Theophage

It is a central tenet (indeed, the central tenet) of Christianity that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Sin, Christians say, separates Man from God, and only the shed blood of Jesus can wipe away that sin and allow Man to once again unite with God.

And yet, there are several passages where Jesus is shown able to forgive sins without such bloodshed:

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

So if Jesus is able to forgive sins without being crucified, what is the point of Jesus' crucifixion again?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Amos

That Jesus died for the sins of our world is really a protestant thing because in Catholicism we are to follow Jesus and die to our sins. He died to the sins of his world and we must die to the sins of our world.

The cross really was Joseph's collection of sins and this is what Jesus bore to Calvary . . . which is outside the city to indicate that it was free will event. Jesus here is the reborn Joseph who remained free of sin because he was set free from the law and found it therefore very easy to forgive sins (why wouldn't he?).

Jeremy Pallant

What?

Theophage

That's exactly what I was thinking...

I appreciate your input, Amos, but I find your beliefs to be extremely non-standard to the point where they really don't apply to the point of my original post. I doubt even Albert Cipriani (also a Catholic) would agree with what you'd wrote.

Anyone else?

CJD

Maybe since the Council of Trent there has been a greater emphasis on works, but no orthodox xian (Protestant or otherwise) denies that "we are to follow Jesus and die to our sins," nor does any orthodox xian (Catholic or otherwise) deny that "Jesus died for the sins of our world." How do you reckon the Church Fathers down to Anselm were "Protestant"?

Theophage, quite possibly you have missed what xians say the Bible teaches about this. It is not as linear as you suggest (i.e., Jesus forgave sins verbally before dying on the cross). Everything redemptive is redemptive in light of the cross. This has been referred to as the theologica crucis, or theology of the cross. From the time of Adam to now, people are saved by virtue of the Golgotha event. This is also why xians point out the temporary aspects of the old sacrificial system described in the Tanak, and how it as a whole "prefigured" the cross. Historic, Christian orthodoxy has taught nothing less.

Regards,

CJD

Theophage

Thank you for your reply CJD.

The explanation you gave certainly seems to harmonize the apparent contradiction, but there are problems with it as well.

The first problem would of course come from the nature of sacrifice itself. You mentioned the Old Testament sacrifices and how they were of a more temporary nature. While it is true that the practice of forgiveness of sins in the OT by sacrifice was theologically less effective since the items sacrificed were of less "quality" (for want of a better word) than Jesus, they showed that lesser effectiveness by the fact that they needed to be repeated. As Jesus was a "perfect sacrifice" the forgiveness became "perfect" as well and did not need to be repeated.

Neither of these scenarios, however implies retroactive forgiveness. If they did, why wouldn't we see evidence of the ancient Hebrews being forgiven of certain sins before their actual sacrifices were made? Since their sacrifices were of less quality, such a reverse temporal forgiveness would only be of limited duration, of course, (say, any sins the month before the sacrifice) rather than back to the beginning of time as with the sacrifice of Jesus.

But the simple fact is that we don't see evidence of this type of forgiveness anywhere in the scriptures, nor (unless I am mistaken) do we have scriptural evidence that Jesus' sacrifice reached back in time. In short, it sounds like ad hoc theology to explain away an apparent contradiction. Remember that the most basic rule of Biblical hermaneutics is to neither take away from what is written in the scripture, nor add to what it says.

The second objection to the explanation you've offered comes from the meaning of the stories I gave reference to in my OP. The point of these stories was to show Jesus forgiving sins, something the Jews believed only God could do. What this does, of course, is show that Jesus is one with God, and thus speaks and acts with the authority of God.

Now notice that there was no mention of any sacrifices of animals in those stories. The people were not shocked that there was forgiveness without sacrifice, they were shocked that it was Jesus doing the forgiving. There is a clear implication here that God himself could have forgiven those sins even without sacrifice, and that by doing so, Jesus equates himself with God.

Thirdly, I must object due to simple reason alone. God made the rules (presumably) and so God could have forgiven all of humanity without blood sacrifice if he so wished. That falls under God's supposed omnipotence, does it not? So even if these contradictive stories were not included in the Bible, the case could still be made that Jesus' sacrifice was needless.

I would appreaciate if you CJD, or anyone else would address these objections I have given. Thanks in advance,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Jim Larmore

CJD,

Another aspect of what you have posted is that Jesus as the son of God , is God and as such has the full right to forgive sins . Even before His sacrificial death on the cross occurred. His life here on earth was as the xian's claim, a perfect sinless life which makes His sacrifice sufficient to fullfill the requirements of God's law, only God could make a perfect all encompassing sacrifice for sins. In the N.T. it states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. The sacrificial system ( given right after the fall )as you said foreshadowed the comming of the messiah to be the one and fullfilling sacrifice for all mankind also embraces this requirement. It pointed to the Christ though and without His advent, life and sacrifice would have been useless.

Its interesting to note that the first prophecy for a messiah is given in Genesis 3:15 which lays out the final outcome of the sin problem in our world. This prophecy, given right after the fall to sin in Eden pointed to the "great contorversy" between Christ and Satan. Jesus was born the seed of a woman, His sacrifice would indeed give the serpent a deadly wound to the head. When Jesus died on the cross that act forever sealed the fate of this being referred to as Satan and his fallen angels ( or demons ) . The serpent would wound His heal which encompasses the crucifixion but the fact that Jesus rose the third day makes the serpents wound to the heal not deadly in the sense that He is alive today and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

beastmaster

As Joseph Campbell says (and I agree), the most convincing explanation for the necessity of Jesus' crucifixion is the Development of Divine Compassion for humanity. Through Jesus's suffering, God gained experiential knowledge of the suffering of man, the burden of sin, and the oblivion of death. (Since god is free of defects, he could not experience or know these concepts except through Christ). Indeed, as soon as Jesus took on a human form, the nature of god began to change because incarnation is the beginning of death -- thus, the content of Jesus' ministry during his life reflects a god changed by the experience of mortality. In the end, the nature of god transformed from the grumpy hard-ass of the OT into the shiny happy god of Xnty.

I agree that the whole sacrifice explanation makes no sense.

Mageth

Indeed. I'd note that Campbell meant that as an explanation of the metaphor of the Crucifixion. He didn't express belief in the "historic" interpretation of the Christian faith or any other, nor does he express belief in a personal, external God (quite the contrary).

I've also read sort of an extension to that theory (not from Campbell). Of all the participants in the Gospel, Judas was most "mortal", suffered most (as the most despised character in the Gospels), and sacrificed most (giving up his life and his soul). Therefore, perhaps Judas was the real Christ.

(I pose that as an interesting thought, but it's admiteddly pure speculation and quite a bit of a stretch).

Rick Sumner

Forgiving sins without sacrifice was a Jewish concept before Jesus:

2Ch.6.39 attributes forgiveness to humbleness, prayer, and a change of heart.

Ps.25.18 seems to indicate that God forgives sins through empathy.

Jer.36.3 attributes it again to change of heart.

One particularly interesting scroll indicates that sin can be forgiven by an intermediary.

There are many other examples of sacrifice free redemption.

Regards,
Rick