Tod

originally posted by CJD
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

Hi CJD...

This response makes the assumption that you believe in some form of eternal damnation, hell, etc. If you do not believe in eternal suffering for nonbelievers, disregard this post.

A post I made earlier in this thread (page 5) covered what I'm going to repeat now. Here you seem to be saying that God's nature involves justice that "requir[es] some form of atonement." Apparently, this is why he will not just forgive sins out of the goodness of his heart without a "sacrifice."

Again, it seems as if God has two highly unequal forms of "atonement." On the one hand, now that Jesus has lived and died (and allegedly resurrected), all humans that lack faith must suffer eternal damnation. On the other hand, Jesus' alleged "sacrifice" appeases God's sense of justice. However, Jesus sacrifice was indeed a cakewalk compared to eternal damnation. If a torturous death and two days in the grave is sufficient "atonement," it is hardly an act of justice or mercy to require everybody else to suffer for eternity.

Allowing Jesus' sacrifice to "pay the price" as we are told is grossly unfair if eternal damnation is what is required for everybody else. Jesus didn't "pay the price" I presumably have to pay. How can that be just, much less merciful?? If dying and being dead a couple of days satisfies God's no-tolerance need for atonement for sins, why do the rest of us have to suffer for eternity? Clearly, what qualifies as "requir[ed]...atonement" spans over an infinite spectrum. If God has so much leeway with his required atonement, again, how is it just and merciful to sentence all nonbelievers to eternal damnation?

Furthermore, why is it too late when we die? That sounds like an arbitrary criteria if there is an afterlife. Even Thomas, who allegedly witnessed Jesus' ministry and miracles, needed, and received, verification. I just don't see the justice or mercy involved in requiring people to have blind faith in something that defies reason and experience or suffer eternal damnation, when blind faith could easily be rendered unnecessary to an omnimax God. I fail to see why a sense of justice would have anything to do with that.

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

Hello Daniel,


It's like trying to nail jello to the wall...

That will probably always be the case, you are searching for some sort of proof, and all we have to offer is varied and individual beliefs.

As I have said before I mainly agree with you, God could say your sins are forgiven, and that would be the end of it. So it seems from God’s point of view Christ did not have to die.

But from my own point of view, my whole belief is centred on the resurrection, without the resurrection, I would not CHOOSE to have such a strong faith in a loving God.

You could ask a billion Christians what they base their faith on, and they will probably all say the resurrection. Ask these same Christians why, and then you will almost certainly get a great variety of answers.

Again the resurrection is for my benefit and not for Gods, it is necessary and central to a billion peoples beliefs, plus many more throughout history.

Where there are beliefs there is no proof.

Urgent send more nails, the jello is running down the wall


peace

Eric

Jim Larmore

Todd,
I know how you feel, I don't believe a loving God would "eternally punish" a soul for a mere short 70 years of life no matter how wicked that person was. If you think about it ,its not justice either. Take for instance lets say you didn't make it right with your creator before you died and you went to hell. You'd be roasting and toasting from now on eternally for a mere say 30 years of life ( I make an assumption you may not even be that old I haven't read your profile) . That means you would receive the same punishment as Adolf Hitler or some other heinous person, is this justice? I don't think so.

In the first place I don't believe "eternal hell-fire" is Biblical. Nor do I believe when you die you go straight to heaven or hell, thats not Biblical either. There are a lot of "beliefs" that have come down to us thru the ages which have become a part of "tradition" and are not Biblical. The Bible says "The living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything" Eccl. 9:5 . Psalms 115:17 says "The dead praise not the lord" You see a lot of religions say the soul is immortal but there is not one text in the Bible which says that. In fact its the opposite in Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth it shall die" so we know souls can and will die. In Eccl 12:7 it says "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return to God who gave it. " The spirit spoken of in the Bible as belonging to God in the Hebrew is "Ruach" or breath, in the greek it is pneumos or breathing its not some living entity floating off into oblivion after death. In Gen. 2:7 it says and the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostils the breath ( Ruach) of life and man became a living soul. When God completed the construction of Adam before He breathed that breath of life into him he was dead just lying there, but when God intimately breathed that life giving breath into him he became a living soul. Life is miraculous and always has been, its a gift from our creator. In Job 27:3 it says" The spirit ( Ruach) of God is in my nostrils"
Jesus says when we die we go to sleep in John 11:11-14 there is a story of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus, he told the disciples that Lazarus was asleep and the disciples couldn't understand that if he was asleep why he would need the healer, then Jesus spoke plainly to them, He said Lazarus is dead, but the Bible speaks of death as a sleep 66 times.

