Amaleq13

Yes. I'm assuming you accept the standard Christian view. If you hold a different conception, I will be happy to restate.

A genuine sacrifice is precisely what the dictionary entry indicates but it is difficult to understand how the fleshy, and presumably inferior to the original, form temporarily taken on by the 2nd person of the trinity qualifies. In what way was that form "prized" or "desirable"?

The Son allowed his fleshy form to be killed knowing he would be resurrected (back?) into a more perfect form and existence. A true sacrifice involves the loss of something one would rather keep than lose all things considered. I don't see how that could possibly apply here.

If Jesus is God then the death of the fleshy form was even less of a loss and certainly nothing that the Ultimate Entity could possibly have "prized" or considered "desirable". In fact, I would argue that taking on the form constituted a greater sacrifice, albeit temporary, than the death of it.

greyline

No, what I say is that the meaning of the word "good" (and "love" and "justice") are meaningless if applied to the God of the OT. When God's actions are indistinguishable from evil, it takes nothing short of doublethink to convince yourself those actions are good.


Again, if God's actions are indistinguishable from evil, how are we to "trust" in him? What evidence are we supposed to use to find God worthy of our devotion?

On a related note, how would a book written by land-hungry ancients to glorify their largely imagined victories over various tribes differ from how the OT reads? Again, what evidence are we supposed to use to find that God had a hand in that at all? How would a God created by man differ from the God that you believe in? OT God reads exactly like an invented being that was used by priests to keep the Hebrews in line, to justify their battles (if indeed any of those battles ever took place) and to promote a glorious past.


Are we to take seriously a being who creates some playthings, injects them with depravity so he can justify killing them in various terrible ways, and then blackmails them with the threat of eternal torment when they die?

How is this being indistinguishable from (a) pure evil, and (b) a tale invented by humans to explain bad weather, justify genocide, and keep people living in fear so they obey their priests?

I think something a bit more substantial than "faith!" is in order?


Sinners that he created sinful. Nope, doesn't wash.

Solo

How do you know he 'knew' he would be resurrected ? Paul would have said to you: in the servant's identity Jesus knew nothing, all he had was faith.

Someone was complaining on a board some time back that he felt it was "unfair" that Christians whould include him among those for whose "sins" Jesus died. I asked him if he felt was it was an unfair burden to carry. He said, yes.

So, I said this to him, and now I am asking you to consider the same proposition:

Imagine that it did happen. Imagine Jesus did exist and suffered from some delusional disorder which made him think the world was on a brink, and he was chosen to lead Israel to its kingdom where stupidity, greed and power-mongering - in one word "sin" - would have been defeated. Imagine he actually believed he had been given the authority to forgive sins and cleanse the temple of corruption to help to make that happen. He was caught and condemned. Then imagine this: as Jesus struggles up Golgotha, having been relieved of the weight of the cross by Simon, the cobwebs in his head momentarily clear and he sees his situation in its monstrous reality. "I was insane ! God has fooled me ! What I was told was happening is not happening ! Instead, I am going to die ! They see me as an evildoer, a blasphemer ! What is the meaning of this ?" A couple of hours later, nailed to the cross, he screams to God his greatest fear ! As the last thing !

Now between that scream and clinical death, imagine Jesus, hanging on that piece of wood, and you Amaleq13 flying in to tell him: "Bud, there is no meaning to your life at all. I ain't gonna admit I'm a sinner". :huh:

Jiri

Amaleq13

The Gospels indicate Jesus knew this beforehand but dzim77 also indicated this was somehow a sacrifice on God's part.

Why should I tell him anything let alone that?

Gamera

First, the word atonement (or its Greek equivalent) doesn't occur in any biblical text. Like the trinity it is a result of theology and cultural Christianity, not the gospel. You can preach the gospel (and Paul did) without the concept per se.

Second, Paul's explication of ending our estrangement with God (and our real idenity) is perfectly understandable using the simple terms of the gospel message and the acceptance of God's love. No complicated recourse to the OT sacrificial system is necessary, and in fact Paul never uses that argument. The author of Hebrews makes a parallel between the OT sacrificial system and Jesus' sacrifice -- which is perhaps understandable given his Jewish audience. But Paul doesn't.

Gamera

All morally reprehensible to any person with a sense of the value of other humans (i.e., a post-gospel person exposed to the notion that others have moral consideration though the impact of Christianity on ethics).

