TedM

Yes Jake it does have a simple answer. The ransom was paid to God who through his volition had allowed the Angel of Death to do his thing to man because of Adam's sin. It's Jewish theology 101.

TedM

What you don't seem to grasp is that fact that such a 'jump' WAS MADE. You just claim it couldn't have been made from 'reality' but was made in the imaginations only. That is, the IDEA of crucifixion being a sacrifice for sins existed regardless of whether it applied to a human being that had just recently lived or one that Paul and others thought had existed sometime in the past, and possibly only in the heavens. It still was that 'big jump' that you say was devoid of logic.

It amazes me that you have the same 'stumbling block' that Paul said the Jews had. Obviously some are too repulsed by the idea to accept it. But, people are different and flexible enough such that some WILL accept the obvious comparisons IF they see a benefit to doing so. That's EXACTLY the case here.

As long as for SOME it isn't a 'big jump' to see how salvation from sins via animal sacrifice during passover could be replaced by salvation from sins via a godly man's sacrifice during passover, the 'advanced' theology of Paul could come about in very short order, and can explain why there is such an overlap of viewpoints in the works traditionally considered to have overlapped. The expectation of a Messiah and related passages from the OT could easily have been applied to a man who 'fit the bill'. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus himself saw himself as the redeemer in Isaiah 53--he could have orchestrated his own death even. But, it doesn't require it..causing a scene in Passover doesn't require knowledge of how the story would play out..

It therefore does not require a story. It COULD be a story. But, it doesn't REQUIRE one as you seem to think. It also doesn't REQUIRE an actual resurrection Mary--the defying of rationality that you refer to. It only requires BELIEF that a resurrection had occurred.

I can't put it any more clearly than this. If you still disagree, which I know you do, there isn't any need to continue.

maryhelena

On that, Ted, you are right.....I've no interest in any debate that seeks to uphold such an irrational, illogical and immoral premise.

TedM

Mary, I have to say that you appear to be letting your emotions guide your approach to the subject. Human and animal sacrifice are ancient practices but it appears to me that you find them SO repellent as to be unable to conceive of the possibility that they had a purpose.

maryhelena

icardfacepalm:

That's for the human sacrifices...Ted, get real here.

Emotions?? Haha - I'm a hard case Ted - takes an awful lot for me to get emotional....Human sacrifice? I'll walk the other way - leaves me cold....:wave:

TedM

I don't know what you are saying. They existed. They had a purpose. The pattern for the Jews was set not only with the centuries of animal sacrifice for sins, but with the OT prophecies for a Messiah who would also save Israel from their sins--including some like the Suffering Servant. I really don't know why you keep arguing a point that has nothing to back it up. You have made statements but given -- as far as I've seen so far -- NOTHING to back up your claims. I've given you plenty to back up my claims.

maryhelena

Ted, you have given me an interpretation of the NT story - and added in a point re animal and human sacrifices as having value in ancient times.

I have rejected not only your interpretation of the NT story - but rejected on logical and moral grounds the very idea that human sacrifices can have value. I have rejected this abhorrent idea on humanitarian grounds.

Do whatever you wish with your theological mumbo jumbo - I'll stick to humanitarian concerns for rejecting human sacrifices as being devoid of value.

And to attempt to ascribe such a monstrous idea to the writers of the NT - Ted, that is to credit them with anti-humanitarian premises. And all you have for doing such a disservice to writers you don't know - is an INTERPRETATION of what they have written...

:realitycheck:

TedM

No one is asking you to accept the 'morality' of the crucifixion. I'm just asking you to accept the idea that some of the Jews of the day DID accept the morality of it--just as people have for 2000 years. I'm not asking you to personally convert! Just to understand that others saw what was to them a rational basis for converting --it their sins were forgiven through human sacrifice because God said they would be. Did you think I was asking you to agree with them?

This isn't an 'interpretation'. This IS the message of Christianity. It's what they SAY, Mary. This is the reason early Christians believed they would be saved. What other reason was there? It's in gMark. It's in GJohn. It's in Paul. That's what the message is. If you see another message in the NT for why people are saved, by all means, enlighten me.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

Jewish theology 101?

No indeed! LOL! Jesus' alleged "crucifiction" and ransom have nothing to do with Jewish theology at all. The Jewish scriptures forbid human sacrifice. This is somethig you could determine quite easily by asking any Rabbi. So you need to admit that we are discussing Christian theology.

Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. (cf Eph. 1:7-8).

One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. Indeed, an all powerful God could simply forgive sins by divine fiat without anyone having to die.


The ransom is an indication that Christian origins were fundamentally dualistic (and hence "heretical" by orthodox standards). The highest God was not conceived-at least in the current age--to have authority over the powers of darkness (i.e. the god of this world and his minions), and thus had to bargain with that entity in order to secure the release of those who believed in Jesus.


But this doesn't work out too well for the orthodox Christianity theology, as represented here by you Ted.


You must say God paid a ransom to himself to satisfy his requirements for justice or some such nonsense. That the very God who casts souls into hell (blaming the victim for something over which they have no control) would then kill himself, or his divine Son, or an innocent man, or some combination of all of these is incomprehensible.



The proto-orthodox have a very hard time explaining to whom the ransom was paid. Clearly it was to the "god of this world" whether he be called the Demiurge or Satan.
Did any early Christian sect(s) believe this? The answer is yes, absolutely. But they lost the doctrinal wars of the 2nd thru 4th centuries.



Ted, now that you failed the "ransom" question, can you explain the existence of evil in the world of an omnipotent Good God?


Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

P.S. Just to be clear, I am not arguing for the reality of any supernatural entity, but beliefs and dogmas evident in early Christianity.

maryhelena

Ted, its a story. If people believe the story - so what? That does not grant the story any value whatsoever.

It's not how people read the story that is important - it's what the writers of the story were trying to convey. Yes, that story is dressed up in theological terms and people will read it literally and have faith that the story is reflecting some otherworldly reality of which they hope to become a part.

But the story is immoral, irrational and illogical. Now, you can say the writers of that story were immoral, irrational and illogical. Thus, write off the whole NT writing as mumbo jumbo theological fantasy. Or?

Allow that these writers were not immoral, irrational and illogical. That theology is only the window dressing not the substance of what they were writing about. If that is so i.e. by granting these writers a measure of humanitarian concerns, then - the window dressing, the theology, has to be taken down. And taken down swiftly and decisively. And that, Ted, is what the JC historicists camp do with the gospel story, i.e. they seek to remove the mythological elements to find the human man they believe lies beneath it all. That's what is necessary, especially so with the Pauline writings.

The theological mumbo jumbo has to taken down in order to reach the humanitarian concerns and interests that lie beneath it.

And first up - THE IDEA THAT THERE IS VALUE IN A FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN SACRIFICE HAS TO BE KICKED TO HELL AND GONE - :devil1: