Jim Larmore

I think you answered qestion #1 yourself here. The others show a little bit of lack of knowledge of the Biblical accounts of why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary. In the Bible it says that sin is the transgression of the law 1John 3:4. The law of God is eternal like He is, but He wrote it on tables of stone and gave them to Moses on Mt Sinai. These ten commandments are our cornerstone or standard for pointing to sin. Sin always involves a selfish act of some kind. When Adam and Eve sinned they brought upon the human race a curse of sin which has been with us since that time , This sin problem has caused all the cruelty of nature and the suffering in general we are all aware of.

It caused God to drive them out of paradise and away from His presence. Now you can say sin is all covered by ancient other religions like Tausism, Buddism etc with "dualism" i.e. there can be no good without bad, no up without a down etc. ying and yang, but the bottom line is sin is a part of all mankind. God cannot be in the presence of a sinful race. God separates Himself from us to protect us . We could not exist in God's presence. The Bible says God is a consumming fire. John 3:16 says God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that who -soever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God set up a "plan of salvation" from the start of sin .The first mention of this is in Gen3:15. The temple services or sacrificial system implimented by God for the Jews pointed to the real sacrifice of the messiah for all of mankinds sins. Only God could have paid the penalty of sin for us , Jesus was God incarnate and the messiah. When Jesus died on the cross the sin problem was forever settled. I'm not saying there is no more sin but the outcome of what will happen is sure. One day Jesus will return and retrieve His faithfull and end the sin problem permanently. We all have a"free will" to do as we please. we can accept the "truth" of the Bible or reject it, its up to us individually. You can be critical and find all the things which may convince you of a fake or false-hood for Biblical prophecies, and truths, like you said we can convince ourselves of what ever we want to. The truth is the truth though no matter who speaks it and I believe the Bible speaks the truth of a messiah who died for all mankind in a necessary sacrifice to solve the sin problem.

Theophage

Thank you for your second foray into this thread, Jim.

Unfortunately, like the first post you wrote here, this last post was also largely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You seem to enjoy doing alot of writing, but not a whole lot of reading to make sure that your writing actually adresses anything.

You say that the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice was to "solve the sin problem", which you really didn't explain very clearly in your post. From what I could gather, the "sin problem" is the separation of man from God due to sin. Thus the solution to the "sin problem" is to forgive the sins of humanity. Do I have it right so far?

And yet, the whole reason why I started this thread in the first place was to show that forgiveness of sin is possible without blood sacrifice of Jesus or anyone/anything else. How do I know this?

In my OP there were four Bible stories of Jesus forgiving the sins of people simply by saying "your sins are forgiven". No sacrifice, no bloodshed, just divine fiat.

The core of my argument is thus: (I obviously haven't spelled it out well enough in this thread )

Since Jesus could forgive sins (and thus solve the "sin problem") without sacrificing himself (as per the stories in the OP), his sacrifice was therefore unnecessary.

Please Jim, if you want to post stuff in this thread, address my actual argument, okay?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

CJD

Hello, Daniel.

There is no direct or propositional argument to proffer. I began a "round-about" argument in my rebuttal to the rabbi; suprisingly, you deem the matter irrelevant. Those posts were just an inkling of the reasoning behind the issue.

Yes, if it can be proven that God forgave sins without sacrifice, then Jesus' death was unnecessary. Can you prove that God has forgiven sins without sacrifice? Do your beloved texts "prove" this? Hardly. Especially when they are juxtaposed with other texts from the very same writings that hint at the necessity of the Cross.

I cannot fathom how you regard this as irrelevant. Why? Because it calls your beginning assumption re: the meaning of the passages in your OP into serious question. First, resolve the textual issue I have raised, then and only then will your OP be justified as a valid question. I could go on and on as I did with the rabbi, constructing an argument about the necessity of X's death—probably bringing a whole host of "irrelevant" issues in the process. I would have to speak of sin, both original and actual; the atonement, both universal and particular; the progressive redemptive history and plan of God as described in the stories of Scripture; the various covenants described in the texts and how they relate to the Cross; the active and passive obedience of the Messiah; the attributes of God as described in the texts; etc., etc.

