Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-17-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

...

incidently what is the differance between the scape goat that took away sin and the sacrificial lamb?

Well, both were animal sacrifices of a sort to propitiate a vengeful god, but the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered at Passover, while the scapegoat escaped to the wilderness taking along the sins of the Israelites as part of the Yom Kippur ceremonies. Scapegoat is a translation of the Hebrew Azazel, who might have been a demon living in the desert, to whom the goat was a sacrifice.

But the two animals come together in this theory:

Quote:

The Christian anthropologist René Girard has provided a reconstruction of the scapegoat theory. In Girard's view, it is humankind, not God, who has the problem with violence. Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again. Girard contends that this is what happened in the case of Jesus. The difference in this case, Girard believes, is that he was resurrected from the dead and shown to be innocent; humanity is thus made aware of its violent tendencies and the cycle is broken. Satan, who is seen to be manifested in the contagion, is cast out. Thus Girard's work is significant as a re-construction of the Christus Victor atonement theory.

perfectidius · 06-17-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

...

incidently what is the differance between the scape goat that took away sin and the sacrificial lamb?

Well, both were animal sacrifices of a sort to propitiate a vengeful god, but the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered at Passover, while the scapegoat escaped to the wilderness taking along the sins of the Israelites as part of the Yom Kippur ceremonies. Scapegoat is a translation of the Hebrew Azazel, who might have been a demon living in the desert, to whom the goat was a sacrifice.

But the two animals come together in this theory:

Quote:

The Christian anthropologist René Girard has provided a reconstruction of the scapegoat theory. In Girard's view, it is humankind, not God, who has the problem with violence. Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again. Girard contends that this is what happened in the case of Jesus. The difference in this case, Girard believes, is that he was resurrected from the dead and shown to be innocent; humanity is thus made aware of its violent tendencies and the cycle is broken. Satan, who is seen to be manifested in the contagion, is cast out. Thus Girard's work is significant as a re-construction of the Christus Victor atonement theory.

Ah but Satan gets resurrected too. So much for that.

Daniel

Doug Shaver · 06-18-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectidius

MANY aspects of the story of the crucifixion are implausible.

They're all incidental details. The likelihood of their being true has no bearing on the likelihood that the historical Jesus, if there was one, died by crucifixion.

Doug Shaver · 06-18-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectidius

The earliest Christian writings, the Q document, have no tradition of him being crucified.

Daniel

I have never seen anyone explain how we know that something was not in a document of which no copies are known to exist and which is not referenced in any extant document.

spamandham · 06-18-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectidius

MANY aspects of the story of the crucifixion are implausible.

They're all incidental details. The likelihood of their being true has no bearing on the likelihood that the historical Jesus, if there was one, died by crucifixion.

What is the methodology used to filter the bits of reality from a story that is grossly implausible at face value?

Huon · 06-18-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

They're all incidental details. The likelihood of their being true has no bearing on the likelihood that the historical Jesus, if there was one, died by crucifixion.

What is the methodology used to filter the bits of reality from a story that is grossly implausible at face value?

Luke 23:46. And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.

[Note Psalms 31,5. Into Your hand I commit my spirit; ...]

Mark 15:34. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted: My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?
15:37. And Jesus, having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the ghost.

Make your choice. It is one one the most important moments, and there is no agreement between Luke and Mark (or Matthew).

Doug Shaver · 06-19-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

What is the methodology used to filter the bits of reality from a story that is grossly implausible at face value?

If I agreed with you that the story is "grossly implausible at face value," then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.