Theophage

Thank you for keeping this thread alive, Eric. Quotes from you will appear in bold

I stopped replying because I did not appear to be answering in a way that made any sense to you, even though it makes sense to me.

Well, that's pretty much what I'd meant when I said that it appeared you were taking an "agree to disagree" position. One of the things I like about dicussing this stuff in writing with other people isthe fact that what may appear clear and sensible in our own heads isn't always that way when we try to express it to others. Discussions like this help me consolidate and organize my own thinking regardless of whether I convince anyone of anything or not.

I hope, however, that you won't simply give up trying to explain what makes sense to you in a way that makes sense to others.

I know this is mainly to do with us starting of from opposing beliefs; anyway I will try a more direct approach.

Opposing beliefs have to do with conclusions of chains of reasoning. All I ask for is what chain of reasoning do you use to come to what you believe. I think it is just as important for a person to know why they believe in X, than the belief in X itself. The rationale here is that if we examine closely the reasons for our beliefs, then we can uncover errors in reasoning if they exist. Of course, if no errors exist, then it helps one's belief all the more to know their reasoning for it is sound.

Yes it was fully and totally necessary, I believe it and my faith rests on the crucifixion and resurrection. So you now have one person who it was necessary for.

You keep referring to the idea of "necessary for". Here is where it seems we are talking about two different things. If something is necessarily true, it means that it must be true (it cannot not be true). Similarily, if X is necessary to bring about Y, it means that Y cannot be brought about by any means other than X. As you can see from these definitions, there is no reference to a "who" in any of them.

If Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent spilling fo blood was necessary to forgive the sins of humanity, it means that the sins of humans could not be forgiven in any other way; that's what the word "necessary" means in there.

But as I'd pointed out in my OP (and a dozen places in the thread since), there are passages in the Bible which at least appear to show the forgiveness of a human's sin in a way other than the crucifixion. According to Jim, and CJD, I am simply interpreting these passages incorrectly. this may be true, but what I would like is to see the reason why this interpretation is incorrect. So far neither poster have given me this. Maybe you will?

It could also be said that a Muslim or a Jew, or a Hindu believe in God /s in different ways without the sacrifice, but I cannot explain that.

To me, the explanation is very simple: you all believe in make-believe beings for whatever your personal reasons.

God has the power to create the universe and life, then he would also have the power to have a final edit on the Bible, even though many people wrote it. So to me the Bible is as God intended, with all the apparent contradictions.

Why would a perfect being want "apparent contradictions"? Why would a perfect being wait until the 4th century to get all his individual manuscripts together into a single book? Why, indeed, would a personal God even want to put down his very important message in a book, when he could communicate it to every person in the world simultaneously and perfectly so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings?

While these questions may seem puzzling to some, and require chanting "God's ways are not our ways" as a response, the unbeliever has a much simpler and direct explanation: These books were written by men about what they believed, and no God is behind it. Humans need to communicate in writing when they cannot communicate in speech, but a God has no such limitation.

I do not pretend to understand the Bible, but I do try and search for a greatest meaning from it.

Again, why wouldn't God want his very important word to be easily understandable? An omnipotent being could express himself in a way that anyone could understand, but humans do not have such an ability (as you yourself spoke of at the beginning).

If there was no resurrection then I cannot say what the extent of my faith would be, it is difficult to imagine.

As I write earlier in this thread, if Jesus never died, but continued to live on Earth for these past 2000 years where we could physically talk to him and observe his miracles, I would have incredible faith in Him and his words. You wouldn't?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

Say the Y in question is a thousand mile bicycle ride, I don’t have to use an X bike, there is a choice of bikes and equipment, choice of routes, choice of place to visit choice of racing or touring and many other options. I can do this thousand mile ride many times and in many different ways.

As an individual you could look back at all these rides you have done and you might be able to say there was a greatest ride and a greatest way to do it. The greatest option though would not be your only option to complete a thousand mile ride.

In a similar way I am sure God had many options in how he could forgive sins, as it seems in the Bible he used many different ways through different people.

