Atonement or Human Sacrifice on the Cross?

[NormATive]

No, not correct, at least not according to some of the earliest Christian theologians who saw creation and salvation as one single, evolutionary process. According to this idea God had always intended to become man (incarnation) as part of the evolution of man toward God (theosis). According to this view (Irenaeus et al), the incarnation was not a means of salvation that was only required because of the fall of man. The Fall did not change God's plan. Man only 'fell' as a child stumbles while learning to walk. But, even the other view (Augustine et al), that the incarnation was required because of the fall could still see the fall as relatively minor in terms of the the abounding glory of the incarnation which it brought about. This later view is enshrined in the Exsultet of the Easter liturgy as felix culpa, ie, 'happy fault': O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem. O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer. This view can still sees the final redeemed state as greater than if there had never been a fall for God considered it better to bring a greater good from evil than to have never permitted evil.

Wow, that's confusing! That is clearly ANOTHER plan - it's not the original plan described in the Tanakh.

What does the so-called Fall have to do with anything? G-d already forgave Adam and Eve. It's really amazingly simple: G-d just forgives. Period. It's what G-d does.

So again; why do you think G-d needed to change the plan? What was wrong with the original one? The one where the sinner asks G-d for forgiveness - and G-d does?

NORM

[robrecht]

Wow, that's confusing! That is clearly ANOTHER plan - it's not the original plan described in the Tanakh.

What does the so-called Fall have to do with anything? G-d already forgave Adam and Eve. It's really amazingly simple: G-d just forgives. Period. It's what G-d does.

So again; why do you think G-d needed to change the plan? What was wrong with the original one? The one where the sinner asks G-d for forgiveness - and G-d does?

NORM

You keep asking the same question and I keep giving you the same answer. I do not think God needed to change the plan, nor did some of the earliest and most important Christian theologians. According to St Paul, more Jewish than either one of us, it is indeed the original plan described in the Tanakh. Christ is the seed of Abraham by which all nations (goyim) would be blessed. What do you think was God's purpose in calling Abraham? Why do you think God sent the flood and saved Noah? Was that not a change in his plan, when he repented of having made man? It sounds like you are hung up on a very fundamentalist reading of Genesis, more Augustinian than Augustine himself, as the only Christian reading, but that Christian fundamentalist reading is a very poor reflection of a much richer Christian tradition.

[JohnnyP]

It is to be understood as what it is. A barbaric human sacrifice that Christians immorally think they should profit from.

Ok if a fireman rescues you and your family from a fire because he wants to fulfill that duty, go throw yourself and them back in there because you don't want him to be a human sacrifice because he made a commitment to do that as part of his job.

e7yos.jpg

[Doug Shaver]

Nobody knows why history (i.e., God's plan for the universe) has unfolded and is unfolding as it has and is.

If I had a good reason to think God has a plan, I would be OK with believing that we cannot know why God chose it rather than some other plan.

[JohnnyP]

Wow, that's confusing! That is clearly ANOTHER plan - it's not the original plan described in the Tanakh.

What does the so-called Fall have to do with anything? G-d already forgave Adam and Eve. It's really amazingly simple: G-d just forgives. Period. It's what G-d does.

So again; why do you think G-d needed to change the plan? What was wrong with the original one? The one where the sinner asks G-d for forgiveness - and G-d does?

NORM

Did you read the half a page I posted explaining it? It is pretty simple, but it is the one described in the Tanach, there's a process. To summarize in case that was too long:

God divorced the House of Israel for adultery meaning no more Old Covenant for her (Jeremiah 3:8), but David was promised an everlasting Kingdom over all Israel not just Judah, so there had to be a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) bringing Israel back under Judah. The New Covenant also brings Gentiles under Judah (Isaiah 11:10, Jeremiah 31:27-28).

The Messiah will judge everyone, mercy or destruction, and he will be as God in doing so (Ezekiel 37:21-26, Zechariah 14:9, Isaiah 11:1-4).

The New Covenant goes further to forgive all sin, and death caused by sin, starting with Adam and Eve. That's what they have to do with forgiveness aside from forgiving our own sins, we'd still be doomed and dying with their curse on us, the Sour Grape of Jeremiah 31:29-30.

All of this is expressed in the NT, it doesn't just make stuff up out of thin air.

[siam]

The Quran agrees with the Jewish view that there is no "original sin", incarnation, nor sacrifice required. God forgives sins. So if we agree to the proposition that the 3 religions are "Abrahamic" (from the same God) then it would appear that God is arbitrary and keeps changing his mind!.....

[siam]

...or perhaps Christians just got is wrong?.....

[shunyadragon]

The Quran agrees with the Jewish view that there is no "original sin", incarnation, nor sacrifice required. God forgives sins. So if we agree to the proposition that the 3 religions are "Abrahamic" (from the same God) then it would appear that God is arbitrary and keeps changing his mind!.....

The 4th Abrahamic religion Baha'i Faith has similar view.

