not totally foreign to the later Synoptics--not Mk.

Now, that does not mean it is an original concept as in historical. I think, if I characterize Levenson's argument properly, the Synoptics would not have ben "offended" by such an interpretive expansion.

--J.D.

Amos

You must forgive them for being wrong because "Church Fathers" must speak with a certain amount of urgency to gather a flock and keep it together after that. I even think that Paul suggested that Jesus died for our sins but not always and not to everybody.

Anselm was a protestant at heart and I sure thought that he even looked like one.

Amos

That's OK, I never thought it was a good idea to pustulate the impossible and then try to argue about it.

Sin does not separate us form God but original sin does. If sin did separate us from God only the first sin would count and the rest would be free, so to speak, because it would have no further effect on our relationship with God. Once you understand this, as Jesus did, it is ease to forgive sins (even your own!).

Sin has nothing to do with God but is man made to redeem our lost identity wherein we are God. In Catholicism we also have the sins againt the Catholic church and these only count if you are a Catholic. So I think really the whole sin concept is quite arbitrary and is just their way of stacking the deck against us so we can't win today but win we can't seem to win for losing.

Amos

That was a curse Jim, not a prophesy, and along this curse are we motivated to find meaning in life. She, the greater serpent here called woman, will strike at head of the lesser serpent that later is called Eve, and she will strike at the heel of Adam. This emnity remains intil both shall meet at the foot of the Cross.

CJD

Dominus, who gets their theology from the Bible?!?

Theophage

Thanks Rick, those are excellent.

Theophage

[Howdy Jim, quoted material from you will be in bold

The fact that the sacrifice of animals was not mentioned in gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins.

I think you misunderstood me here, Jim. I wasn't arguing that animal sacrifice wasn't going on in NT times or in the gospels, only that there was no corresponding animal sacrifices to the forgiveness Jesus gave in the four gospel stories I listed. The point being: at least in these cases forgiveness was by fiat alone and not by sacrifice, thus establishing that forgiveness is biblically possible without the spilling of blood. Rick and Paradoxum give further examples of this.

The rest of your post, I'm afraid, was irrelevant to the point of my OP. I'll restate it incase you missed it:

It is supposed by Christians that Jesus' crucifixion was necessary to forgive the sins of the world, however the examples I cited shows that Jesus was able to forgive sins without such bloodshed. Thus, Jesus' crucifixion was unnecessary.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark