Theophage

Hello again, CJD, quotes from you will be in bold

Dominus, who gets their theology from the Bible?!?

That's kind of strange. Unless I am thinking of a totally different meaning for "theology" than you, I thought a large majority of Christians get their theology from the Bible. At the very least, their theology is rooted in the Bible, even if it expands further than that. Are you saying you don't get your theology from the Bible?

From my perspective, this [my objecting due to reason] sounds little different than "I don't like the rules God established."

You have an odd perspective then, perhaps? Whether I like God's rules or not is irrelevant as to whether God's rules follow reason. My objection was to the fact that as an omnipotent being, sure He could have done it anyway he wished, but that He didn't have to do it a particular way. If you are the one who makes the rules, you are not necessarily bound by them.

Of course this objection is pretty general, you can take it or leave it. Certainly if you want to claim that your God does things which are not particularly reasonable, I won't stop you

As to my second objection:

Those who knew the Tanak, knew that trusting solely in the the blood bulls and goats trusted was worthless in this regard.


I certainly wouldn't characterize the OT sacrifices as worthless. They did their job, but their effects were simply short-lived. Are you saying that God gave his people a worthless ritual just to foreshadow the real one? I don't doubt that the animal sacrifices are seen as foreshadowing, but that wasn't their only purpose, and thus were not "worthless" outside of that purpose.

What is clearly promulgated in all of these gospel texts is that Jesus came with the authority of God himself to forgive sins. I'm not sure what you suggest is clearly implied, especially in light of clearly explicit texts elsewhere that speak of the Messiah's atonement as perfect and "once for all."

You seem to be missing the point of my second objection here. What I suggested was "clearly implied" is exactly your first sentence here: that Jesus had the authority of God to forgive sins. The upshot of this is that Jesus had this authority even without his own sacrifice.

Lastly,

Finally, the retroactive bit. This is just a result of my a priori commitments (deduced from other portions of Scripture). If the blood shed was sufficient to be "once for all," and if believers before the actual time of the Messiah are part of the same covenant (though not without distinctions, to be sure), then the atonement covered them, too.

I certainly agree that the scripture implied that the sacrifice was "once and for all" but the normal meaning of that phrase is "from this point ever onward". There is nothing in the meaning of that idea that the effects of the sacrifice apply before the sacrifice happens. Indeed, there is nothing [to my knowlede] in the scriptures which indicate that the sacrifice causes forgiveness to reach back to the beginning. If you have biblical evidence of this, I'd like to see it. Otherwise yes, your position is based on your a priori commitments and not on reason or evidence.

As for believers being part of the same covenant before the Messiah, I'd like to see evidence of that too which would apply to retroactive forgiveness. AFAIK, God's original convenant with his people had little to do with forgiveness so much as a promise of reward for faithfulness.

I think you've got your work cut out for you, CJD, but I'm not a hard ass; I understand that you have a life outside of these message boards. If not you, I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the biblical evidence that refutes the argument in my OP.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Tod

I'd like to add another component to this topic. When responding to the skeptic's charge that God made the rules so he should be able to do what he wants, apologists often state or imply in their explanations that God is bound by some need to satisfy a no-tolerance demand for justice. Those who don't accept Jesus have to suffer eternal damnation for their sins. There is no exception, save only age of accountability to many denominations, and some further allow exceptions for the mentally ill or those who have never heard of Jesus. For the average human old enough to be held accountable for his/her sins and aware of Christianity, however, eternal damnation without Jesus is just the end of the story, period.

If that is the case, however, Jesus having died for our sins is worthless. It doesn't count. Our punishment for sin is eternal damnation. Jesus' ordeal was "merely" a crucifixion! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure being crucified was a painful ordeal, particularly if your legs are broken. Suffocating is a horrible way to go, IMO. It could, on the other hand, be argued that Jesus had it lucky even so far as crucifixions go, because, according to the story, his crucifixion was significantly hastened to last only hours, and actually dying from exposure, lack of water, nourishment, etc. over a period of days, as was the fate of most others crucified, is a far more torturous way to go than the way Jesus did. I digress, however, and certainly being whipped, exhausted, hung on a cross with nails, and having your legs broken would all result in a horrible and painful death.

But compared to eternal damnation, it is a cake walk. It's like a $10.00 fine relative to life imprisonment or execution. If God allowed Jesus' sacrifice to be sufficient to cover the sins of humanity, he is seriously breaking his own rules. If he breaks his own rules there, why not give everybody the same option? If spending mere hours being crucified and further being dead for a day and two evenings is sufficient to cover the sins for all of humanity, why not allow us individually the option to do that instead of suffering for eternity? I'm sure that it would be that this option was the universal choice!

If God can't break the rules then Jesus must suffer for eternity for the sins of humans for his sacrifice to have any meaning whatsoever.

If God will let Jesus slide on this but not everybody else, then his infinite justice is a farce, and his true capricious and cruel nature becomes apparent.

RED DAVE

I've observed, during various forays into churches, the extremely high emotional value that is put on the crucifixtion: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son; Jesus' suffering and wounds; and so on.

The masochistic content of this identification seems obvious as does the identification itself: Jesus bore my sicknesses and carried my diseases, by his stripes I am healed.

Now, all this seems to me to be the biggest bunch of bullshit. If JC were, in fact God's kid, and, therefore, an aspect of God, all this suffering is ephemeral at best.

Assuming that Jesus, the man-god, god-man did suffer physically on the cross, he knew that all this was strictly temporary and that he would be in heaven, in eternal bliss and glory, in a day or two and that he had performed a great service: sacrifice for the actual forgiveness of origianl sin.

Shit, if I knew that I'd go to the cross giggling.

RED DAVE

Rick Sumner

This is a weak argument. Does a captured spy, believing he is going to be tortured for the greater good, giggle at his persecutors?

"All he's feeling right now is pain, and pain can't hurt you."-Yogi Berra

Regards,
Rick

CJD

What, are we breaking new ground here? There is a whole host of issues that we will never get to on this forum. Many books have been written on this subject already, so I am not quite sure what it is you want "proved." I can only assume we haven't studied the same things, so, at some point, you'll have to dive into the xian perspective yourself. What follows is a few recommendations to that end:

Dunzweiler, Robert J. Regeneration and Indwelling in the Old Testament Period. Research Report No. 25. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. 1985

Cullman, Oscar, Christ and Time.
_____. Salvation in History.

Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christ, the Meaning of History.

Torrance, T.F. Space, Time and Incarnation.
_____. Space, Time and Resurrection.

Poythress, Vern. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, (see especially chapter 3).


In the meantime, we'll have to boil this down a bit.

1. "My objection was to the fact that as an omnipotent being, sure He could have done it anyway he wished, but that He didn't have to do it a particular way. If you are the one who makes the rules, you are not necessarily bound by them."

God is not a binary being. Hypothetically, if he created humans, and you don't consider yourself all that flat and binary, how much more complex would he be? In other words, I understand your above statement, but I fail to understand how it applies to our discussion.

But I wish to leave this objection behind, since I am incapable of challenging it as I am not a philosopher. The only thing I will claim is that God acts; the litigation I will leave between you and . . . .


2. I certainly wouldn't characterize the OT sacrifices as worthless. They did their job, but their effects were simply short-lived. Are you saying that God gave his people a worthless ritual just to foreshadow the real one? I don't doubt that the animal sacrifices are seen as foreshadowing, but that wasn't their only purpose, and thus were not "worthless" outside of that purpose.

