Theophage

I'm going to have to agree with Doctor X here and say that no, that isn't the subtext of the Bible simply because the Bible doesn't actually have a unified subtext. I would agree, however, that the journey back to God is a definite subtext in parts of the Bible.

As to the rest of your argument, I have to admit that I don't really understand it, but I will continue to read it and try to break it down.

Theophage

Howdy Eric,

When you say:

People have to witness things to believe, like the time Jesus said to the cripple your sins are forgiven, the crowd there did not really believe Jesus had the power to do this.


I certainly agree with the second part (about the crowd not believing until the healing happened) but I agree with the first part only with the caveat that most people need to witness to believe. The fact is that there are a great many people who believe things without witnessing or even without very good indirect evidence. One example is Christianity itself. What believers who live now witnessed the events of the crucifixion? And yet they believe don't they? Thus witnessing while desirable, is certainly not necessary for belief. (Rational belief perhaps, but that is another story...)

If Jesus had said all sins are forgiven and he then lived his life as a normal man, then it is very likely that no one today would know his name.

Well, the point your argument hinges on here is when you say "lived his life like a normal man". I agree with you that Jesus certainly needed to establish authority in the minds of the people for them to accept his proclamations of forgiveness, and that he did this by the miracles. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that the crucifixion needed to be one of these miracles. As you wrote, simply the healing of the paralytic man was proof enough for most (if not all) of the crowd.

This then goes back to my original argument. I'm not arguing that the crucifixion didn't or couldn't allow the forgiveness of sins, only that the crucifixion wasn't necessary for the same. Why was the crucifixion necessary and not simply a long life of more miracle working? Indeed, how about not only a long life, but an immortal life on earth of periodic miracle working?

I'd have to admit that if I knew that there was a 2000 year old guy still alive and still working miracles today, that even I would be a Christian. I would find that to be much more convincing evidence than a dubious story of crucifixion and resurrection written in a book somewhere.


Daniel "Theophage" Clark

CJD

Yes, let's deal with what Rabbi Singer wrote on this (BTW, this is his "Refutation 4" that I skipped in the above post):

First, the repeated proclamation of the historic Church is that the crucifixion of Jesus served as a sacrifice once for all. Even the Catholic Mass is not so bold as to say that the Christ is literally being crucified in the drama of the Eucharist.

Let us first understand the text in question. ". . . abide many days." What might this refer to? The rabbi already made mention of it—the exile. The "many days" is the waiting period between exile and restoration, at which point David's greater son will be sought after (v. 5). During the exile, what will the people be without? "king . . . prince . . . sacrifice . . . sacred pillar . . . ephod . . . teraphim (see Ex. 28:4–12 and 1 Sam. 23:9–12 for the ephod; and Gen 31:19, 34; Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17 for the teraphim). So, the nation was to be without their basic political and religious institutions—both legitimate (sacrifice and ephod) and illegitimate (pillars and teraphim)—as punishment. The final verse (5) is self-explanatory: many would come back from exile genuinely seeking intimacy with God and king (the king here, BTW, is the eschatalogical one. No one expected David to come back from the dead and re-ascend the throne). In the "latter days" the Lord will be revered. "Latter days" was a technical term denoting the messianic reign of God established in Zion. It was expected to be a new epoch, decisively altering the course of history.

So, then, the rabbi's point? He rightly points out that there would be no sacrifices made during the exile. What then atoned for the exilic community's sins? The answer is not found here. However, he thinks it is found in Hosea 14:2–3.

First, I must point out the implied audience of Hosea's prophecies—the Northern kingdom, before it fell to Assyria in 722 BC. But the question we readers must ask is this: was the prophet Hosea's main concern (indeed, was it his concern at all) to direct the people on how to offer sacrifices in exile? I think it is safe to point out the obvious (which the rabbi fails to do here). Hosea, along with the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were making predictions to motivate the people toward repentance (as was their wont). The people, having failed in this regard, not just a little, practically "sealed their fate." This is recounted most notably in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. Hosea, who predicts exile and restoration in chapter 3, once again picks up the theme (indeed, the very reason for prophecy) of repentance. Repentance was necessary for the blessing to come (14:1–3 then vv. 4ff.). Those addressed in chapter have already fallen and are now exhorted to repent. In 14:2, the exhorted are urged to "take words" with them, for words of confession and repentance accompanied with obiedence ("we will offer," "we will not," "nor will we say anymore," etc.) are pleasing to God—not half-hearted sacrifices. This point was already made in my previous post.

