aleika

On a similar question, I got an answer from a Christian that went something like this: the sins were as good as paid for because man already had the promise of the Messiah’s sacrifice. The promise was just as cogent as the actual deed, apparently, but the sacrifice still had to take place because God had already promised it—and God never breaks his promises. So, essentially, the sins were indeed paid for in OT times. Jesus’s blood was a good as spilled once God promised it would be.

(When I asked where in the OT this promise could be found, he dodged a while, asked me if I was Muslim, and finally said it wasn’t so much said as it was implied, but that I could look to Isaiah 53 for a start. )

Of course, none of that answers why God would need a blood sacrifice. I think it's simply that many ancient societies practiced that ritual, for whatever reason, and humans wrote the Bible, so it follows that the practices in the Bible mirror those of society at the time. God needed blood sacrifice because that's what people at that time thought he needed.

Solo

Good question indeed. My gut feel, just quickly going over few things, is that the apocalyptic sects relied more on the exilic prophets steeped in Persian dualism, Daniel (12:2) and deutero-Isaiah (51) in defining their eschatology. There is also Jeremiah's 13:31 promise of the new covenant, which the Nazarene movement refered to (Heb 8:8, 12:24).

Probably a bigger issue with James' church was the positioning of its priestly credentials, Temple pretensions and political alliances, which led to the formula of Jerusalem's (Israel's ?) sin into which Yeshu's martyrdom was exhibited.

Jiri

DaBuster

It’s possible to understand the concept of sacrifice as practiced by the ancients without believing in it. However, how did the temporary death of Jesus constitute a true sacrifice within the milieu of 1st century Judea? Or, to repeat myself from the parallel Did Jesus *have* to die? thread:

In other words, it’s the resurrection that seems to contradict the idea of Jesus' death as a sacrifice.

fatpie42

In order for him to count as a 'real' sacrifice he would need to have been 'actually' dead. According to doctrine, Jesus was actually dead. The fact that he was not permanently dead does not take anything away from the sacrifice. It simply means that (as you will have heard so many times) 'death had no hold over him'.

During the sacrifice itself, where it really mattered, Jesus was well and truly dead (if you believe the hype).

Gamera

Paul spoke in terms of sacrifice because his audience understood the practice. All ancient religions were based on sacrifice, mostly animal sacrifice.

It makes no sense to parce the theological implications of that now since animal sacrifice is meaningless to us.

The gospel message isn't dependent on the cultural conditions of the time, and can be articulated fine without reference to sacrifice.

Essentially, the message relates to God's love for us, and the "sacrifice" of Jesus can be just as well described as God undergoing the loss of his only child to communicate the profundity of that love. It's perfectly understandable without reference to Judaism's particular sacrificial system.

fatpie42

Some Christians suggested that animal sacrifice does still have an effect, it's just that there isn't much point since just trusting in Christ is much more effective.

God didn't lose his only child. And beside Jesus isn't literally his child since they are of one substance in the trinity.

I don't quite see how, having taken out the reference to sacrifice, this is meant to make much sense.

Gamera

[QUOTE=fatpie42;3668510]Some Christians beleive in Creationism. Can't hold Christianity responsible for their lack of understanding.
You and I are different from our children as far as identity is concerned. God can be different and the same because God isn't limited by the same identities and differences as the logic of existence in this universe requires. That's why he's God. So yes indeed, Jesus was both the only son of God and he was God. Such is the teaching, which cannot be comprehended and doesn't need to be. What needs to be comprehended is that there is a parent and a child and the child's loss shows the extent of the parent's love. All of us are either parents or children. There is no human on earth who is not a parent or a child of a parent. So all of us understand the profundity of the love between.

Paul often talks about the role of Jesus without reference to sacrifice. So it made sense to him.

Eph 3:8-- To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. 13 So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory. 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

No discussion of sacrifice here.

Read Paul's sermon to the Athenians -- which was an example of his preaching the gospel. No reference to sacrifice, only to resurrection.

jeremyp

Yes it does. If you get the sacrificed thing back, it's not a sacrifice, by definition, especially not if you know what is going to happen.

fatpie42

What do you mean by "get it back"? Most sacrificed animals are eaten afterwards. What do you think they were going to do with them if they hadn't sacrificed them? The point is that it's an offering to God so it's extra special.

Jesus was very definitely offered to God (if you get what I mean). The fact that he got back up later on, doesn't really mean that he wasn't sacrificed.

fatpie42

Just running the idea by you. Seems you don't buy it. Fair enough.

Another thing he bypassed is the need to have sex with anyone. (Or did he have sex with Mary then?) For goodness sake, Jesus isn't a literal son!

It sounds like you are committing an Arian heresy, suggesting Jesus is some kind of seperate demi-God. Jesus IS God. They are the same substance. That's the whole point of the blooming incarnation.

Yes, but God doesn't have a son in the same way that we do. I will admit that it is a nice symbol, just as the sacrifice idea was. It's just that, to be quite honest, the idea of God killing his son doesn't really make any more sense than it would have for God to allow Abraham to kill his.

I don't think he needed to mention the idea of sacrifice every time he spoke about it. But no, it didn't make complete sense to him; hence the idea that it was meant to "shame the wise".

Which one is that? Last time I checked there wasn't a book in the NT called "Athenians".