FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-31-2011, 05:43 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default Where did atonement through Christ's BLOOD come from?

I am not sure I understand the mythist argument about the meaning of the "blood" of the mythical Christ atoning for the sins of the believers.

I also don't understand the conventional notion since there was no flowing of blood as in an ANIMAL SACRIFICE, which is atonement, the animal is burned on the altar and the blood spread around.

WHERE did the blood come from that was comparable to this? Because a sword was stuck in the side and some blood came out from the nails (although we all know that a crucifixion could not work with nails anyway since the body weight would pull the person down)??
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-01-2012, 08:03 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

If the metaphor of an animal sacrifice is problematic then how is it a convincing argument? Even the Yom Kippur sacrifice only helped the current generation, not future ones.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 08:28 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

For those believing in the historical Christ, was blood simply a generic metaphor for the death on the cross and a bit of blood oozing out because of the thorns, or did the sacrifice for the sins of the world only take effect with the spear into the side?
I have never seen a clear explanation of what the blood of the sacrifice refers to in the case of Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
If the metaphor of an animal sacrifice is problematic then how is it a convincing argument? Even the Yom Kippur sacrifice only helped the current generation, not future ones.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:23 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
For those believing in the historical Christ, was blood simply a generic metaphor for the death on the cross and a bit of blood oozing out because of the thorns, or did the sacrifice for the sins of the world only take effect with the spear into the side?
I have never seen a clear explanation of what the blood of the sacrifice refers to in the case of Jesus.
My first reaction is to say that blood makes reference to this generation as in you-or-me in person as opposed to water that is ours by way of incarnation that also was spilled for everyone to see.

This then is what makes the historal Jesus who's blood was spilled just an example for us to follow to make manifest our water as the promised land for us to walk on in the here and now.

You may consider that Jesus died instead of Christ and that he died for the sins of his world on the very cross he carried as hunchback under the illusory conviction of sin, and so is where liberty is found from sense perception as the primary cause of slavery whereupon our humanity is built and wherein our dominion is made know, and so be a victor in the end.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:30 AM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

No need to be so fixated on a literal meaning. Commoners were under a perpetual obligation to sacrifice, ie to tithe.

Christ removes that obligation by being the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He figuratively gives his blood for us.
rlogan is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:38 AM   #6
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

The blood of the Pascal lamb had salvic implications in the Temple sacrifices. The lambs were slaughtered and the blood was scattered on the altar. The idea of blood sacrifice was already there, so Christ as a Pascal-surrogate means his blood is scattered on the altar.

The salvic implications come from the Passover story, in which the blood of lambs* smeared on the door frames saved the Israelites from the Angel of Death.


*As an aside, I've always wondered how abject slaves would have been able to get hold of all those lambs for dinner, or any meat at all.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:42 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I am not sure I understand the mythist argument about the meaning of the "blood" of the mythical Christ atoning for the sins of the believers.
'Blood' (spilled) means death. Not physical death, as commonly supposed, but spiritual.

'He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Is 53:5-6

'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' 2 Co 5:21 NASB (emphasis mine)
sotto voce is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:44 AM   #8
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

You know the Isaiah quote has nothing to do with the Messiah, don't you?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:46 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

But WHAT blood did they believe was SHED for sins? Was it from the thorns, or from the spear, in which case the crucifixion was not the crucial factor, but only death with a bit of blood per se. Indeed, in the Nicene Creed he simply died, with no mention of a crucifixion or even blood......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
For those believing in the historical Christ, was blood simply a generic metaphor for the death on the cross and a bit of blood oozing out because of the thorns, or did the sacrifice for the sins of the world only take effect with the spear into the side?
I have never seen a clear explanation of what the blood of the sacrifice refers to in the case of Jesus.
My first reaction is to say that blood makes reference to this generation as in you-or-me in person as opposed to water that is ours by way of incarnation that also was spilled for everyone to see.

This then is what makes the historal Jesus who's blood was spilled just an example for us to follow to make manifest our water as the promised land for us to walk on in the here and now.

You may consider that Jesus died instead of Christ and that he died for the sins of his world on the very cross he carried as hunchback under the illusory conviction of sin, and so is where liberty is found from sense perception as the primary cause of slavery whereupon our humanity is built and wherein our dominion is made know, and so be a victor in the end.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:48 AM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
No need to be so fixated on a literal meaning. Commoners were under a perpetual obligation to sacrifice, ie to tithe.

Christ removes that obligation by being the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He figuratively gives his blood for us.
Yes but material tithing is already like a burned sacrifice as time in self reflection is what is required to get in = Zechariah here who brings to bear the water that we need or elso our blood is shed in vain.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.