CX

Well there are "sins" and then there is "Sin" as in "Original Sin" appropriately authorized church members can forgive "sins" but only the atonement can wipe out "Original Sin". Of course it seems inconsistent to nonbelievers, but that's because we don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit to aid our interpretation.

Devilnaut

The death of Jesus is necessary and it makes the prediction "when you eat the fruit you will die" come full circle.

The subtext of the bible is man's journey back to God, yes? Well, why is he divided from God? He is divided from God because he "knows"(he makes a distinction: good apart from evil. Pleasure apart from pain. This is what knowledge is, it comes from contrast), and with this he has conjured an intentional will (or an identity) for himself other than God's (or, other than what "is" if you prefer a less xian related perspective).

What this means is that through the introduction of distinction into Man's psyche he has suddenly got more than one alternative, and he now has the ability to choose. Previously he could do only what he was "told" to do by God (this means that the initial cause (bear with me) and everything that went after it (including life) were one uninterrupted chain reaction without distinctions IE only one "will" involved).

Now, the bible is suggesting that if we are to return to God, or be "saved" if you prefer, it cannot be an event initiated by our will, because the will has only itself as a starting point (it really has nothing to do with God although its images of God can get pretty darn complicated). This means that the will is for the survival of the individual which is necessarily apart from its surroundings. So if Jesus tried somehow to return to God without being unmade, he might trick everybody and he might even trick himself but it would have been his will that really succeeded (and not God) and would have become more complex and insidious.



God can forgive sins and must do so to make it possible to create, but this doesn't mean that those whom he forgives are saved. The only sin that is really important is the first one because that made way for all the rest. The ones after that are just sins against human ideas that are inherently sinful in the first place anyway.

I should add here that ultimate forgiveness equals ultimate release. God forgives to stay in the business of creation and I don't think the object of this forgiveness is saved. I think it is the initiator of the forgiveness that is saved.

CJD

Theophage, greetings.

First, theology does not come via "proof-texting." It just doesn't happen that way. One cannot rip a statement from a piece of writing and plug it into a theological system without first deducing from numerous statements, contexts, etc., the theology in question. The hermeneutic is suspect otherwise.

Once again, the notion that "the power to forgive before the sacrifice (either of animals or of Jesus) is due to the coming sacrifice" has been deduced from the narratives, poetry, and prophetic literature of the Scripture. There is no "proof-text." It is simply an argument that will unfortunately require "long posts", etc. If you want a Scripture "verse" that says something to the effect: "Behold, all the sacrifices preceding X culminated in the sacrifice of X," then read the letter to the Hebrews. If you want a "verse" to say "Behold, even though we see sins being verbally forgiven by God, it is in light of the atonement he provides that those sins are forgiven," well, then, you're out of luck.

But this is not how theology is constructed. All this to say, I am not so sure your demands are valid, because I am not so sure reading the text atomistically is proper (this, by the way, is the very same mistake fundamentalists make).

For example, Rabbi Singer writes in response to Leviticus 17:11 that xians claim that the shedding of blood is necessary to forgive sin. He generalizes (as we are all prone to do) a bit much. Xians claim that the necessary shedding of blood described in Lev. 17:11 relates directly to the atonement of the soul. It's what he doesn't say that makes his commentary suspect, namely, that the centerpiece of the OT system was the sacrifice. The blood of animals shed in sacrifice took the place of, and symbolically redeemed, the life of the worshiper. Because animal blood was only a sign of salvation (not the thing signified; efficaceous but not fully), humans must not consume it (17:12). Both of these ideas are tweaked in the NT, where the Messiah's blood is seen as the atonement for sin (Heb. 9:14, 22; 1 John 1:7) and those who "drink" it are those that have life (John 6:54). (Why? Because life is in the blood, Lev. 17:11.) In the new covenant (contrary to what the rabbi seems to imply that Xians believe), the atonement does not cover the brazen or defiant sinner, either.

It is times like this that I deem the rabbi's commentary motivationally suspect. He writes: "The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally." Preposterous. Most sin is sinful because it is indeed "intentional." The rabbi's unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew in Numbers 15:30 confounds the issue. The idea is that the one who sins presumptuously, or defiantly, (literally in the Hebrew "with a high hand") is the one who will be cut off from the covenant. This is not someone who (for example), knowing full well the judiciousness of telling truth , tells a lie (and knows guilt because of it); this is one who shakes his or her fist at God in defiance, one who breaks his commands without remorse. This is the one who will be cut off. The rabbi, who I would think knows this, ignores it for the sake of covenience.

