Vorkosigan

Just thought I'd pop in for a minute. Sorry, everyone, I am temporarily sandbagged by work, so can't participate. Seems Dom Crossan and Ben "It really is an authentic Ossuary of Jesus and thank you for that large advance on my book" Witherington are having a debate about Mel Gibson's movie, at NTGateway. One link is here.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14013_1.html

Vorkosigan

capnkirk

It was very informative to read their dialog and observe them dancing around what constituted "vicarious atonement", when the very assertion that "A" could die for "B"'s sins is in fact the obvious criteria. I have read most of Crossan's books, and respect his scholarly insight into Judea in the time of Jesus, but when the subject got down to the heart of Xtian belief, he blinked big-time...and so did Ben Witherington.

sodium

Actually, I was surprised to see Crossan forthrightly reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement. Admittedly, I haven't read much by Crossan, so I'm not implying this is out of character for Crossan. I just have trouble understanding how you can construct any kind of Christianity that rejects this doctrine. You'd pretty much have to give up on the Bible as a source of information about your religion.

Witherington has a quote that nicely sums up what why many of us non-Christians find Christianity a little disturbing,
Anyway, Witherington makes a valiant argument in favour of substitutionary atonement.
Let's say your children sin, and this makes you really angry. Your wrath, against sin, is justified. Now, you could resolve the situation by beating your kids, but then, that wouldn't be merciful. So instead, you kick a table, injuring your own toe. Through this act, your just wrath has been assuaged. This is an example of substitionary atonement. Your kids should, therefore, feel gratitude for your toe. At least if they don't want to get beaten.

That's my parable of substitutionary atonement, and I'll release this into the public domain so that any pastors who happen to be reading can feel free to incorporate it into their sermons.

capnkirk

I see you also found his rejection of the doctrine of vicarious atonement completely incongruous. That is, he rejected it on grounds that pain and suffering are not necessary to sacrifice while ignoring the plain fact that without the doctrine of vicarious atonement, the whole concept that someone can atone for another's sins goes right out the window, and the whole basis for Xtianity's new dispensation with it. That was what I meant when I said he blinked big time.

Steven Carr

Witherington :
Some people say, "Why couldn't God just forgive sin without this elaborate sacrifice?" But that is the equivalent of asking God to cease being just, fair, righteous, holy— something God neither can nor will do. Forgiveness is not a matter of passing on justice or righteousness or holiness, it is a matter of finding another way to resolve the matter, a way in which both justice and mercy, both love and righteousness, both compassion and fairness are served. It involves a way in which the sinner is spared and redeemed but the price is still paid, and the ransom is still wrought. Frankly, I do not want to live in a world without a just as well as loving God. I do not want to live in a world in which wrongs will not ultimately be righted.

CARR
But surely Christians say that the crucifixion was unjust.

Indeed, the crucifixion of Christ is used in the Bible (specifically Acts) as one of the injustices for which it was necessary for Christ to be crucified! Talk about a vicious circle!

God has cut off his nose to spite his face, and now is going to punish us for his cutting off of his nose.

It was neccesary for Jesus to be the 'ransom' for our sins, one of which was Jesus being ransomed!


Jesus has paid our debt for us, therefore we now owe him big-time.

I owe some money to the bank.

The Mafia has , out of pure love for me, offered to pay the debt on my behalf. Is this what Christians call 'vicarious atonement', or what I would call 'loan-sharking'?


How can Witherington say vicarious atonement is just when the atonement is one of the things God holds against us?

rlogan

This is an insane person. And his sky daddy is a sadistic, capricious ass.

Toto

Snuff Flick

After reading that Witherington wanted to try to do a DNA match between the shroud and whatever bone chips could be found in the James Ossuary to prove that it was Jesus' brother, I have had a hard time taking anything he says seriously. But "insane" is going too far, when his delusions are so widely shared.

rlogan

well, Toto - I would have to admit you have a cooler head than I do. I just get frustrated with the gibberish.