ghiangelo

it has to be understood that the 'sacrifice for our sins' is a retroactive logic applied to the Jesus story. the fundamental story of Jesus and his ministry is about a guy who challenges the Roman Authorities and the Hebrew Priests controlling the Temple. while proclaiming to have some sort of connection to the ‘divine’ Jesus preaches to the masses, generally the disenfranchised of the community at the time, about a coming change to the way the social order will be run. as time goes on Jesus eventually loses the battle, failing to provide or predict the coming hegemony shift that the disenfranchised peoples were hoping to have manifest as quickly as possible. for a follower of that faith, and the leader behind that faith, it sometimes requires a more spiritual rational to help explain away the obvious failure of the religious leader. to an ancient Jesus follower the integration of a 'saviour god' theme into the Jesus metaphysic would help give meaning to his death, leading to a conclusion of success, namely a 'deliberate positive martyrdom'. it's all just a proactive spin used as a denial of the defeat.

unfortunately, as you point out, the whole idea doesn't make a lot of sense especially if you accept that an actual supernatural being is involved. the illogic in the Jesus sacrifice is more a result of modern religious concepts being applied to the Jesus story as opposed to applying the ancient pagan ones in which the story was sculpted. the concept of the ‘nature of God’ has evolved into a rather big theological philosophy in the last 2000 years, while back in the time of Paul the notion of God was more 'down to Earth' in comparison and was rife with poetic symbolisms and could only go as far as the cutting edge cosmologies of the time. back then, even the contemporaneous mythologies of the mediterranean Greco-Roman communities were just as illogical and full of poetic prose. the Gospels are just following suit with the style of the time.

this can be illustrated by another Gospel issue, the Virgin Birth. the modern idea of the Virgin Birth often involves it as being a non sexual occurrence (thus the naming of it being virgin in nature) involving some sort of transporter-like phenomenon being used to impregnate a divine being into Mary’s uterus. but if you look at the views of 'god conceptions' in the ancient past, particularly at the time of Paul and Jesus in the Greco-Roman period 2000 years ago, it's a whole different situation. preaching the Gospel story of the Birth of Christ to a person, whose predominant concept of the spiritual universe comes from the stories of the Greek Pantheon, will generate an interpretation which is going to be quite different than ours in present day. take for instance the myths of Leda and the Swan and Hercules.

in ancient Greek myth the idea of Zeus materializing into some earthly domestic form for the purpose of copulating with the pretty mortal inhabitants was no big deal. in the case of Leda, Zeus turns himself into a swan and seduces Leda. the result of this sexual event is Helen, a divinely created beauty. then there is Hercules, the infamous demi-god, who is the result of Zeus having sex with Alcmene, a mortal woman. for anyone exposed to these myths it would not be a far reach for them to interpret the conception of Jesus Christ in the same way. in fact the Annunciation, where the angel Gabriel announces to Mary about here divine pregnancy, could be seen by ancient Romans as the symbol of the sexual encounter, in which Gabriel is himself the incubus to Mary. the ancients were not privy to the notions of transporter beams, lasers, antigravity and warp drives and as a result neither were their Gods. instead the ancient Gods displayed standard ‘nuts and bolts’ human behaviours, including the God of the Bible.

that aside, the ‘Sacrifice for our Sins’ is similar in it’s humanist real world effect on religious business affairs. in the Hebrew religion of the time, it was still the common practice to sacrifice the lamb at the alter of Yahweh. this was done twice, with one lamb or goat being sacrificed for the sin and the other being sacrificed as a peace offering. now at the time, pertaining to the Gospels, there was a problem with those people in the Jewish community who were not well off enough to purchase the needed lambs to sacrifice on behalf of themselves and their families. since this was the most important function of their faith the failure to do so created a psychological rift between themselves and the God they worshipped, Yahweh. to make matters worse the Temple had currency exchangers (money changers) set up in the market where sheep and other animals could be purchased for the sacrifice. the preferred currency at the time for temple taxation was the silver shekel and to get it one had to use local currency or Roman currency to make the exchange paying high exchange rates to get the shekel. for any person who is not able to meet the burden of paying this exchange meant that they could not meet their spiritual requirements. this left many people in the community lost in the religious cold. this is the domain of Jesus and it is this community that Jesus represents and fights for.

what the Gospels go on to do is provide a model for a spiritual succession from the traditional Temple religion, one that is more based in the fundamentals of social justice with access to all. more profoundly is that it was a revolutionary concept of a faith in which a single individual could privately worship and commune with their God. the Lord’s Prayer was essentially a private conversation with Yahweh, asking for personal blessings. this is all about a Temple establishment bypass in which the priests are no longer relevant. so what about the animal sacrifices? the animal sacrifice is replaced by the sacrifice of a God Son, Jesus Christ. by Jesus being sacrificed, like that of a lamb, he pays off all sins of all worshipers of God and no animal sacrifice is needed anymore. this also abolishes any need for a temple and alter to ever be used again. it suggests that the life of Christ is equivalent to billions of animal sacrifices. to an ancient poverty stricken Jew this would be like getting all their spiritual rent paid for free for the rest of their life all the while knowing they’re still included in any salvation still at hand.

nowadays we have government social services and universal heath care... in Canada at least.

Gamera

You've missed the point in both narratives.

The Genesis narrative is figurative and isn't about literal ribbones.

The gospel kerygma is about a relationship, not about something God can or can't do. The point of the gospel is to invite the hearer to have faith in God's love through a narrative that shows the depth of that love because it involves the loss of a child by a parent, and the separation of a child from a parent. You are invited to accept the depth of God's love for you as articulated in the narrative.

