darstec

I'm impressed. Recommending something else I've already read. Unfortunately for you it doesn't say what you think it does nor did Spinoza. Your take, as I judge from your reply is, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I already made up my mind because somebody told me what to think."

You see, you not only have faith but you also put faith that the translators rendered your bible correctly, and had triple faith that you picked the right translation. Luther was right, faith renders the human brain useless.

Gundulf

I'm a bit confused by your argument here -

1. Paul's (agreed authentic) writings are usually dated as earlier than the gospels.

2. Often the argument is made (which I don't embrace myself) that the gospels reflect *Christian's* views of Jesus, not his own.

3. If you are allowing the synoptics to shed light on this question, then let's not forget the synoptic Jesus saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." That is a bit more than dying and raising on the third day, no?

So yes, if Jesus is who we Christians think he is, then he also viewed the blood sacrifice as necessary for forgiveness. Only one was required, and he could apply the benefits of that sacrifice before it happened. But to suggest that the synoptics don't have an idea of a blood sacrifice is a bit far-fetched, considering the language used during the last supper, no?

Petergdi

If you didn't get that he was agreeing with the bit you dismissed from Luther, that faith can't be obtained in the way that knowledge can, then you didn't get it at all.

Really! You attribute that sort of thing to others. You must really live an unexamined life.

Do you honestly think Luther meant what you are taking him to mean here?

Peter.

Gundulf

If it wasn't in his mind when he wrote that particular story, was it in his mind when he said, ""This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," which is a near direct quote referencing the animal sacrifices from Exodus 24?

Johnny Skeptic

You are a Calvinist. According to Calvinism, God has already chosen who he will save apart from what any person chooses to do.

There is already a thread on Calvinism at the Abrahamic Religions forum that you and I are participating in, but I thought that it would be a good idea to also mention it at this forum.

darstec

No. He said knowledge is useless. Only faith works. And then he asks that the readers take his statements on faith.

Let us put back in what you snipped:
I do not need to depend upon others for translating biblical texts, not the Hebrew, not the Greek, and not the Latin. You do.

Of course he did. Read his works. All of them.

show_no_mercy

The dominant view of Christian soteriology prior to the modern era was the Ransom theory.

Gundulf

The dominant view of Christian soteriology in much of the Middle ages was the ransom theory until the time of Anselm (~1000-1100 - I'd hardly call that the "modern era", by the way). Try to find the ransom theory in Paul, I believe you will find it difficult. Try to find substitutionary atonement in Paul, that will not be terribly difficult.

steve_bnk

The response is the Jsesus died for the sins of humanity, as such animal blood sacrifice was no longer required.

Christ as the sacrifical lamb led to slaughter is a common Catholic theme.

aa5874

Jesus as the sacrificial LAMB is perfectly compatible with the Fall of the Temple SINCE Temple sacrifice was not possible.