If God is greatest in all things then he must also have an option that would serve his purpose in a greatest way, even though we may not fully understand why this is so.

So for me I need a faith that Christ did this, and there is probably no means of gaining any rational proof from the Bible, because the Bible cannot even be used to prove Gods existence.

Just a short reply on one point, and probably an analogy that is full of holes, but its getting late for me.

peace

Eric

goodthink

Standard or mainstream theology doesnt do much to support the idea that the blood of christ was nessesary. It is more allegory, christ toook the place of the unblemished lamb, whose blood carried away the sins of the hebrews. However, several key elements negate the overall nessesity of the act.

In genesis it is stated God doesnt like blood sacrifices, prefering acts of faith and obiedience instead. Moreover, god stops abram from killing his son thus failing to complete the 2-fold prophecy of theology, a foreshadowing if you will. And, as has been pointed out, the forgiveness of sins was apparently within the providence of God, and if you accept extra-canonical scripture, enoch after his transmigration into the metranome.

The entire idea of christ's blood being nesseasry doesnt fit until you look into marcionism or into arianism.

Under mariconist theology the OT god, the creater of this world is actually satan. Satan creates the world in an attempt to re-create the heavenly realm. In doing so he creates a less then perfect world filled with suffering and diease. He brow beats his creation in an attempt to fix things, but try as he might, he cannot address the problem.

The real God, the one whom the demiurge attempted to copy sees what Satan has done and sends an emmissary to redeeme the creation by offering the seed of the heavenly relam. The blood is required because the demiurge demands it, not because it was required to actually redeeme or save man directly.

under arianism, jesus wasnt god but god's adopted son. He was fully capable of refusing tge cross and was capable of sinning at any momment. His remained unblemished and took on all the sins of the world, becoming vile in the eyes of god, hence god turning away from him, and descended into hades to take the keys of death from Satan. His death was required to save humanity because without his pure bloodshed man could not escape the sins of adam, and moreover, the keys of death would have remained with satan has he not decended with the power of god to take the back.

regards,

goodthink

Doctor X

goodthink:

Welcome to the forums! Pay no attention to the hounds.

Accept in Exodus he demands them. Look back a few pages for a discussion on the tradition of human sacrifice.

Why I always say, "give me that ol' time religion."

That written, you do recognize the development of the motif, particularly the sacrifice of the "beloved son." In some traditions, Isaac not only goes willingly to sacrifice he rather participates in it. Some theologians would want the same for Junior.

--J.D.

goodthink

I understand the on-going viewpoint that Christ and his sacrifice was a culmination of events across the books of the bible. That his death was foreshadowed in earlier events etc...

However, that said, one has to wonder how much eisegesis goes into making that view point relevent and coherant. Abram didnt kill his son, the foreshadowing wasnt completed, but more to the point, god didnt demand the blood of the first born of every jew through out the old covenant until he offered his son in the new.

The seminal event in the old testament that is tied directly to the crucifiction is the passover and the exodus of the jews. The oringial story shows a god in competition with other gods. He is not the ONLY god, but is portrayed as CHEIF amongst gods. Each plaque represents the YHWH cult's god overcoming an established deity in his/her own realm of power. YWHW's power is so complete that when pharoah wavers, He forces pharoah to continue his resistence culminating in the angel of death and the plaque of firstborns.

IN the plaque, it is the blood of the lamb that saves the choosen's first born from death. All the first born in eqypt, with unmarked lentils, die as the angel of death (god's alter personality) passesover.

Having been christian, and knowing the re-interpetation of events, it seems obvious the lamb was christ and it was his blood that redeemed man from death etc. But it seems obvious only because we are looking back on scripture with a jaundiced eye to see only what we want to see.

The blood that redeemed and bought the freedom of the jews wasnt the lamb's but the first born of all of egypt. God demonstrated his power over other gods and over other people who worshipped other gods. In no way does the passover narrative tie into abram or abel and cain. The incidence of the first born (christ the firstborn of god) has more to do with the cultural signifigance of the firstborn then any theological foreshadowing.

