Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-11-2013, 12:31 AM

In the Cairo Genizah (some readings dating back perhaps close to the age of Philo):

"the memra of the Lord will be my redeeming God" (Genesis 28:21) http://books.google.com/books?id=PUY...A21%22&f=false

Onkelos Gen 28:21:

"and the word of the Lord will be my God" http://books.google.com/books?id=J2J...god%22&f=false

Full reference of Onkelos:

Jacob affirmed saying, "If the memra of the Lord will assist me and proted me on this journey that I am making, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and I return in peace to my father's house - then the memra of the Lord will be my God." http://books.google.com/books?id=B2C...%5D%22&f=false

stephan huller · 03-11-2013, 12:48 AM

The Samaritans read this material as pertaining to Gerizim "my father's house bshlwm (= Salem)." This is Melchizedek's house - and if we take matters one step further (no Samaritan would go there today) this is also the house of 'the word of God.'

maryhelena · 03-11-2013, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps in a different context, so here it is again.

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.

Agreed.

Quote:

The ransom is an indication that Christian origins were fundamentally dualistic

Yes, the OT god is a dualistic god. The concept of monotheism, if it is to have any meaning at all, has to be able to self-generate i.e. able to produce. Monotheism is not a concept of a sterile god. The OT god is a Creator god - and a destroyer god. i.e. a good god and an 'evil' god. If the OT god can do this within an earthly context - likewise, that OT god can create and destroy within a heavenly/spiritual or intellectual context. The OT god can produce an earthly son and a heavenly son.

That said, the NT ransom (the most fundamental dogma of christian theology) cannot, morally, function from an earthly flesh and blood context to a spiritual/heavenly context. Consequently, to have salvation value it has to be entirely played out within a spiritual/intellectual context. That is the only context in which a salvation value can be obtained from the ransom.

Quote:

(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.

Jake, surely, a higher god concept becomes meaningless if that higher god has to offer a sacrifice to the lower god??

Quote:

But this doesn't work out too well for the orthodox Christianity theology.

Orthodox christian theology is hamstrung by its assumed historical JC. That the writers of the NT were so hamstrung cannot be evidenced.

Quote:

They 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.

Again, your talking about a christian theology based upon the assumed historical JC.

Quote:

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.

Yes, but that, again, is all based upon the assumed historical JC interpretation of the NT story.

Quote:

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.

Jake

Yes, the orthodox have made a mess of things; interpreting the gospel crucifixion JC story as a literal flesh and blood sacrifice that has salvation value.

But that does not mean that the early heretics had the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth'........

Heresy, as Hans Kung once wrote, was born with the church...Christianity is the mother of heretics....that is it's glory as well as it's downfall....i.e. intellectual progress requires, demands, that we are all, at some time, heretics. We all become the 'evil one' when we want to break down the boundaries of that scholarly consensus.....

Iskander · 03-11-2013, 02:42 AM

The following was extracted from Rabbi Kaplan's Handbook of Jewish Thought:

The coming of the Messiah and the subsequent redemption of Israel is a basic belief of Judaism.

God will bring the redemption in His own time. If all Israel were to return to God, the Messiah would appear and the final redemption would be ushered in immediately.

Otherwise, the redemption will not occur until the final time decreed by God. This is the meaning of the verse, "I, God, will accelerate it in its due time" (Isaiah 60:22). That is, if Israel is worthy, God will hasten the redemption; if they are not, it will come, but only in its due time.

The following is my own comment:

Judaism believes in messianic redemption. It is easy to interpret Jesus as an accelerator of redemption sent by god (Isa 60:22), later to be distorted by Greek familiarity with cohabiting gods and infected with Zoroastrian nightmares, all of it in the slow-cooking Roman Imperial pot.

jakejonesiv · 03-11-2013, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, the orthodox have made a mess of things; interpreting the gospel crucifixion JC story as a literal flesh and blood sacrifice that has salvation value.

But that does not mean that the early heretics had the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth'........

I don't think the heretics had truth any more than the orthodox.

maryhelena · 03-11-2013, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, the orthodox have made a mess of things; interpreting the gospel crucifixion JC story as a literal flesh and blood sacrifice that has salvation value.

But that does not mean that the early heretics had the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth'........

I don't think the heretics had truth any more than the orthodox.

:thumbs:

Yep, they both messed up...orthodox and heretic are just two sides of the same coin - the onward rollercoaster ride of intellectual progress.....

aa5874 · 03-11-2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps in a different context, so here it is again.

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.

They 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.

Jake

A ransom has nothing whatsoever to do with remission of sins. It only means Jesus was KILLED instead of those who should have been.

The false accusers in the Jesus stories who demanded that Jesus be Crucified should have been Killed instead of Jesus.

Jesus was a RANSOM for the False Witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19

Quote:

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges , which shall be in those days;

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition : and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear , and fear , and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

21 And thine eye shall not pity ; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

It is clear. If a false witness asks for a person's death then the False Witness should instead be Put to death.

Now, examine gMark. The False witnesses should have been Killed instead Jesus was RANSOMED.

MARK 14

Quote:

56For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together .

57And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying ,

58We heard him say , I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

59But neither so did their witness agree together...

Essentially, in the early stories of Jesus when he was killed as a Ransom NOTHING was changed--Jewish Laws were NOT abolished---- Remission of Sins was still accomplished by Sacrifice and Jews were still expected to follow the commandments.

It was the Later authors like the author of gJohn and the Pauline writers who Corrupted the Jesus story and made the Jesus a universal Savior.

Jesus did NOT come to Fogive the Sins of the Populace.

This is the EARLY Creed of the Jesus story and Repeated by many authors of the Canon.

