Soul Invictus

Although you didn't address me, I would almost feel that it is implied as necessary for humanity and indirectly for Jesus. Humanity - to have a second chance with God, and for Jesus to fulfill a mission...the end being his death at the cost of his teaching the way.

Theophage

Howdy Eric,

I thought you were finished with this thread, since your last post seemed to me to be essentially a "agree to disagree" type message. I wish you could have answered the questions I asked of you a little more clearly (or indeed, at all), but that's okay.

You asked:

For the sacrifice to become necessary, would it have to be for the good of all the above, or would it still be necessary if it was only for one of the above?

When I talk about the crucifixion being necessary or unnecessary, I mean in relation to a specific outcome. Thus, it doesn't really matter to whom it is necessary, only that it is necessary to produce the outcome in question; in this particular case the forgivness of the sins of those who have faith in Jesus.

Does that help?

Theophage

I've seen this claim a million times, but as one who has read the bible from cover to cover, I cannot believe that anyone rationally makes this claim.

Now, the form of this claim that you give above is a little milder than how some have put it. You say "recurring theme" above, which implies a theme that shows up in various places but isn't there constantly in the background. To those who believe the theme of separation and salvation is constant throughout the Bible, I would ask, "So how does the Song of Solomon fit into that?"

As for simply a recurring theme, there is nothing really unusual about that; I would assume that since the writers believed along similar lines, they would display these beliefs in their writing.

But is this enough to take the holisitc stance of Bible interpretation which is the heart of your question above? I would say certainly not. This is because though the recurring theme is evident in many places, these different places are different books written by different people with no indication that they are intended to be placed together in an anthology like the Bible. Clearly the writer of Mark and the writer of Luke believe similarly, but they don't necessarily believe in exactly the same things, thus the implied theologies in their works do not necessarily need to be the same.

Thus the assumption that they are the same, that they don't contradict each other is an unwarranted extra assumption. Maybe it is the case that the bible is holistically harmonious. But this should be an a posteriori conclusion from the text rather than an a priori assumption used to interpret the text.

Anyway Jim, how's the evidence that Jesus' ability to forgive in Mk 2 comes from his not yet happened crucifixion coming along? Got anything to show me yet?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

aikido7

The "point" of the crucifixion, in hindsight, was to justify faith in Jesus as a manifestation of God.

Jesus probably forgave sins and/or pointed out how many heretofore Jewish cultural ways of "sinning" really didn't matter in the Kingdom of God vision such as Jesus seems to have had.

When he was crucified, an unexpected monkey wrench was thrown into his followers' hopes and memories of the guy. This fact, plus the reality that his power and vision of the kingdom seemed still available to many even though he was dead, led his followers to create a shared belief that his crucifixion became "a ransom for many."

Since the temple (the entire Jewish world, in effect) had been destroyed in the 70s, some sort of metaphoric unblemished lamb had to be sacrificed somewhere, somehow, just to keep the cultural memory fires burning brightly in people's hearts.

Nutshell history, this.

Theophage

Aikido gets the gold star

Eric H

Hello Dasniel,

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.

I know this is mainly to do with us starting of from opposing beliefs; anyway I will try a more direct approach. So please do not think I am annoyed or angry in any way because I have changed the tone of my reply, I hope you are ok with the change.

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.

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.

I believe God exists, as fully as I can.

If 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.

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

I feel that the greatest meaning is more to do with inspiring people to act in the same way as Christ.

If God loves us, if God can forgive us, if Christ demonstrated this to us, then it is for us to act in the same way towards our neighbours.

Again this is not for Christ’s benefit but for mine, and my neighbours, if I choose to follow Christ’s way of life.

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

Peace

Eric

aikido7

I hope this "gold star" is some kind of Christian/Jewish deal about getting to heaven.

Small town life is begining to bore me....

Amos

Yes the cruficixion was necessary but not for the forgiveness of sin because they have already been forgiven. Crucifixion is needed for the redemption of man (singular) and the simple truth is that sinners cannot be redeemed . . . wherefore Jesus was without sin and if we as followers of Jesus seek redemption we better be without sin.

Sins are forgiven in our justification (Gal. 2:17).

Soul Invictus

Okay, so the crucifixion was not necessary for forgiveness,but redemption.

What is redemption- what does it do?

Amos

Redemption is needed to restore paradise on earth. In this process the inner man is placed in charge of our destiny and the old outer man (our ego consciousness) is placed subservient to this inner man identity. I call this the "old outer man" because the ego has been crucified, has died, and is now raised into the subconscious mind (upper room) where it serves our intuit memory (intuition is the memory of or soul) to make sure that reason prevails in our every day life. I mean it is nice to say that we can go by our intuition (in the bible called "walking on water") but our life in Eden must still makes sense to both ourselves and to others. Note here that in Eden we are without desires but can consume from all the fruits of the earth (no sin, no shame, no pain, no sickness etc.). The "shore-line scenes" in the bible allude to this accumilation of satisfaction.

Sin is a man made concept and has nothing to do with God except that it was an inspired method to redeem the inner man. It is an inspired method because our conscience is not always, or not entirely ours to chose. Our conscience is part of our soul and was placed there by and through the virtues and vices of our ancestors from whom we received our character traits (our behavior is not genetic but is incarnate upon us, i.e. there are no genes in our mind).

Notice here that Jesus went into the netherworld of his own soul to clear things up for himself in order to be set free from his prior inner determinations that were also incarnate upon him from previous generations. Without this ascention could not have followed the crucifixion event because also unpaid balance for the sins of his forefathers could be taken into heaven (Eden).

The reason why Jesus could forgive sins (and make his followers feel forgiven) is because of his insight into the human nature of the individuals.