If christ had been a gentile, who died for god's people willingingly or even against his will, we would have an accord with the passover narrative. If all of the male-firstborn in jerusalem died when christ died, we'd have an accord. But the attempted tie in is flawed. Its eisegesis not exegesis.

And, it is clear the passover narratve is the only OT event tied to the NT event, by the placement of the passion within the passover, by the timing of christ's death (when the 1st lamb was being slaughtered), by the naming schematic (the lamb of godm the sheppard), and by the rendering of the curtain between the holy of holies and the open area of worship.

regards,

goodthink

ps. thanks for the welcome, I love these boards.

Doctor X

Goodthink:

Methinks you have it. People look back and try to "find" passages that relate to whatever they want--NT or even today.

Somewhere I retold the story of a mentor who was in the South for a conference. In the hotel room, he turned on the radio for background noise and heard a preacher sermonizing something out of Leviticus--the really, really obscure rules. "Why the hell would a preacher preach out of Leviticus?" he thought.

The preacher read out what portion of this inheritence goes to this son and then yelled, "AND WHAT SON AM I TALKING ABOUT?!!"

His audience screamed, "JESUS!!!!"

Of course, no one actually admits they are "reading into" the text or committing eisegesis . . . they are "seeing the true meaning!"

--J.D.

Eric H

Hello Daniel,


This is probably very frustrating from both our points of view, we are both right from our own starting points.

God could just say humanities sins are forgiven and they would be forgiven, so the sacrifice of Christ would not be necessary as you say, and I am sure it is within God’s power to do this.

But anyone can say anything, words on their own do not have much meaning, our actions show what we mean. If Christ had forgiven sins and healed people throughout his life, and then said on the strength of this; all humanities sins forever more are forgiven.

I don’t know if I would trust that as true, without the resurrection he would still be very much a human, and many other humans heal people, so what?

Humans don’t rise from the dead that requires something more than human.

In a way Christ rising from the dead is a way of believing God exists.

It is to do with a level of belief and proof, you say you could believe in a two thousand year old man doing miracles; because in a way he would be visible and could be scientifically tested.

It seems if God exists he wants us to believe in him, without him giving us one hundred percent proof.

Just a slight but important variation to your original question, from a believers point of view.

Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for me to believe he has forgiven my sins, that is the answer that has a greater meaning to me as a believer.

Peace
Eric

CJD

Just a quick nit: There isn't a Humanities Department in the world that God would forgive . . .

Eric H

Hello CJD


Whooops! A big Sorry to all the Humanities Departments but can they really be the cause of humanity’s problems

peace

Eric

Eric H

Hello Daniel,


If the Y in question were riding a bicycle, then a person would only have to ride some nominal distance like ten yards to qualify as a bike rider.
It would not be necessary to win the Tour de France to qualify as a bike rider.

But you can look at riding a bike and see there is a minimal way to do it and a greater way to do it.

In the same way the sacrifice of Jesus may not have been necessary, but there are lesser ways and greater ways to forgive sins.


Quote Daniel,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These books were written by men about what they believed, and no God is behind it. Humans need to communicate in writing when they cannot communicate in speech, but a God has no such limitation."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God could brainwash humanity, and we would all do God’s will, but that would not be morally right.

God could prove his existence to each and every one of us beyond a doubt, but I think we would have less freedom. We would feel more obliged to do what God wanted, because we would know what he wants, and we may want to do his will just to please him.

We would not be in a very good position to totally disregard him and go our own separate ways, and it sounds like under this type of conditioning atheism might not exist.

I think a lack of true freedom would be tragic.

If and only if God exists, then he has given us the freedom to go our own separate ways, we are in the position to totally disregard God if we choose.

Christianity is more to do with doing things voluntarily willingly and by choice.
In the same way Jesus chose to die, no one forced him, he chose to do it as a man, and he suffered as a man would suffer, and there were times that became unbearable, and he still chose to go through with his ordeal.

Jesus came to be the servant and not the master, even though there were times his disciples would choose to treat him as the master, and he rejected this.

The last words by the priest at the end of mass are “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord” Christianity is more to do with our actions, it is more to do with inspiring a way of life, which requires more than beliefs.

Peace

Eric