I largely agree, except that the sacrifice is indeed worthless IF it is not accompanied with faith (a "broken and contrite heart" as the psalmist wrote). This, the rabbi in Dominus' links above explains with some clarity. Sacrifices were not ex opere operato, or effectual signs in and of themselves regardless of the individual's spiritual state. The sign is not the thing signified. Distinct but not separate. The heart was always the matter from the very beginning of the Tanak. The sacrifices got one into the Holy of Holies, faith kept her there. The same goes for the new covenant in X.


3. You seem to be missing the point of my second objection here. What I suggested was "clearly implied" is exactly your first sentence here: that Jesus had the authority of God to forgive sins. The upshot of this is that Jesus had this authority even without his own sacrifice.

Firstly, then, it is "blatant" not "implied." And the upshot, according to my reading, is that Jesus had this authority because of sacrifice. It is a very small step for Jesus to declare forgiveness of sins and for him to declare it with the knowledge that his sacrifice seals that forgiveness. The latter would put him in line with the OT sacrificial system. The former has less textual warrant.

4. I certainly agree that the scripture implied that the sacrifice was "once and for all" but the normal meaning of that phrase is "from this point ever onward".

This is debatable. The Greek is very simple when the phrase is used (most notably in the letter to the Hebrews), and in the NT epistle context it stresses the all—i.e, for all time. That is to say, the author speaks of X's sacrifice as the culmination of all previous sacrifices. It is not, and is never spoken of, contrary to what Tod alluded to, redemptively universal in its scope (i.e., "once for all people", etc.). The text strictly refers to the pre-eminence of the sacrifice.

Indeed, there is nothing [to my knowlede] in the scriptures which indicate that the sacrifice causes forgiveness to reach back to the beginning.

Though obscure, I think the concept is deducible from various texts. I would begin with the notion that although God responds in time to various occurrences, those responses are nonetheless a part of his plan from his vantage point as both a transcendent and immanent being. As such, and as Jeremiah 31 states, the new covenant was always the intent. This new covenant is not wholly different than the older one. There are many points of continuity. One of them is the generations of people in the line of faith. The reader will make no sense of the letter to the Hebrews if this is overlooked.

As for believers being part of the same covenant before the Messiah, I'd like to see evidence of that too which would apply to retroactive forgiveness. AFAIK, God's original convenant with his people had little to do with forgiveness so much as a promise of reward for faithfulness.

If we could boil our discussion down to this very point, that would be great, for both time and knowledge are fleeting. Basically, I would argue that the inclusion of the goyim in the covenant was always expected—i.e., worldwide in scope ("worldwide" in that peoples from every nation, tongue and tribe would be a part of it). Included in this discussion would be the argument that the OT sacrificial system was at the outset intended to be temporary, and that it pointed toward a final sacrifice that would enable forgiveness "once for all."

Your assumption, BTW, that the old was based strictly on obedience and the new based strictly on grace is rather modern and betrays a fundy-legalistic influence. Historic, orthodox xianity has posited far more continuity between the covenants that modern xianity allows (In other words, Marcion would have been comfortable in today's churches).


Finally, I wrote: Dominus, who gets their theology from the Bible?!?

And you replied:

That's kind of strange. Unless I am thinking of a totally different meaning for "theology" than you, I thought a large majority of Christians get their theology from the Bible. At the very least, their theology is rooted in the Bible, even if it expands further than that. Are you saying you don't get your theology from the Bible?

My views of "theology," just so you know, have been largely tainted by my study of the sociology of religion. Theologies are systems. The Bible is not a system. We thinking xians are "confessional," that is, we confess a particular understanding of the Bible that we think most adheres to the Bible. Obviously, then, no "system" perfectly encompasses what the Bible contains. There will always be some discrepancy or another. No one can claim infallibility. No, not even the Pope.

Yes, at the very least theology is [supposed] to be rooted in the Bible. Yet all theology expands beyond it. Besides "theology" is not, technically speaking, abstract doctrine; rather, it is putting the Bible in to practice.