When we die we simply sleep until Jesus comes , true death happens at hell-fire. The death will be for etenity but it will not be etenal punishment. We need to ask three questions , when will hell burn, where will it burn and for how long will it burn?
WHEN? Hell will burn at the end of the world , if you read in Matt 13:36-50 it says that the wicked will be burned at the end of the world NOT as soon as they die. In Rev20:11-15 it says that all would stand before judgement before being burned.
WHERE? Deut32:22 says the earth is the place for the burning. 2Peter3:7 the heavens ( sky and atmosphere) and earth are kept in store , reserved into fire against the day of judgement.
HOW LONG?The Bible doesn't say but it can't be for eternity. Heres where most people stumble, in Romans 6:23 it says "The wages of sin is death" Think about it a second if the wicked lived on thru the ceaseless ages of eternity in hell they wouldn't be dead they would be suffering and alive eternally or immortal. However only God has immortality and He never promises immortality to the wicked only the righteous. Remember? The Bible says the soul that sinneth it shall DIE . John 3:16 says for God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son that who-soever believeth in Him should not PERISH but have everlasting life. Lets get some more texts to back this up, in Mal4:1-3 it says "Behold the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven:and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of host , that it shall leave them neither root nor branch............and ye shall tread down the wicked ,for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.
Lastly , the Bible says after hell is finished that the Lord will create a new world here on earth, if hell were burning etenally He couldn't make a new world here, we've already established where hell will burn, right here on earth. God is a God of Love and justice. I believe those who do not accept the plan of redemption will DIE in the flames of hell-fire which will be unquechable, ( what God starts you won't be able to stop) but they will burn according to the works of the sinner and they will burn out eventually leaving neither root nor branch and ashes for the righteous to tread down. I believe for instance that Hitler will burn longer than many others because of his massive sinfulness, but thats up to God to determine, a God of justice.

Devilnaut

Jesus only died on the cross for "our benefit" in so far as we are to follow him and do as he did.

It is not the subject of the forgiveness which is saved but the forgiver. This is because ultimate forgiveness is ultimate sacrifice. Ultimate sacrifice (involving "death" as the bible puts it) brought others (everyone other than him) back up to Jesus' level of value and his new identity (God) encompassed them as if they were what he used to refer to as "himself". His will and God's will were aligned.

This ultimate release involves the forgiveness of original sin because it is a release of all distinctions made (in sin) by the conscious mind.



"is this justice? I don't think so."


It is because heaven is as good as hell is bad.

Theophage

CJD,

I won't have time to get to your entire post today like I thought I would, but I will hit what I think is our biggest stumbling block. The rest I will probably get to tomorrow.

While you say:

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.

Your asking me to justify my reading of passages like Mk 2:1-12 "in light of other passages to the contrary in the very same piece of literature" appears to contradict this.

When someone writes X we know what they are saying simply because we know how to read (assuming, of course, it is written clearly and understandably). The default unsderstanding, then, is that when someone writes X, they mean X.

Now, what you're telling me is that the author of Mark wrote X, but didn't mean X, he really meant Y. Can we agree that it appears to be the case that Mk 2:1-12 shows Jesus forgiving sins simply by his words (and, of course, the faith of the people)?

Certainly there are many cases when people write X but really mean Y, such as metaphor, parable, etc. I agree that this may well be the case with the passages I selected. But (and this is a big but) such interpretations are only warranted by sufficient evidence. In other words, unless by evidence or argument it is more likely that they really meant Y, the most reasonable assumption is that they really mean X.

You ask me to justify my reading of X "in light of other passages to the contrary in the very same piece of literature". The first question then is "what is the same piece of literature?" I will agree with you that the book of Mark qualifies as the same piece of literature. However I would not agree that the entire Bible is the same piece of literature.

Now, a single book by a single author should be internally harmonious, and that would be gthe default assumption unless there is sufficient evidence otherwise. The problem here is that I don't find any passages in Mark that contradict my reading of Mk 2:1-12.

If I understand some of your objections correctly, you would consider passages where Jesus predicts his own death and crucifixion as contrary to my reading of the passage in question, true? (I woudl quote, but I don't have time to dig at the moment)

I, however, do not find a passage such as this contradictory, since the fact that Jesus knew he was going to die and be crucified is irrelevant to my reading of the passage in question. I simply do not see how they are in opposition, and if you do see this, that is what I'd like you to explain to me.

Now, moving on outward to the rest of the Bible, I do not consider different books written by different authors to be the "same piece of literature" even if they cover the same or overlapping subjects. Why don't I? Because unless there is reason to believe they are part of a whole, the default is that they are not.