Your OP is not as simply as you'd like to think. It cannot be boiled down to a proposition without being oversimplified and distorted. Let's play that game anyway. The following propositions can be deduced from Scripture (I'm not saying either way that this is what I affirm):

1. Scripture describes God as both transcendent (a-temporal) and immanent (in time).

2. As an eternal, transcendent being, his plan for today has no reference to time. It was as actual in eternity "past" as it is "today."

3. As an immanent being, his plan today is a response to the universe's (most notably, thinking humans') response to his plan yesterday.

4. As an eternal, transcendent being, the Cross was no surprise.

5. As an immanent being, the murder of his son grieved him. Things could have been otherwise, but they were not, so it useless to speculate. In other words (to speculate), had Israel not continued to apostasize when Zerubbabel ushered in the new covenant (as the returning Davidic king), then presumably the Messiah would have come as the pinnacle of the new covenant and atoned for sins in whatever way the Father and he deemed necessary (this does not preclude bloodshed, mind you, but it is speculative irrelevance); instead, he came and ended up having to ratify the new covenant with his blood because of his being rejected.

6. As an immanent being, the Son came to do the Father's will. The Father's will was to live perfectly in covenant with God, something that from Adam to Jesus no one had accomplished.

7. As an immanent being, the Son came to do the Father's will. The Father's will as described in the earliest portions of the Tanak, was that one cannot be a covenant-breaker without impunity.

8. It should be noted in passing that as an eternal, transcendent being, the same applies—that one cannot break the commands of God without impunity.

9. As an eternal, transcendent being, God's plan was to redeem humanity and send a mediator to secure that redemption (presumably, given that it happened according to the text, through the Atonement).

10. As an eternal, transcendent being, God plans to grant the gift of faith; moreover, as an eternal, transcendent being, he plans to save those who have such faith.

11. As an immanent being, he effects #10 above in particular individuals in time.

12. As an immanent being, and in order to enact #9 above, the Son comes to do what Man had failed to do: keep the covenant AND receive its curse. Just keeping it would only set humanity up once again for a fall. The curse needed to be removed, as well. The Son accomplishes both, potentially redeeming every person to have ever lived (since, as #9 states above, the eternal plan was to redeem humanity), but in time finds itself applicable to those who are given faith (which means "belief in action"). Herein lies the necessity of X's sacrifice.

But have you even considered the words in question, especially in Mark 2? The Greek word itself does not require as much force as we are giving it (and indeed, as the scribes give it), for as a divine passive it need mean no more than "God forgives your sins" (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13, where an authorized prophet does this). Also, the role of the priest in the sacrificial ritual was to procure a restored relationship with God through atonement. As others have pointed out already, Jesus did not occupy such a position in Israel, and his declaration of forgiveness is tantamount to assuming the authority to forgive on God's behalf. Shortly thereafter, Jesus boldly defends his right to do this. Is the proper response to this text, "Jesus declares forgiveness, thus the necessity of his dying becomes suspect."? No, the text is pointing us to acknowledge Jesus' divine prerogative. Your OP is so very beside the point, it is hard to make sense of it, given the surrounding context of the passage in question.

Regarding your main concern, however, which I take to be Why the Cross, if Divine Fiat would do just as well? I believe to have answered through the non-linear and a-temporal "plan" of God described above. IF the cross was not the centrepiece of redemptive history, then you might be on to something. But as it is, you've only pointed out a few verses that at best show Jesus defending his right to forgive sins. Your syllogism is not the only logical alternative:

1) God planned to redeem humanity via atonement,
2) And therefore atonement was necessary to forgive the sins of the world.