You seem to be asking could God have provided another narrative. The answer is, this one has worked pretty well.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why would it have to be "accepted?" God can save people whether they accept it or not. There is no ligical requirement for them to understand or consciously "accept" it.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such prophecy in Isaiah. There is actually no prophecy anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that the Messiah is supposed to die or be resurrected or even save anyone from their sins.

Toto

You think this narrative has worked well -

How has it "worked"? Is this work the same as "truth" or does it connote something else? Psychological truth? A guide for life? If it's a guide for life, why are so many Christians messed up and so many non-Christians doing okay?

Does it work better for some people than for others? Does it still work as well as it did in the 3rd century? Did it work for Constantine the same way it worked for Martin Luther? How did it work for Hitler? Stalin? Mother Theresa?

I think I better stop, but you get the idea.

Diogenes the Cynic

This misses the point that the only thing this so-called "sacrifice" was saving people from was God himself. A really good way for him to show his love would have been to refrain from setting any requirements or penalties in the first place. So, no, it's not a "loving" act to say, "I was going to eternally torture you for being the way I made you, but, to prove how much I love you, I've decided to blow my son's brains out instead. That's the only way I can stop myself from torturing you. By the way, just in case that's not logically confusing enough for you, I also AM my son, and I'll only be dead for a couple of days (and I'll be hanging out in Heaven for those two days). Plus I'll pray to myself a lot and tell myself that it's MY will that counts, not MY will. Oh...and just before I die I'm going to ask myself why I've forsaken myself. If you have any ideas as to how I can make this 'narrative' any more nonsensical and incoherent, I'm wide open to suggestions. I'm thinking of also being a ghost...."
It's "worked" in what way? It makes no sense. It's logically incompatible with an omnimax God. Not only that but God hasn't bothered to give us a single shred of proof that the narrative is true. How does he expect people to know the truth if he isn't willing to prove it?

Gamera

I think the rise of ethical standards above the brutality of classical paganism is a testament to how the narrative has worked. Even nonchristian cultures often now pay lipservice to the teachings of the NT as to the immorality of exploiting others. That notion was alien to classic paganism, where the other had no ethical standing. Indeed, Christianity made one's relationship to the other the critical relationship in one's relationship to God. By showing love to others, one shows evidence of the faith that purports to be the essence of the gospel's salvational message. And as Christopher Lasch put it, secularism tends to live off the moral bank account of Christianity. It relies on the ethical standards established by religious belief.

As to individuals, Christians are messed up because people are messed up. The gospel doesn't purport to cure our messed up lifes or make us perfect (whatever that means), just to make us capable of love and hence to put us on the road of becoming the loving persons that we were meant to be. The gospel is about who we are not what we beleive and get for it.

Regarding Hitler, Constantine, etc., the NT is clear that the proof's in the pudding. Anybody can call themselves a Christian, but those who don't show it through loving others, are specifically not Christians. Hence Matthew 25: 31 - et seq.

fatpie42

I beg your pardon? If I remember correctly the NT was written in Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek was a very civillised period of the world, especially for that time. It was a lot more civillised than, say, Medieval Christendom.

Funny that isn't it? They got exploited by Christian countries and now they have the anti-exploitation verses memorised.....

All these years I never realised that Socrates was a Christian. Silly me!

The issue is that there have been many occaisions where Christianity has been the cause of people being messed up. Not simply, failed to help them cease to be messed up. There are plenty of deconversion testimonies on this site to confirm this.

It's been working really well in Ireland for the past few decades. :Cheeky:

Amaleq13

Nonsense. Secular ethical standards are established by reason from a fundamental desire to promote social order (eg don't murder, don't steal) while the ethical standards of religious beliefs are as blatantly self-serving as they are irrelevant to anyone lacking such beliefs (eg keep the Sabbath, worship only Yahweh).

ghiangelo

sacrifices and burnt offerings are what they did back in Canaan. the YHWH cult, El cults and the Baal/Hadad cult were all variations on each other, and they all had similar temples with animal/human sacrifice and offerings.

as to what purpose a blood sacrifice makes is up to interpretation, but a short answer could be 'appeasement'. like all understandings of ancient religious myths one has to try to think like the times. for a group of Yahweh followers in 1000 BCE with no idea what weather was or geological tectonic events or disease causations it would be a serious problem to overcome when such things affected the tribe. if it was considered that all natural phenomenon was the direct action of a God, whether it be good or bad, then a simple way to appease God’s rather unpredictable temperament would be to feed him. seems kinda silly to think that by somehow feeding a God it would make a difference in how a tribe will survive in the elements but this is how ancient minds would think. in a basic logic, assuming that a storm hitting the area is the work of God, any fatalities associated with it could be deemed as the storm’s motive. in other words, God came though and fed himself. simply put, a blood sacrifice is an overt ritual of measured killing in the face of God in order to preempt a natural event from doing the same thing, while a ‘burnt’ offering is essentially a cooked meal. as the smoke rises it disappears into the sky and hopefully reaches God, appeasing Him once more so that God doesn’t become hungry again and ravage the tribe with a storm or plague or famine etc.

human sacrifice was practiced in Canaan. as the OT indicates, via Abraham, YHWH was against it and instead would accept animal sacrifice as an alternative. as in the story of Cain and Abel, Yahweh is still more interested in blood and meat while finding offense in the vegan diet.

oddly enough this leads us back to the Jesus sacrifice whereby the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ is once again a HUMAN one. its as if all along God really wasn’t that satisfied with the lambs and birds after all.