This is why I said that you appear to believe a priori that the Bible is a harmonious whole. Only by holding this belief would I need to justify my reading of Mk 2:1-12 against contrary passages in the rest of the Bible. There is no need to justify a passage in a single work by one author against a passage in a single work by another author unless both works are presupposed to be harmonious. Do you see what I mean?

So anyway, if we start with the book of Mark itself, please tell me what passages aer contrary to my reading and why. If there are not such passages, then I wonder why you're asking me to justify them?

Until tomorrow,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Soul Invictus

CJD,

I enjoy your insight. You are one of the more persuasive theists on this board..at least you have organized structure when making your claims..better than most of both sides theist, and atheist alike.

However, taking into account your post on this subject, it seems to be that the crux of your defense is predicated around what I've quoted. I would doubt that these "texts" are beloved on iidb.org, much less held in strictly high regard as a reputable source. However, to infer that the examples of forgiveness without the shedding of blood fails to meet the burden of necessary "proof" for discussion's sake is feckless. I would hope that this isn't the foundation for your assumptions because it sounds like the "literal vs figurative interpretation" debate when it comes to discussing the Bible, which usually is a last resort of Christians when all other arguments are found inadequate and inferior. The examples in the Bible clearly state that said forgiveness examples occur without bloodshed. I honestly cannot see how clear it can be. Just as clear as apologists can say that an actual man named Noah existed and built an ark(because the Bible clearly says so) or that Adam and Eve existed and brought sin into the world (because the Bible clearly says so) why not be consistent with the other parables that are used as guidelines in this unassailable book. It appears that an interpretation is being theorized, however cannot be reasonably inferred based on the examples from the Bible that we have on hand. This would be edging close to "adding to the scripture", and with all apologetic justifications without basis, makes me tend to lose interest. Do you have any precedent to found this tangent to?

Please do not think of this response as derisive or condescending...it's just that as Theophage has sentimented, it veers away from the topic he addressed, so its not relevant as a rebut to the specific address he made.

Regards,

Soul Invictus

Doctor X

I must admit that stopped reading this topic some time ago. Nothing personal, one can only follow so many topics. However, I was "PM'd" and asked to comment.

From my mind, the question of whether or not a deity can forgive a sin with or without a sacrifice is irrelevant to the topic. Simply put, if a deity cannot, he quickly becomes less-than omnipotent which throws all sorts of problems into the theology.

I was asked to comment on the claims made linked webpage given what I have read on the subject--Levenson's work I have linked a few pages back.

Basically, it seems the page is correct and incorrect. "Correct" in that the sacrifice is not typical for a Temple sacrifice. "Incorrect" in that it was for a human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice was, apparently, a part of the "Jewish" religion--I use the quotation marks because what was then is not now and, frankly, I am not sure "what" part of the threads that made up the religion was involved. It would seem reasonable to consider it a part of a YHWH cult; however, the texts that have Isaac probably actually squished are the E or Elohim texts. Then, again, it is YHWH in Isaiah who makes an "excuse" for the sacrifices in his name. . .

. . . right, well, anyways, the point that Levenson makes in his work is that the idea of sacrificing a beloved son was not unknown to the Jewish religions, and, he would contend, was an integral part of the mythmaking. Indeed, he sees the various Patriarchal narratives as examples of beloved sons being "sacrificed." However, these "sacrifices" are more metaphorical "journeys of peril" in which the son is eventually reborn.

Long . . . long story short the idea of the death of the son becoming a way to atone or pay for salvation, did enter Jewish thought. In the beginning--as with Jephthahsomethingorother's daughter or the Canaanite king who sacrifices his son on his battlements to get his god to squish the Israelites--this is quite a "literal" act--as it was in the Exodus commandment from YHWH.

At some point it becomes a more mythic conception.

So . . . I had considered the whole "died for our sins" an apology--probably a Helenistic apology--to either explain an actual execution or at least address the tradition of an execution. However, it seems the idea of Junior being a "sacrifice" to "atone" for the nation was not foreign to Judaism of the 1st Century.

Of course, would the Jews of the 1st Century agree?

Probably not.

One man's suicide is another man's martyrdom. It seems to me this explanation would have been a convenient one for mythmakers involved in the process early one. Whether Mk and the rest were as conscious of the connection, I do not know.

However, the sort of "scapegoat" concept is not all that foreign to other cultures. It could be a bit of convenient coincidence.

Now, what the webpage seems to be doing is trying to undercut Christian fundamentalism that the current Jews are "wrong" because they do not accept Junior's "sacrifice." Fine and dandy, but they go about it the wrong way.

--J.D.