— or —

1) God can forgive sins in any way he desires
2) He desired to forgive sins via atonement
3) therefore, atonement is necessary

— or —

1) God cannot forgive sins without atonement
2) Therefore atonement is necessary

I think what you fail to grasp is that the passages in question do not "prove" that God can forgive sin without the shedding of blood. There is too much evidence in the texts taken holistically that are contrary to that notion, or at the very least present a clearer view of how God forgives sins. Once again, your response to my textual concerns ("Unfortunately, these are irrelevant.") makes your whole endeavor highly suspect. If you cannot justify your interpretation textually, then don't expect another response.

Regards,

CJD

Jim Larmore

CJD,
I'm not trying to pump you up here but that was one of the most logical and best explainations of the plan of redemption from a logical point of view I've ever read. Good going man!!! The omiscience of God does make Him transcendent of time as I see it. We all live in a linear time solution but God is not constrained to that. The Bible says He sees the end from the beginning.

I get accused of wanting to make long wordy posts here , heck I thought thats what all this was about, to let the forum see whats on our mind. Maybe I should be less wordy.

Theophage

CJD,

You seem to be getting upset in this discussion. Please be assured that it is not my intention to uspet anyone, nor am I trying to use my argument to show how smart atheists are with respect to Christians, or any other such posturing.

I only want an honest discussion, and I assume you do too. So step back, take a breath, and we will continue.

You asked me:

Can you prove that God has forgiven sins without sacrifice? Do your beloved texts "prove" this?

I assume that you know as well as I do that proof in an absolute sense is impossible, and thus what we are trying for here is simply evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This is all I ask for, and I hope it is all you ask for as well.

My contention is that a plain reading of passages like Mark 2:1-12 show that Jesus can forgive sins without blood sacrifice. Where do I get that idea? Again, by simple, plain reading of those passages.

Now, the question then becomes: "Are plain readings sufficient in this case?" Here is where we disagree, and we disagree on this due to an unwarranted assumption on your part. Notice what you wrote:

Especially when they are juxtaposed with other texts from the very same writings that hint at the necessity of the Cross.

There is too much evidence in the texts taken holistically that are contrary to that notion, or at the very least present a clearer view of how God forgives sins.

Do you see your assumption here? You are assuming that the Bible can indeed be taken holistically; that it all of its contents necessarily do mesh and harmonize with each other.

I do not make this assumption, nor (it should be noted) do I make the opposite assumption that the scriptures cannot be taken holistically. I simply take the scriptures as they are, and whether they do or do not agree harmoniously must be derived from there.

It is very important to specify this assumption of yours, because in light of it, your argument becomes basically:

1) All of the Bible's passages are theologically harmonious,
2) Other passages in the Bible describe blood sacrifice as necessary for forgiveness of sins,
3) Thus, passages like Mk 2 can't actually mean that blood sacrifice isn't necessary.

I hope you can see without this assumption of yours, Mk 2 does indeed appear to support the notion that blood sacrifice is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. This is where I'm coming from, and this is how I come to this conclusion. If that isn't support enough for you on this matter, I'm sorry.

Now let's examine the syllogisms you gave at the end of your post:

1) God planned to redeem humanity via atonement,
2) And therefore atonement was necessary to forgive the sins of the world.

— or —

1) God can forgive sins in any way he desires
2) He desired to forgive sins via atonement
3) therefore, atonement is necessary

— or —

1) God cannot forgive sins without atonement
2) Therefore atonement is necessary

It is interesting to note that here you use the word "atonement" rather than the more relevant term "blood sacrifice". Atonement, implies a "change of heart" in the recipient of the forgiveness does it not? Well, this part is irrelevant, since I don't disagree that "changing one's heart" is necessary for forgiveness. The only part I don't see as necessary is the blood sacrifice part of atonement.

Now it is interesting how you worded the second syllogism above. As it stands, it is invalid. Why? Because of the definition of necessity. By definition, X is necessary if ~X cannot be true. Yet the first premise in your second syllogism above plainly states that "God could forgive sins in any way he desires". In other words, since he could have accomplished it another way, no particular way is necessary by definition.

The fact that you wrote the above as a valid alternative to my original argument tells me that you are simply missing the point of my argument. Perhaps it was simply a mistake on your part?