Now, the question that critics must answer (like the rabbi, Theophage, and possibly Dominus) is this: Why would you define the way sins are remitted through the exception of exile and not the norm of everyday rote and liturgy? In effect, the exegete at this point pits forgiveness as procured by the exilic community against the forgiveness procured by the obedient nation. The fact is, they are one and the same. As I wrote previously, the heart was always the matter. The liturgical sacrifice simply ingrained into the people the notion that forgiveness is not free. The one point the rabbi must prove, but has not (and cannot), is how the old covenant Israelite was to rightly cease offering sacrifices. Again, the "broken and contrite heart" was always to be accompanied with sacrifice; never was sacrifice to be performed without it. To leave off the sacrifice without the penultimate sacrifice being performed (this, BTW, is what the old covenant sacrificial system pointed toward) would have led to that person being cut-off from the covenant community.

The rabbi is right to write that forgiveness necessarily entails repentance, but he is entirely wrong in his implication that sacrifices per se were not necessary. The only thing this justifies, as Doctor X aptly quipped somewhere, is their wearing of wide-brimmed hats.

It all comes down to this:

" . . . For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34c).

On what basis is that forgiveness procured? Per the rabbi, it is confession alone. Per the prophets and xians, it is based on a new work of redemption; only this could secure the forgiveness of sins. Who has more textual warrant here? What does it mean to "remember no more"? Well, if you offered sacrifices continually for the remission of sins, what would be remembered in each of those sacrificial events? That's right. Sin. They would serve as a constant reminder of sins. But the words "no more" here underscore that the satisfaction made for sins in the redemption to come will be perfect, making any further sacrifices unnecessary.

Dear reader, plug in the notion that confession alone procures atonement into Jeremiah 31 and show me how it makes any sense.

As an aside, this thread should serve as an example of how not to base a contradiction upon an implication.

Regards,

CJD

Theophage

Howdy CX,

This (I suspect, though I can't be certain) was the core of Amos' argument, and I assume of normal Roman Catholocism. It does make sense, and probably would be a good answer to the dilemma, except for something that Amos pointed out earlier. He wrote:

Sin does not separate us form God but original sin does. If sin did separate us from God only the first sin would count and the rest would be free, so to speak, because it would have no further effect on our relationship with God. Once you understand this, as Jesus did, it is ease to forgive sins (even your own!).


The people witnessing Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic felt that forgiving of sins was something only God coudl do, that it was a rather huge deal (one of the points of the story, in fact, was that forgiving sin is an even bigger deal that healing paralysis). If Original Sin is the only sin that is a big deal, why would the crowd have reacted the way they did? If Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic which any decent rabbi could do, but didn't affect the fate of his immortal soul, why would the crowd have responded the way they did?

Similarily, what would be the point of the passage then? If we agree that the point of the passage was to show that Jesus had the power and authority of God Himself, simple forgiveness of sins that any rabbi could do wouldn't show that.

Thus, this argument also fails. Nice try playing devil's advocate, though, CX

Theophage

Once more into the breech, my friend:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CJD
First, theology does not come via "proof-texting." It just doesn't happen that way. One cannot rip a statement from a piece of writing and plug it into a theological system without first deducing from numerous statements, contexts, etc., the theology in question. The hermeneutic is suspect otherwise.


Believe it or not, CJD, I actually agree with you here. You misunderstand me when you say that I desire an "atomistic" reading of the scripture or that I am expecting "Behold, even though we see sins being verbally forgiven by God, it is in light of the atonement he provides that those sins are forgiven." It's rather close to a strawman, though I'm sure it's not intentional on your part.

The same misunderstanding comes when you allude to my dislike of "long posts". I don't mind long posts at all as long as the length deals directly with subject at hand. What I don't like is the inevitible thousands of tangents that these discussions often dissolve into. Just because I like to stay focused, it doesn't mean that I need my pablum fed to me in convenient sound bites. Please give me more credit that that.

I understand that you have a theology, and that theology is based upon not only what the bible says, but upon reason and reflection. When I ask you to support your point biblically, I only mean that I want you to show me the passages which cause you to reason the way you do. Yes, I also expect you to show me your reasoning as well, I just thought that was a given.

I understand that there are passages in the Bible that show that blood sacrifice forgives sins, so you don't need to explain that part to me (blood=life, etc). What you do need to explain is why you think that Jesus' crucifixion and bloodshed which hadn't happened yet, empowered him to forgive the sins of the paralytic and the sinful woman. Is that so hard?

You have asserted that this is the case, I just want to know your reasons for that assertion so I can evaluate them myself.

I really enjoyed your ripping apart of the Rabbi's reasoning, but I'm afraid that I don't have much comment on that since I haven't read what the Rabbi wrote. I'll leave that between you and Paradoxum.

Also you had some questions for me which I will now address:

Tell me, how do you reconcile Mark 2:4–7 with Mark 8:31–33 (a prediction that almost smacks of necessity, no?)?

How about Luke 5:19–21 and 7:47–49 with Luke 9:44–45 (yet another prediction that smacks of necessity)?

How does John 8:10–12 relate to the Saint John's inclusion of Jesus' prediction about death in John 12:27–36? Or better, his ironic interlude about Caiaphas' prophecy, John 11:49–52 (cf. John 18:14)?


Yes, I know that the gospels have Jesus predicting his own crucifixion. Yes, I know that this shows (assuming the stories are true) that Jesus knows what his purpose was on this Earth. Unfortunately, these are irrelevant.

Once again you seem to be misunderstanding my point and addressing things I'm not even advocating. I have no problem with the fact that the Bible says that the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion was to forgive the sins of humanity so that they could be saved. We agree on this particular issue. My argument (stated once again) is with the necessity of the crucifixion for forgiving the sins of the world. It is not necessary if God can forgive sins by fiat.

Would you agree with that at least? That:

1) If God can forgive sins without bloodshed,
2) Then Jesus' bloodshed would not be necessary to forgive the sins of the world.

The above argument is, indeed, a logically valid one. What you are disagreeing with in this argument is statement (1). If I am understanding your objection correctly, statement (1) is false because even when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic, he did so because of the power of his future bloodshed rather than simply by fiat. Is this an accurate representation of your position?

If so, then all I'm asking for is that you support your argument. Please show me why you think that Jesus' ability to forgive the sins of the paralytic comes from his future sacrifice and not from the fact (as it states in the passage) that Jesus simply has the authority of God and that God can forgive sins.

I've repeated this request many times, please honor it.

Thank you,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Devilnaut

Competing texts? Isn't this a religion we are talking about? Religions have an end: salvation. If a book were somehow present that did not lend itself entirely to the goal of the religion, why wouldn't it have been taken out?

Are you suggesting that for centuries religious figures have been bumbling around in darkness having no clue what certain parts of the bible were really trying to say, and just included it all to make sure? And that only now, in this century are we enlightened enough to read the bible's true messages?

It doesn't make sense to me that a story which begins with oneness and describes the division of that oneness would include anything less than a lesson on the reattainment of that ultimate goal.

Theophage:

"1) If God can forgive sins without bloodshed,
2) Then Jesus' bloodshed would not be necessary to forgive the sins of the world."

A return to God is impossible without the object of separation (division and the creation of an intentional will) being unmade. So I'd say that "bloodshed" is necessary to forgive original sin.

If this were not true, religion would not be a circle and we'd just keep going and going and going...

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

It says that Christ chose to die of his own free choice; he did not die because Judas betrayed him or soldiers overpowered him or the crowd shouted crucify him.

As the Son of God, Christ had the power and the choice to walk away.

Maybe it is to try and establish a point in time, when Christ chose to accept his fate.

Was it at the time of the prophecies in the Old Testament?

Or was it before the creation of the universe?

These are only my thoughts, but I feel that Christ decided on his future life on Earth before the Creation of the universe began.

God had a greatest good purpose in mind for the creation of the universe; the greatest way to achieve this purpose would be through the life and death of Christ.

In other words the creation of the universe was dependant on Christ accepting his future life on Earth freely and willingly.

I believe that the crucifixion was not intended solely for the forgiveness of sins, I believe it had far greater and more profound implications.

Peace

Eric

Theophage

Howdy Devilnaut, quotes from you will be in bold

A return to God is impossible without the object of separation (division and the creation of an intentional will) being unmade. So I'd say that "bloodshed" is necessary to forgive original sin.

To orthodox Christianity, the object of separation is sin, and this is what I address with my argument. If you believe it is something other than sin which separates man and God, then my argument simply doesn't apply to your beliefs.

If we assume that sin is the cause of separation, then forgiveness of sin is the necessary remedy. The Bible shows (by the passages I gave) that forgiveness is possible without bloodshed. Thus the conclusin to my argument stands.

It is interesting to note that by what you wrote above, it is certainly not obvious that bloodshed is necessary to forgive original sin. How does bloodshed "unmake" the "creation of an intentional will", and why would God create something like that if he knew it needed to be unmade? If you already addressed these in your earlier post, I'm sorry but I didn't understand your reasoning.

Regardless, these questions do go outside the scope of what I was asking for in this thread. Thanks anyway,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theophage

Hello again Eric. As is my way, quote from you will be in bold

It says that Christ chose to die of his own free choice; he did not die because Judas betrayed him or soldiers overpowered him or the crowd shouted crucify him.

I agree with this.

As the Son of God, Christ had the power and the choice to walk away.

I agree with this.

Maybe it is to try and establish a point in time, when Christ chose to accept his fate.

Was it at the time of the prophecies in the Old Testament?

Or was it before the creation of the universe?

These are only my thoughts, but I feel that Christ decided on his future life on Earth before the Creation of the universe began.

I would agree that it was probably before the creation of the universe, however that is really irrelevant to my point. If the power to forgive comes from the sacrifice (and not merely the decision to have the sacrifice), then the power to forgive is simply not available before the sacrifice happens.

But as the passages I gave in my OP show, Jesus had the power to forgive before the sacrifice, thus the sacrifice was not necessary simply to forgive sin. If I am mistaken in this conclusion, please show how I am.

God had a greatest good purpose in mind for the creation of the universe;

I woud agree to this, but the next part...

the greatest way to achieve this purpose would be through the life and death of Christ.

Through the life of Christ, perhaps, but the death becomes irrelevant. How is Jesus forgiving the entire world (and all future generations who have faith in him) by divine fiat any less great?

But the answer to even that is irrelevant; more great or less great, the sacrifice was not necesasry to do the job, as the job (forgiveness of sin) could be done another way.

Please keep in mind that in this thread I am not asking "Why did God do it that way?", I am merely stating that it was not necessary for God to do it that way as most Christians believe. It could have been done another way. If you agree that God could have done forgiven the sins of the world without his personal sacrifice, then we really don't have anything to disagree about on this thread.

In other words the creation of the universe was dependant on Christ accepting his future life on Earth freely and willingly.

Again irrelevant, but thanks for sharing

I believe that the crucifixion was not intended solely for the forgiveness of sins, I believe it had far greater and more profound implications.

That belief is perfectly fine, and is not really contradictory to my argument. If Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for reasons other than simply forgiving sins, then my conclusion still stands, but with a caveat: Jesus' sacrifice wasn't necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but was necessary for .... (whatever other reasons)

If you'd care to share those other reasons, I'd love to hear them.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

For many years I felt very much like you seem to feel, I could not understand why Christ needed to die to forgive our sins.

If Christ died to forgive us our sins, this feels like we are born with a debt to pay back-we owe Christ. This would be like saying that when we are born we have a million pound debt to pay back, we feel guilty being in debt, and we cannot be free until we have paid back this debt. I don’t believe that we were created to feel indebted to Christ.

Logically it should be within God’s power to say your sins are forgiven, and that would be the end of it.

Logically, If God does not benefit from the death and resurrection of Christ, and if Christ did not benefit, then it seems the resurrection was more for man’s benefit somehow.

Maybe Christ is giving us something and also asking us to do something in return.

I feel the answers hang on the greatest commandments, faith, hope and charity.

Peace

Eric