I think defending the OT God as beyond good and evil is a mistake many Christians make. I think the OT God is a projection of the iron-age "values" of the Hebrews (which were probably slightly better than those of other iron age nations steeped in superstition and violence), and the purpose of the scriptures is to wean them of those pernicious values. Hence, Abraham argues with God in Genesis 17, saying to his face that to destroy Sodom was immoral. And God listens! I would suggest Abraham should have made a similar protestation when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac, a patently immoral and wrong demand, no getting around it.

Abraham's argument with God is the high point of the OT. It is what the OT is about -- going beyond the cultural projection of God as the embodiment of revenge and power, to the understanding of God as love, as embodied in Jesus.

greyline

I don't see how that's what the OT is about when it happens, like, once. (Or twice or even ten times. It takes a lot of "arguing" with God to make up for all his atrocities.)

dzim77

The sacrifice is this: That the Son of God, Jesus, while remaining fully human AND FULLY GOD took on our sin - and actually was so identified with that sin, that scripture says he 'became' sin.

"He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 1 Corinthians 5:21 -parentheses mine

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:24

While 'being sin' on the cross, God the Father poured out his full wrath for sin on Jesus. For the first time in eternity Jesus was separated (spiritually and completely) from his Father... instead of experiencing a perfect love relationship with the Father, he experienced only wrath for sins (which he did NOT commit). This is the sacrifice Jesus made.

So according to the definition:

*What was prized? - Jesus perfect union and love relationship with his Father - this was surrendered for the more pressing claim
*What was the higher or more pressing claim? God's will that sinners should be saved through Jesus' atoning sacrifice... ultimately leading to God's greater glory.

(you could also say Jesus' dignity and physical well-being were sacrificed on the cross as he was scorned, mocked, and tortured, but these sacrifices pale in comparision to the sacrifice mentioned above).)



I agree that Jesus incarnation itself was a great sacrifice, and a part of his life of sacrifice that culminated in the cross.

dzim77

We seem to be at an impass on this point. We've both explained our views on this particular issue, so i'll let it go at that.

I can think of several possibilities...

For one, if the authors are supposedly (hypothetically) trying to write a book to build a sense of patriotism or national pride, they are painting a pretty ugly picture of themselves. Their greatest supposed 'heroes' are prone to mistakes and failure and turning again and again from the God they are trying to serve. King David, their most admired king, is guilty of murder and adultery. Moses, the greatest leader disobeys God and is not allowed to enter the promised land (at least the earthly promised land). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are full of mistakes, lying, swindling, favoritism, etc... The Bible pulls no punches when portraying the lives of these Hebrew 'heroes'. It also makes moral judgements against them according to the standard of God. Wouldn't a falsified or man-invented account have covered up or just plain overlooked these faults?

Secondly, the God of the OT is a personal God. He reveals himself to individuals, befriends them, and enters into a covenant relationship with them (the closest thing we have to covenant in Western society is a marriage). He has personal conversations with these people and even allows them to disagree and intercede on behalf of others. He is concerned with the progression of faith, character, and morality of the people he befriends, and in turn of his chosen people, Israel. He is a God who is more concerned with the 'hearts' of his people than necesarily winning many battles.

Thirdly, the God of the Bible discribes himself as 'gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in love..' He is a God of love... not just a god of war.

Fourthly, consider that in the OT God is a God who acts in history to fulfill a sovereign plan of redemption for his people. (over 39 'books' written over the course of thousands of years!) He is not portrayed as a local deity but as a worldwide God of all creation who's glory is to be known to the ends of the earth... and his desire is that all peoples of the earth will one day 'be blessed' through this soverign covenant plan. This idea is consistent from Genesis to Malachi.

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:1-3



What other Ancient Near East god is like this?



The Bible is very clear that God did not 'inject' us with sinful nature. Adam chose to sin by eating the fruit in the garden. The perfect image of God in Adam and Eve was then marred and twisted... proceeding generations inherit this marred image of God (depravity). Also, practically, we choose to sin everyday - again and again and again. We make real choices that we are responsible for. God allowed man the capacity to make real choices to which he is held responsible. He also provided Jesus as way to be forgiven and be restored to a loving, intimate, and fulfilling relationship with Himself. You may choose to accept Jesus or you choose to reject Him in the same way. God desires that all come to accept Jesus and live the life He created us to live. He desires that you would trust in Jesus and enter into an eternal relationship with Him as well.

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

fatpie42

How does Jesus act as a 'first fruits' if he is not a sacrifice and the atonement is b.s.?