maryhelena

Haha

Now, if we set all that to music - the combination is sure to give the faithful a sense of grandeur and pride in the wonder of it all...throw in the beauty of Europe's great cathedrals - and who could be so mean-hearted as to shout out that the Emperor has no clothes on....

:boohoo::boohoo::boohoo::boohoo::boohoo::boohoo::b oohoo:

aa5874

Jesus never did die if he did exist and was crucified. He was seen alive. Jesus was NOT a sacrifice if he survived.

1 Cor.15 The Pauline writings are fiction or theological mumbo-jumbo--the dead Lives.

TedM

This has been an incredibly frustrating exchange because for me -- as I've pointed out several times now -- a mythical story that has a crucified savior IS one that has salvation value for its believers BY DEFINITION..it will and should still be just as abhorrent as if the savior had been a real human being. Those that believe SHOULD equally repulse you and it shouldn't have anything to do with whether the savior had REALLY been crucified or not. Yet, you say you want to 'run away from that abhorrent idea'. YOU CAN'T. It IS the story. You can't escape the repulsion because you can't turn believers in it into disbelievers. It is THOSE that find beauty in the sacrifice (real or unreal) that really should repulse you and not the idea of a real human sacrifice.

Since you seem to continue to argue against that, I just can't figure out what it is you are saying. I side with Doherty on this one. For our next time around: please just answer direct questions directly. When you don't do that I eventually begin to think it is intentional and that you are just taking me for a ride.

TedM

So, aa, I take it your silence is an admission that you don't really understand Mark 10:45, right?

My last post that you didn't respond to:

jakejonesiv

Easily done only if you are an apologist. Then you just throw everything into the blender of harmonization--Systematic Theology.

Otherwise you would have to confront the evidence that gMark (and most other NT documents) are redacted compositions that contains multiple, indeed contradictory, viewpoints. Mark 10:17-22 is in no way compatible with your Ransom Theology.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Yes. Not only did " sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself" but then, he took in back! That is no sacrifice. Something is defintely wrong with orthodox theology.

This illustrates quite clearly why the orthodox interpretation of the ransom is so flawed that it could not have been the original conception. The "ransom" only makes sense in the concept of dualism. (Actually none of this makes sense from a rational perspective, but you get my drift).

The Marcionite myth gathered by of Eznik of Kolb in _Refutation of the Sects_, does make coherent sense of the ransom. Now this is late (5th century), and we must make allowance for some development from an arguably much earlier origin. But it still is a better explanation of the Ransom than anything orthodox theology has come up with to this very day.

Jake

maryhelena

Oh, Ted, oh, Ted....

I don’t think you will find anything I’ve written that allows you to make the sort of statement that you have made above. I run away from the abhorrent idea that a flesh and blood human sacrifice has salvation value. That position, simultaneously, requires me to reject, run away from, any idea that a mythical ‘flesh and blood’ ‘human’ crucified figure has any salvation value. Don’t charge me with upholding something so abhorrent simply because you fail to grasp the implications of the position I hold. That position is: a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice has no salvation value. Whether the crucifixion/sacrifice is that of a real flesh and blood man - or the crucifixion/sacrifice is of a mythological flesh and blood man - stands.


Oh, my goodness me. I shall refrain from commenting on your despicable attempt to find value in “the idea of a real human sacrifice”.


Ted, I don't know what I am doing in this exchange - your insistence upon a human flesh and blood crucifixion having salvation value repulses me.

Yes, Doherty is correct. The Pauline writer finds salvation value in a heavenly resurrection. The question is what is involved in this resurrection. It can’t be the resurrection of a flesh and blood man (i.e. the gospel JC - whether a real man of flesh and blood or a mythological man of ‘flesh and blood’). That is the issue here. What type of heavenly ‘crucifixion’ is possible and how can this type of crucifixion overcome the abhorrence that is connected to a flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice. What type of heavenly sacrifice and resurrection can be entertained that does not reject rationality and science. (Theology being rejected out of hand).