The rabbi then states that the only kernel of doctrine to be taken from the Leviticus passage is the prohibition of eating blood. He wrote: "Thus, Leviticus 17:11 explains Leviticus 17:10 by revealing that consuming blood is forbidden because it may only be used in the act of sprinkling of the animal's blood on the altar for an atonement._ It is a grievous sin to use it for anything else." And this explains away the fact that "it is blood that makes an atonement for sin" how? Come on, rabbi. Sleight of hand nonsense. Nonetheless, he is right about the fact that this passage does not state explicitly that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:2). The rabbi smugly writes that the author of this letter "misquotes" Leviticus, as if any biblical writer held to a doctrine of inerrancy similiar to that of fundamentalist Christians or Jews. The author wasn't mistaken; rather, he consciously paraphrased what he thought the text implied. You can take it or leave it; but don't accuse him of ignorance, unless you are willing to pit your knowledge of the text against the ancient writer's.

He then writes: "[Xians] must use all of the verse, not just a part of it._ Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed "upon the altar to make atonement for your souls."_ That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can only effect atonement if it is placed on the altar. Jesus' blood, however, was never placed on the altar."

True, he is practicing an indirect argument, taking the Xian perspective and trying to reduce it to absurdity. But the problem is, the NT authors do not use the text like fundamentalists do. It is the blood that is the issue for the NT author, not the altar. Once again, you can take it or leave it. Just as the text (Lev. 17:11) does not explicitly state that in all circumstances, blood is necessary for atonement, neither does it imply anything about the necessity of the altar during the ritual of atonement. Does the rabbi justify his demand for "all or nothing"? No. And neither do you, Theophage.

"Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice." Yes, but how does this negate the necessity of the blood sacrifice that atones? Why is it a stretch to say that the sacrifice must be coupled with repentance and charity for the sign to seal? The psalmist writes: "Sacrifice and meal offering you did not desire; but my ears you have opened; burnt offering and sin offering you did not require." The poet here says nothing more than if sacrifices were offered without genuine repentance and faith, then God does not want them. Extracting the implication that only repentance and faith are required for atonement quite clearly goes beyond the text.

Once again, the teacher's commentary becomes suspect. He writes, " . . . Hebrews 10:5-6 altered Psalm 40:7 to read instead: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me._ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure."

"Altered." Hmmm. The author of the NT epistle quotes the LXX, as was common. But is "a body You have prepared for me" all that different from "but my ears you have opened" in Hebrew? Unfortunately, the rabbi underplays the difficulty of the Hebrew idiom here. Why? It lessens the power of his attack. The Hebrew word karah in Psalm 40:6 often rendered "opened" in most translations can be more literally rendered "dug." In fact, out of all the usages of karah in the Tanak, this is the only place where "opened" is the translation, probably because it's hard to make sense of it. Nonetheless, the meaning may be that if "my ears you have dug," then my ears have excavated, dug through, in other words, they have been opened so that I may obey (see v. 8, "I delight to do your will").

The author of the NT epistle, then, is not far off the mark at all, for he writes that the body of the Messiah came in obedience to do the will of God (the "ears," just in case you missed it, are to the "body" as the part is to the whole). This, the writer states, took away the former (perpetual sacrifices) by establishing the latter (doing the will of God). And how was the latter established? "Through the offering of the body of Christ Jesus once for all" (Heb. 10:10b). Once again, disagree if you wish, but do not accuse the author of ignorance or suspicously "altering" anything. To do so would require more defense than I have yet to see on this forum.

The rabbi's 4th and 5th refutations seem minor. I will look at them again, though. But I have gone on long enough, and I want to get to Refutation Six:

"If Jesus was the final sacrifice, why is the sacrificial system returning? The New Testament therefore repeatedly declares that Jesus was the final sacrifice for all time, and there would no longer be any future need for the return of the animal sacrificial system._ This doctrine, however, completely contradicts the words of the prophets who clearly foretold that the animal sacrificial system would return in the messianic age."

The main problem here? The words of the prophets clearly foretell no such thing.

The texts supposedly proving this according to Rabbi Singer are Jeremiah 33:17–18; Zechariah 14:21; Ezekiel 43–44.

Jerimiah 33:17–18 speaks of the inauguration of the messianic kingdom. The only as an Xian I can say in this regard is that the NT teaches Jesus to be the perpetual High Priest, whose sacrifice was good once for all. From my perspective, this more than fulfills Jer. 33:18. To be sure, the prophet could not have imagined such a fulfillment, but his lack of imagination is no reason to discard later revelation. After all, revelation, as recorded in the Tanak, is progressive. As it unfolds, it makes clearer what was previously revealed.