CJD

Not at all. Being unable to receive criticism is tantamount to claiming immunity for one's beliefs. However close I come to sounding like this at times, I do not mean it. I am a proud fellow, you know.

This thread has been somewhat out of character for me. The grumpier I get, the more fundamentalized I sound. I just cannot syllogize the ancient text anymore. I disdain such methodology; it not only wrecks the intent of the author but easily obfuscates its original meaning. I don't think in a straight line or propositions, nor do I think truth must needs be conveyed in a scientifically precise manner.

At any rate, I concede your argument. Based on Theophage's criteria, he is right. Now, this does not mean that I cannot account for Mark 2:1–12 (for example) in its context. I do not think that what Daniel implies from the text is relevant to the pericope itself. It's like an aside, an interesting question that, as it is constructed, I have no direct answer for. But I have yet to begin textual criticism re: Mark 2:1–12 (nor do I feel up to it now). Suffice to say it's about the kingdom of God and how the declaration of the gospel (i.e., the forgiveness of sins) was a sign to Jewish ears that the kingdom was upon them. After I get through all of that, Daniel can still say that it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because it doesn't directly deal with the implication he has pulled from the text. Yes, we do see declarations of forgiveness at various points in the Tanak and NT without reference to or proximate connection with blood sacrifices. Okay, then, so be it.

But it comes down to my respect for whoever wrote GMark and what he/she tried to convey in the piece as a whole. I refuse to treat it lightly, and my default position is to try and understand what pericopes like Mark 2:1–12 mean—not only in their surrounding context—but in the entire piece (i.e., GMark, and why not the other gospels, too? Or for that matter, the Tanak, upon which the gospels make much ado?). For this reason, when it seems clear that, for example, a summation of the synoptics is "The Coming of the Kingdom," and not an (albeit interesting) question about the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice, we readers must decide what can be rightly inferred from the text itself. To be sure, any number of ideas can be inferred, but not all them rightfully so. We could play that game with every text in the world, but we don't. Just with this one, because it claims outrageous things, and demands outrageous subjugation, and if it's not kept in check it'll end up scrutinizing the reader instead of the other way around.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment, Soul Invictus.

Regards to you too,

CJD

Theophage

Howdy CJD,

I'd like to thank Soul Invictus for expressing my main concern in an excellent way. I do the best I can, but I'm only human.

I have also really enjoyed your response to Soul Invictus, CJD, as it gives me a much better insight to your frustration in this thread than you have given to me so far.

You wrote:

At any rate, I concede your argument. Based on Theophage's criteria, he is right.

I want to thank you for this, at least. There is a world of difference between an argument being complete bollocks, and an argument being correct if we allow the truth of its premises. This actually helps our discussion along a great deal; all we have to do now is agree on a more correct and reasonable method to extract meaning from such texts, and it will be clear either I will agree that this argument is in error or you will agree it is correct.

Given that, I would like to advance the subject of this thread into the area of textual criticism in general and perhaps Mark in particular if you would like to do that. If not, it's okay, I'm sure there are plenty of other posters who want to add their two cents to this thread.

You also wrote:

But it comes down to my respect for whoever wrote GMark and what he/she tried to convey in the piece as a whole.

One way to respect a writer is to acknowledge that what they wrote is indeed what they meant to say. I understand the need to view the work as a whole, but the question then becomes why would the writer phrase a particular point in such a way that it appears contradictory?

You would think that an important author (particularly a divinely inspired one) would have the means necessary to convey exactly what he intends to say not only in the text as a whole, but in each story and topic within the text. At least I find this to be much more probable than the claim that he said X but really meant Y.

In addition, as I said in my last post, I really haven't found anything particularly contradictory to my interpretation in the rest of the Book of Mark. In the rest of the Bible, sure, but just looking within the context of Mark, my interpretation doesn't seem that outrageous. That's why I was hoping that you would be able to show me why you think the rest of Mark contradicts my position.

Anyway, a dicussion requires the interest of both participants, and if you're smiply not interesting in taking this any further, that is absolutely fine. I'm not one of those people who goes on about "See, he ran away! he knows he's wrong!"

Actually, I am starting another thread regarding pat of your earlier argument:

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.

It's irrelevant to this thread, but I find the idea of God being both just and merciful to be self contradictory. Feel free to join in if you'd like.

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

In your original post you ask was the sacrifice of Jesus really necessary, but maybe we can narrow this question down a bit.

Was it necessary for Jesus?
Was it necessary for God?
Was it necessary for humanity?

For the sacrifice to become necessary, would it have to be for the good of all the above, or would it still be necessary if it was only for one of the above?


Peace

Eric