There are two context here. Earth and Heaven, body and spirit, matter and mind. Two contexts that do not operate under the same ‘Law’. Human blood sacrifice is an abomination under the Law. In the heavenly context this abhorrence of drinking blood, of finding value in the sacrifice of human blood, is sidelined by the reality of the heavenly context itself. (not overcome or eliminated, just sidelined, put on the back burner, so to speak.) In that heavenly context, an intellectual context, in contrast to an earthly flesh and blood context, death has value. Why? Because within that intellectual context, the heavenly context, the death of ideas allows new ideas to be born, to live. Life, death and rebirth/resurrection, are the mechanics of intellectual life, of intellectual evolution. It is a heavenly ‘crucifixion’, or sacrifice, that has salvation value. i.e. human progress depends upon our use of our intellectual capacity.

Yes, Doherty has gone with a sub-lunar crucifixion theory. Doherty wants to play out the heavenly salvation sacrifice in allegorical or mystical terms. My position is to play out the Pauline salvation sacrifice in philosophical, logical and rational terms.

The gospel JC and the crucifixion under Pilate? That is, on a basic fundamental level, a reflection, a historical reflection, of the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c. Yes, the interplay between the two NT contexts, the earthly context and the heavenly context, allow both contexts to, as it were, reflect the other context. The Pauline JC having a Davidic lineage and being born of a woman. The gospel JC figure having a resurrection and being beamed up to heaven. But reflection is not reality. The earthly context is bound by the Law of physical reality. The heavenly context is free from that Law. In other words; the two very different contexts retain their differentiation. And it’s that differentiation that allows for the NT story to place it’s salvation value on sacrifice and resurrection as a heavenly, intellectual, premise or idea.

Yes, you might well say, that’s all very complicated. Indeed, the gospel JC story is so much easier. But that story is only a picture book story. Pictures, images, symbols, are easy on the eye and easy to remember. But what is that saying - a picture is worth a thousand words. And, Ted, it’s those thousand unsaid words that we have to discern. The beauty, the simplicity of the picture, belies the web of complexity that underscore it.

As to taking this discussion further, Ted, no. I’m not interested in anything to do with human flesh and blood sacrifices as having salvation value. It’s time, high time, that such a theology is rejected for the anti- humanitarian premise it is. By right I should not even be giving your articulation of your abhorrent premise the time of day...

Sheshbazzar

It's a mytical story about a Jewish rabbi that had a really bad week, but everything was great for him come Sunday morning, and has been ever since.

Has not went so well for the rest of mankind however, because of those mythical three days, his followers have used this mythical bad week as an excuse for near 2000 years, for the imprisoning of people, for robbing them of their homes, lands, livelyhood, and lives. For waging bloody wars, for turning brother against brother, for inflicting torture in the most painful and horrible ways the human mind could devise, for burning and murdering their fellow man countless thousands of times while holding up their holy Nehushtan sticks, chanting their prayers and singing their psalms in accompaniment to the music of their victims screams.

This is what is enshrined in that building with the steeple and sticks on its roof down on the corner.

__And still men knowing all of this, choose to ignore it for the sake of a brass-jezuz-snake-on a-stick, and a promise that they 'will not surely die'.
And were did man ever hear -that line- before?

aa5874

You are stuck with your ONE VERSE taken out of context just like Doherty.

Again, the short gMark is NOT about Remisson sins by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God.

The short gMark is about the Rejection of Jesus as the Son of God by the Jews and even his own disciples, that he was Killed by the evil Jews and that he would come back a second time to avenge his death.

Even John the Baptist was baptizing people for Remission of Sins WHILE Jesus, the Son of God, was supposedly on earth.

Mark 1 From the very start, the author of the short gMark established that REMISSION of SINS was obtain through the BAPTISM of John.

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm ....if they hadn't killed him ....he wouldn't have gotten to pop back up as a living dead zombie .....and live forever and ever.

Sounds more like they did the dude a huge favor. But he has some serious hang-up's, personality disorders, and emotional issues.

Maybe we can get him on some med's for his 'condition' when he shows up.