Zechariah 14:21. This text just mentions in passing that during the messianic age there will be those who offer sacrifices. What I have to say here is the same as above. Words of prophets are not single, specific prognostications anway. I have written on this elsewhere, and have yet to see anyone offer a better way to read the prophetic literature of the Tanak.

Finally, Ezekial 43–44 much of the glorious age to come. Understanding the conditional nature of prophetic literature, we are able to undersand how Haggai, for example, predicted that the glory of Zerubbabel's temple would exceed that of Solomon's. Did it? No way. But the expectations were there (this event, by the way, is when I think the new covenant [messianic age] began), as well as the potential. The rabbi unfortunately skips over this whole bit, that is, how the prophet Ezekiel was envisioning the restoration from exile and how it failed to culminate in what the prophet foresaw. The conditional nature of prophecy is the only way to make sense of prophecy. It served primarily as motivation. As for the perpetuity of offering sacrifices, I just think the OT prophets could not assume anything less. But since prophets are nowhere depicted as shaping the future with their words, the coming of the Messiah and the offering of a sacrifice once for all is not contradicted by the vision of these ancient seers.

There is little doubt in my mind at least that before the Resurrection it seemed contradictory to the disciples that salvation could come by way of Jesus' death. Not surprisingly, those in the Judeo-Christian construct who deny the Resurrection also find it contradictory that salvation could come by way of the Messiah's death.

Theophage, you have answer something yourself now.

You cite the following as supposed examples of actual forgiveness of sins by fiat, as if his once for all sacrifice is rendered needless:

Mark 2:4-7
Luke 5:19-21
Luke 7:47-49
John 8:10-12

Tell me, how do you reconcile Mark 2:4–7 with Mark 8:31–33 (a prediction that almost smacks of necessity, no?)?

How about Luke 5:19–21 and 7:47–49 with Luke 9:44–45 (yet another prediction that smacks of necessity)?

How does John 8:10–12 relate to the Saint John's inclusion of Jesus' prediction about death in John 12:27–36? Or better, his ironic interlude about Caiaphas' prophecy, John 11:49–52 (cf. John 18:14)?

All of these examples are intertextual and juxtaposed. If you are arguing that they cannot be reconciled for want of a "proof-text," then so be it. But you are saying in the same breath that the authors were idiots and missed your points entirely. Frankly, you have said little more than that given Jesus is depicted as one who can forgive sins by declaration, then it seems his death was needless. Surely you can see how this is minor quibble at best, and if one takes the gospel writings to be largely written by a primary author, then the burden lies on the one who sees a contradiction to prove that contradiction, which entails a bit more than ripping a few words out in one place at the expense of the piece as a whole. Atomistic exegesis always, but always, suffers under this burden.

Regards,

CJD

"I had thought it was just a clever way of noting that most people have a belief system which they then try to justify based on things like scripture rather than the other way around."

With the exception that your equation needs to be 3-steps instead of 2, you are correct, dear sir. (The Bible, then the belief system, then imposed back on the Bible).

CJD

Er, ". . . if one takes any given gospel writing to be composed largely by a primary author . . ."

Doctor X

No.

--J.D.

Dominus Paradoxum

Good response, CJD, but you left out the passages which said that sin would be forgiven without the shedding of blood, especially the offering of the incense and the "rendering of bulls with the offering of our lips." I would be interested to see what your response to that is.

Devilnaut

"No."


Well I disagree here, I think that the bible is certainly centered around salvation and "getting to heaven" as it were. Doesn't this seem obvious?

Amos

"Getting back to heaven" is to come full cirlce in life and that is obvious from the bible which begins in Eden, is followed by the fall, the acts of Gods people during exile, their redemption, and glorification of the elect upon their return to Eden.

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

People have to witness things to believe, like the time Jesus said to the cripple your sins are forgiven, the crowd there did not really believe Jesus had the power to do this.

When Jesus then said to the cripple get up and walk, it would then became an acceptable conclusion to the witnessing crowd that he also had the power to forgive sins.

If Jesus had said all sins are forgiven and he then lived his life as a normal man, then it is very likely that no one today would know his name.

I believe that the crucifixion served many separate purposes, but maybe the forgiving of sins is not the greatest purpose for the crucifixion.

I’m off to do a twenty two hour shift now.

Peace

Eric

Doctor X

No.

The Deuteronomistic History, for example, describes the opposite.

You place an artificial "main theme" on a collection of competing texts.

--J.D.