Mark 4

Quote:

10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

That "Creed" is Repeated in the EARLY stories of Jesus--See Matthew 13.

Jesus did NOT come to Forgive the Sins of the ousiders.

1 Cor.15 and the Pauline writings are LATE Inventions--a Later corruption of the early Jesus story who was NOT a Savior at all for the Populace.

Jesus was merely RANSOMED for his FALSE accusers in the early stories of the Canon.

Iskander · 03-11-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps in a different context, so here it is again.

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.

They 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.

Jake

You seem to believe that your dogmatic preaching is what Christianity is.
You say and apparently repeat that Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. What does it mean?

Later, you admit that the “orthodox” do not say that, but you know better and proceed to call them stupid!!

outhouse · 03-11-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Now look at these passages which I ascribe to a later redactor:

DCH

Isnt it claimed it was written to multiple house churches in 3 parts?

Cor 1 Cor 2 and the ending of Cor 2 written as a follow up with a very stern or even hostile attitude?

In the beginning you were right, it was about social difference between the rich and working class. While there are scholarly arguemnents on how rich or poor they were as a whole. The social differences are obvious and Paul was trying to get them on even ground regarding these meals.

Some say Paul must have had some kind of negative feeback from the multiple sources he used and mad claims of, maybe even Chloe's people, after his second part, then wrote his 3rd address.

Ken Brown · 03-13-2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The Messiah died because of or for the sake of our sin so that we could be blessed in departing or turning from iniquity/sin. He did not die in our stead to pay any penalty for sin...that is a delusional gospel.

If according to the law the wages of sin are death and all men have sinned (women fortunately are excluded from this), then the law is clear: they all have to die.

The messiah dying according to your scheme achieves nothing. He could have come and frolicked a while then left without all the stagecraft. Dying for people's sin makes no sense if the dying achieves nothing, is not necessary. Christianity works on the notion of redemption, ie something is paid to redeem. That payment is central to the religion, the emblem of Jesus dying on the cross. The sinless person acting as a proxy can redeem the sinner. The death of Jesus frees the sinner from the law.

One can understand why Marcion did not like the lawgiver.

If you disagree with the above, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the death of Jesus: what did the death itself do.

Hi Spin, you bring up and ask some very good questions. At the core of the answer is to have some rational thought as to what Elohim is trying to do with mankind. Most think He created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature...with no inclination to sin, and they believe "Jesus" dying in their place fixes their sin and Adams. That belief is wrong. Elohim created mankind to be against Him, and He didn't give anyone a "free will." He "bound" or "consigned" all of mankind to disobedience (Rom 11:32), including Adam and Eve, by creating them and us NAKED, FLESHLY, sinners.

Now, there is a redemption taking place from HOW Elohim created us, by FIRST bringing an Elect to the Knowledge of the Truth concerning how their sin did bring about the suffering and death of Yeshua. He is trying to deliver us OUT of sin, and is letting some of us SEE how our sin caused Yeshua's suffering and death, who was totally innocent, righteous, and undeserving of death. This is the catalyst in causing our sin to go into remission. In Elohim's plan, He wants us all to be clothed in righteousness, and not to remain naked, in our sin-(Rev 19:8, Job 29:14, Psa 132:9, Isa 61:10).

Think along the lines of the Passover Lamb. It took killing an innocent Lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, and then totally being ready to FLEE from Egypt. Well, Yeshua's shed blood placed on the doorposts of my conscience and heart is what delivers or causes me to flee from sin.

One final point. Yeshua said that when He would be LIFTED up on the Cross, He would draw ALL MEN (mankind) to Him (John 12:32). Paul stated that when Yeshua died, ALL died, and he (Paul) doesn't look at anyone as "living," or according to the "flesh." (2 Cor 5:14-16) As far as Paul was concerned, everyone is dead. So in that respect, the wages of sin was paid in that ALL died when He died, and it should not be viewed as a substitute dying in their stead. Hope this helps to clarify a few rational thoughts. KB

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2013, 12:31 AM	#41
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	In the Cairo Genizah (some readings dating back perhaps close to the age of Philo): "the memra of the Lord will be my redeeming God" (Genesis 28:21) http://books.google.com/books?id=PUY...A21%22&f=false Onkelos Gen 28:21: "and the word of the Lord will be my God" http://books.google.com/books?id=J2J...god%22&f=false Full reference of Onkelos: Jacob affirmed saying, "If the memra of the Lord will assist me and proted me on this journey that I am making, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and I return in peace to my father's house - then the memra of the Lord will be my God." http://books.google.com/books?id=B2C...%5D%22&f=false

03-11-2013, 12:48 AM	#42
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The Samaritans read this material as pertaining to Gerizim "my father's house bshlwm (= Salem)." This is Melchizedek's house - and if we take matters one step further (no Samaritan would go there today) this is also the house of 'the word of God.'

03-11-2013, 02:42 AM	#44
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The following was extracted from Rabbi Kaplan's Handbook of Jewish Thought: The coming of the Messiah and the subsequent redemption of Israel is a basic belief of Judaism. God will bring the redemption in His own time. If all Israel were to return to God, the Messiah would appear and the final redemption would be ushered in immediately. Otherwise, the redemption will not occur until the final time decreed by God. This is the meaning of the verse, "I, God, will accelerate it in its due time" (Isaiah 60:22). That is, if Israel is worthy, God will hasten the redemption; if they are not, it will come, but only in its due time. The following is my own comment: Judaism believes in messianic redemption. It is easy to interpret Jesus as an accelerator of redemption sent by god (Isa 60:22), later to be distorted by Greek familiarity with cohabiting gods and infected with Zoroastrian nightmares, all of it in the slow-cooking Roman Imperial pot.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.