Lastly, let's talk about my use of "irrelevant" that appears to be bothering you. I don't dismiss relevant evidence intentionally as some kind of tactic to "win" an argument. If I call something irrelevant it is because I cannot see it's relevance. If I am wrong and some point you are making really is relevant, than the best thing you can do is to repeat it a little differently and try again to show its relevance. I am only human after all, and I do make mistakes. What I will do is explain why I think something is irrelevant rather than just declaring it so.

In fact, after reading your last post, I went back and read your earlier posts again to see if I could find what you considered relevant ideas in the parts I earlier deemed irrelevant. I'm sorry but I couln't find any.

I understand that your position is not a simple "See it says it in this verse right here," type of position, that it requires a case built on ideas built on other ideas, but I am telling you that the method you are using to get your reasoning across to me so far simply isn't working. Maybe I'm stupid or dense, but it would help if you could be more concise with what you're trying to say.

From my position, you still haven't given any justification for your side other than your implicit assumption that the Bible can be taken as a coherent whole, which as I said earlier I find to be an unwarranted assumption.

Please don't go away angry,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theophage

In the spirit of not only saying that something is irrelevant, but explaining why I feel that it is irrelevant, I will comment on the following set of deductions that Jim seemed to find so amazing:

1. Scripture describes God as both transcendent (a-temporal) and immanent (in time).

Every scripture that I can think of shows God to be immanent, rahter than transcendant. Indeed, I find it to be a contradiction that something can be transcendant and immanent at the same time. But for the sake of argument, I will assume that you are correct here. Further, I will assume that along with the other deductions below, that this will be relevant to the argument in my OP.


2. As an eternal, transcendent being, his plan for today has no reference to time. It was as actual in eternity "past" as it is "today."

I will also agree to this. Another way to say it (without invoking transcendance) is to simply say that God's omniscience allows him to know what is going to happen, and thus he knows already what he wants to do about it.

3. As an immanent being, his plan today is a response to the universe's (most notably, thinking humans') response to his plan yesterday.

I agree again.

4. As an eternal, transcendent being, the Cross was no surprise.

I agree yet again, though I still fail to see where this is going or how it is relevant to my OP. But I'm trusting you, CJD...

5. As an immanent being, the murder of his son grieved him. Things could have been otherwise, but they were not, so it useless to speculate. In other words (to speculate), had Israel not continued to apostasize when Zerubbabel ushered in the new covenant (as the returning Davidic king), then presumably the Messiah would have come as the pinnacle of the new covenant and atoned for sins in whatever way the Father and he deemed necessary (this does not preclude bloodshed, mind you, but it is speculative irrelevance); instead, he came and ended up having to ratify the new covenant with his blood because of his being rejected.

Here you lost me. You seem to simply be asserting here that he had to shed his (Jesus') blood. I don't see a chain of reasoning for this assertion. Perhaps below?

6. As an immanent being, the Son came to do the Father's will. The Father's will was to live perfectly in covenant with God, something that from Adam to Jesus no one had accomplished.

Okay, but I still fail to see the relevance of this...

7. As an immanent being, the Son came to do the Father's will. The Father's will as described in the earliest portions of the Tanak, was that one cannot be a covenant-breaker without impunity.

Same as above...

8. It should be noted in passing that as an eternal, transcendent being, the same applies—that one cannot break the commands of God without impunity.

No problem there (besides the idea of a transcendant/non-temporal being able to do anything like break a covenant, but we won't go into that here).

9. As an eternal, transcendent being, God's plan was to redeem humanity and send a mediator to secure that redemption (presumably, given that it happened according to the text, through the Atonement).


Now see, this is why I complain about much of what you write being irrelevant. You could have entirely skipped 1-8 above and started here and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. That is what makes 1-8 irrelevant to our discussion.

10. As an eternal, transcendent being, God plans to grant the gift of faith; moreover, as an eternal, transcendent being, he plans to save those who have such faith.

Again, no disagreement from me here

11. As an immanent being, he effects #10 above in particular individuals in time.

Yup. Still can't see where this is going, though.

12. As an immanent being, and in order to enact #9 above, the Son comes to do what Man had failed to do: keep the covenant AND receive its curse. Just keeping it would only set humanity up once again for a fall. The curse needed to be removed, as well. The Son accomplishes both, potentially redeeming every person to have ever lived (since, as #9 states above, the eternal plan was to redeem humanity), but in time finds itself applicable to those who are given faith (which means "belief in action"). Herein lies the necessity of X's sacrifice.

And here you make more unsupported assertions. Remember. you were supposed to be supporting assertions you made in earlier posts, not once more adding to the list of unsupported assertions.

What unsupported assertions you ask? These:

1) You say that Jesus had to recieve the curse because otherwise humanity would only be set up to fall again, but you don't support this idea.

2) You say that God having a plan from eternity somehow allows the redemption of everyone who has ever lived, but you don't support this. In other words, redemption requires that a person have faith in the sacrifice of Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) so how does that work with people who are already dead who didn't know about the sacrifice to have faith in it.

3) The one from your #5 above.

So with all you wrote above you have:

a) Said a few things I already agree with, and are thus irrelevant to my argument, and

b) made more unsupported assertions which are irrelevant until they are supported.

Again, if I am wrong and what you wrote above is relevant to my argument, please be clearer in showing how they are, because I just don't see it.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Jim Larmore

Why? If the entire Bible has a recurring theme why isn't it reasonable to take this stance?

CJD

Hi, I'll try to keep it short . . .

Daniel, we all have assumptions. Please note that I do not assume at the outset that the entire Bible is theologically harmonious, though I am inclined to see it that way. I simply cannot accept the following: "I simply take the scriptures as they are . . ." Bullocks. Nobody is privy to such objectivity. Your failure (thus far) to justify your reading in light of other passages to the contrary in the very same piece of literature betrays your assumption (or disdain, rather) for reading the text holistically. At any rate, the following:
. . . is wrong-headed. It is more like follows:

1. The gospel of Mark has existed unadulterated for quite some time.

2. As such, to take one tittle and squeeze implications from it is highly suspect. If there are redactions that make you suspicious of the juxtaposed texts I proffered earlier, then you are under the burden to prove those redactions and cut them away.

3. The gospel of Mark itself not only records Jesus predicting his death, but the author records the crucifixion as a cataclysmic redemptive event.

4. The verses in your OP show, as I mentioned in the previous post "Jesus defending his right to forgive sins," or to act on God's behalf in the forgiveness of sins. You agree, but then strain a gnat for reasons that are not textually warranted. See #2 above.

5. Thus, the Mark 2 passage does not imply what you think it does, because it cannot be deduced from the gospel of Mark as a whole. If this is an unfair assumption, then by all means, show the redaction and then show me the kernel.

As an aside, let me adjust my second syllogism in the previous post (I typed them all haphazardly, mea culpa):

1) God can forgive sins in any way he desires, so long as that way accords with his nature.
2) His nature is, among other things, merciful and just.
3) Breaking his commands will have consequences requiring some form of atonement (justice)
4) God desired to redeem the covenant-breakers to himself (mercy)
3) Therefore, atonement is necessary


Moving on . . . 1. Humanity is by nature at enmity with God (i.e., in discord with his precepts, etc.).
2. Humanity cannot seek after God, being morally—not physically or intellectually—unwilling to do so.
3. If Jesus simply redeemed humanity by forgiving sins without receiving the curse,
4. Then the curse would still be in effect, and humanity, being unable to live perfectly like Jesus did and thus merit glory, would simply fall again.
5. But as it is, Jesus did receive the curse, so that when we do fall, we who are sealed in faith have been atoned for.

Now, to respond to the obvious retort:

1. No, this does not lead to lawlessness on the part of those who are atoned for.
2. Because those who practice lawlessness show through their lives that they were never atoned for,
3. Because those who are atoned for are given a changed disposition,
4. Which does not come into effect overnight, but continues daily, as a journey or pilgrimage, and is nourished through the means of grace,
5. So that as life in Christ progresses, an xian will be known by his/her fruits.