No one should take any tradition for granted. The social construction of reality shows us as much. Nonetheless, I embrace the orthodox faith—thoughtfully and with slight hesitation. We humans are really capable of nothing more, once we own-up to the relativity of any given society's institutions.

So then, no one objectively gets their theology from the Bible, they get it from who they deem authoritative as interpreters of the Bible. The skeptic who thinks they remain aloof in this regard suffers equally from delusion as the fundy who thinks the same.

Regards,

CJD

"Shit, if I knew that I'd go to the cross giggling."

Yeah, until that one-suare-inch of flesh left your back as a result of the shard embedded in that whip.

Amos

There are three schools of thought on the pain aspect in Catholicism. All three are part of the journey of life but not all at once.

The Church Militant looks at it as a necessary sacrifice for our salvation, the Church Suffering feels the pain, and the Church Triumphant remembers that that was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Dominus Paradoxum

Perhaps not, but whatever source your theology may have (I imagine it is Paul who said "There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood"), it is directly contrary to the teaching of the Old Testament, as I think Rabbi Singer has amply demonstrated.

Doctor X

I had thought it was just a clever way of noting that most people have a belief system which they then try to justify based on things like scripture rather than the other way around. I think it was St. Augustine who commanded that when scripture contradicts tradition, go with tradition.

--J.D.

Theophage

If I really believed that there was some mystical reason for the crucifixion, I also think that this explanation woudl be the most convincing.

Theophage

Hello again CJD

Our posts seem to be getting longer and longer and matters further and further from the basic argument keep coming up. I would like to pare this down and focus on the main ideas if we can (if you want to continue this discussion, that is).

My argument, once again, is that certain biblical passages show God's ability to forgive sins without sacrifice or bloodshed. Since the orthdox Christian idea is that the crucifixion and sacrifice of Jesus was necessary (i.e. couldn't be done without) to forgive mankind's sins, that idea is contradicted by the biblical passages in question.

Your rebuttal to this was essentially that Jesus' ability to forgive sins in the passages in question is due to the fact that his purpose was to be crucified, even though the crucifixion hadn't yet happened when the events in those passages took place.

I don't feel that you've really supported that notion other than simply stating that you believe it is true. You did show some anoalogies, (blood=life sin=death, etc.) which may indeed have supported a necessary crucifixion if those other passages (forgiveness without sacrifice) didn't exist. Thus they really don't give any more support to your notion that it was the future crucifixion that "powered" those instances of forgiveness.

What I was hoping you could do would be to give some biblical references to the fact that the power to forgive before the sacrifice (either of animals or of Jesus) is due to the coming sacrifice takes place. I doubt you can do this, since I don't think such supporting scriptures exist, but I was hoping that you might show me to be wrong.

In fact, I thought we both agreed to the fact that the passages I indicated showed "that Jesus had the authority of God to forgive sins" not that he had the authority to forgive sins due to his impending crucifixion. Reading those passages again, it is indeed abundantly clear that the people who witnessed Jesus forgiving the paralytic and the sinful woman knew that the power to forgive was from God, and not from an impending sacrifice. They didn't even know the sacrifice was coming!

In addition, Rick and Paradoxum gave OT references to God forgiving sins without sacrifice, so to claim that these instances were also due to the future sacrifice of Jesus simply strains credibility for me. Why don't they for you?

You mentioned other people's works on this subject, but to be honest there's a million books at any given time that I should be reading, and I really doubt that I will get to them. I was hoping that some poster here would be familiar enough with such a doctrinal idea and the reasons behind it that I wouldn't have to scour through several books. Discussions are much livelier than plain reading, don't you think?

In fact, I think it is better to confront those people who believe that the crucifixion was necessary directly to see why they believe it is so. The reason being that even if there is a good reason for the necessity of the crucifixion, that doesn't mean that every person who believes it believes it for that reason. This way I'm helping people examine not only what they believe, but why.

Anyway, what of the rest of the Christians here? Is anyone else willing to takle my argument?