It is deducible:

1. IF God decreed to redeem all of humanity,
2. And IF God decreed to send a redeemer to that end,
3. THEN potentially all humanity can be redeemed.

Your other problem (" . . . so how does that work with people who are already dead who didn't know about the sacrifice to have faith in it") is not a real problem for you since you are alive (though dead) right now and faced with such unpleasantries like the Gospel.

But to answer the question, faith in the sacrifice can be viewed two ways:
1. Faith in the coming sacrifice.
2. Faith in the past sacrifice.

Thus, those before the Cross "believed the LORD, and he [God] counted it to him (or her) as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6; cf. Rom. 4–5:11), while those after the Cross hope in the explicit promises revealed by God through Christ.

Was kind of irrelevant, as you stated, save the bit about the Father being grieved and the Son ratifying the new covenant with his blood.

Regards,

CJD

Theophage

Hello Jim!

Thank you for posting something more relevant! Let's get to it:

The fact that Jesus forgave the man the way He didn in Mark 2:1-12 doesn't mean a blood sacrifice wasn't required. It may not have had to be right then at that particular moment but the messiah had come to offer the ultimate blood sacrifice for all mankind.

This is CJD's argument as well. I agree with you that this may be the case, but the question is how likely is it that this is the case? Let's examine it further:

In Mk 2:7 it says "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" The story of Jesus healing the paralytic in Mk 2 has two major theological points:

1) That forgiveness of sins is more important than the healing of the body, and

2) That Jesus is no mere man since he has the authority and power of God himself.

Point 1 is irrelevant to the discussion, so we'll concentrate on point 2. Why are the scribes in the story upset at Jesus? Because Jesus forgives the paralytic man's sins, something they believed only God himself could do. Note that they don't say something like "How could rabbi Jesus have forgiven the man's sins without the proper sacrifices, etc."

The point is that they expect God to be able to say "your sins are forgiven" and that's that. This then makes Jesus equal to God himself in this ability.

Now, why would the scribes believe that God could forgive sins in such a manner? Did the scribes believe that God could do this because he would someday send his son to be crucified? This is very doubtful, since the scribes were Jewish, and the Jews certainly weren't expecting this.

No, I think it is much more likely that the scribes expceted God to be able to forgive sins because it is God's authority to do so.

This leads to my second objection to the lack of necessity of Jesus' crucifixion to forgive sins: God's omnipotence. If God is indeed omnipotent and he makes the rules, he certainly could have made the rules such that Jesus didn't need to be crucified to forgive the sins fo the world. Now if something is necessary it means by definition that it cannot be any other way. Thus, if God could have made it another way, the way in question is not necessary by definition. In the title to this thread I use the word "needless" but I actually mean "not necessary".

Thirdly, I object your argument due to the fact while there is scriptural basis for sins being forgiven by sacrifice, there is no such scriptural basis for sins forgiven in such a fashion to be forgiven before the sacrifice happens.

CJD's response to this objection is that Jesus' sacrifice was meant to be "once and for all" but if you examine what "once and for all" means, it means "from this time forward". There is nothing in this idea that something once and for all applies to the past.

So, Jim, given these objections to your idea that Jesus healed the paralytic due to the power of his impending sacrifice, You can see why I still find it more likely that the passage in Mark (and the other ones I gave in my OP) means exactly what it says it means: that Jesus forgave the man simply because he had the power of God to forgive whomever he chose.

What I have been asking CJD for, and I now ask you for, is some biblical support for your idea that Jesus' ability to heal the paralytic really did come from his impending sacrifice, and to do so keeping in mind the objections I gave above. If you could do this successfully, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theophage

CJD,

Your tone is still rather angry, as if I am intentionally trying to be obtuse or sneaky. Trust me when I say I am not, that I really want a good rational resolution to this apparent inconsistancy.

Since my computer time is up for today, I will answer your post tomorrow. In the meantime, chill out, dude!