[JohnnyP]

The Quran agrees with the Jewish view that there is no "original sin", incarnation, nor sacrifice required. God forgives sins. So if we agree to the proposition that the 3 religions are "Abrahamic" (from the same God) then it would appear that God is arbitrary and keeps changing his mind!.....

In Judaism it's not as simple as no original sin or God just forgives.

Source: Rabbi Neustadt, torah.org

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Rabbi Rosenfeld, torah.org

After man ate from the Tree of Knowledge, however, he acquired the intimate knowledge of and desire for evil. The evil inclination was no longer an external force, represented by the Serpent. It was within. Our physical flesh was now a confused mixture of good and evil. Death was introduced into the world: human flesh, separated from the spirit, was a creature of the finite, physical realm -- one which must ultimately decay and die. Man would now face a much greater challenge than before. He would no longer battle a Serpent from without. He would have to battle his own sluggish yet desirous flesh within. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Shlomo Katz, torah.org

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[NormATive]

You keep asking the same question and I keep giving you the same answer. I do not think God needed to change the plan, nor did some of the earliest and most important Christian theologians. According to St Paul, more Jewish than either one of us, it is indeed the original plan described in the Tanakh. Christ is the seed of Abraham by which all nations (goyim) would be blessed. What do you think was God's purpose in calling Abraham? Why do you think God sent the flood and saved Noah? Was that not a change in his plan, when he repented of having made man? It sounds like you are hung up on a very fundamentalist reading of Genesis, more Augustinian than Augustine himself, as the only Christian reading, but that Christian fundamentalist reading is a very poor reflection of a much richer Christian tradition.

So, you don't believe in the whole Jesus as human sacrifice as means of atonement? I thought you understood Judaism. It is apparent that you don't. I know that you are quite fluent in Christian apologetics - no need to keep repeating Christian dogma.

G-d already dealt with salvation in the Tanakh. We celebrate it at Yom Kippur. I suggest you attend a Yom Kippur service and then come back and tell me what more needs to be done.

NORM

[NormATive]

In Judaism it's not as simple as no original sin or God just forgives.

Source: Rabbi Neustadt, torah.org

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Rabbi Rosenfeld, torah.org

After man ate from the Tree of Knowledge, however, he acquired the intimate knowledge of and desire for evil. The evil inclination was no longer an external force, represented by the Serpent. It was within. Our physical flesh was now a confused mixture of good and evil. Death was introduced into the world: human flesh, separated from the spirit, was a creature of the finite, physical realm -- one which must ultimately decay and die. Man would now face a much greater challenge than before. He would no longer battle a Serpent from without. He would have to battle his own sluggish yet desirous flesh within. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Shlomo Katz, torah.org

Source

© Copyright Original Source

You really have a profound misunderstanding of Judaism. You can't just pull random sections from Jewish websites and pretend to know what you are talking about. Seriously, you're suggesting that Jesus had to be sacrificed to absolve people from having to say that they are sorry for doing something mean to them?

Sheesh!

NORM

[robrecht]

So, you don't believe in the whole Jesus as human sacrifice as means of atonement? I thought you understood Judaism. It is apparent that you don't. I know that you are quite fluent in Christian apologetics - no need to keep repeating Christian dogma.

G-d already dealt with salvation in the Tanakh. We celebrate it at Yom Kippur. I suggest you attend a Yom Kippur service and then come back and tell me what more needs to be done.

NORM

What specifically is that you think I do not understand about Judaism? I am always willing to learn.

As to the 'whole Jesus as human sacrifice as means of atonement', I think there are several theories, some complementary some competitive, and each of which offering some points of relative value, but in general I do not agree with the idea that Jesus was a necessary human sacrifice to appease an angry and vengeful God. Jesus bore witness to a much greater truth than that, a truth that includes, I think, everything that is true within Judaism.

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Muslim guy's also an idiot when it comes to understanding Christian theology. How would you like it if I told you what you believed and I actually misinterpreted it?

Then refute what he said and don't just bitch abort what he says.

You want to deflect to anything but the issue. Pathetic.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

The original plan of salvation was AFTER the so-called Fall, correct?

[Gnostic Bishop]

No, not correct, at least not according to some of the earliest Christian theologians who saw creation and salvation as one single, evolutionary process. According to this idea God had always intended to become man (incarnation) as part of the evolution of man toward God (theosis). According to this view (Irenaeus et al), the incarnation was not a means of salvation that was only required because of the fall of man. The Fall did not change God's plan. Man only 'fell' as a child stumbles while learning to walk. But, even the other view (Augustine et al), that the incarnation was required because of the fall could still see the fall as relatively minor in terms of the the abounding glory of the incarnation which it brought about. This later view is enshrined in the Exsultet of the Easter liturgy as felix culpa, ie, 'happy fault': O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem. O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer. This view can still sees the final redeemed state as greater than if there had never been a fall for God considered it better to bring a greater good from evil than to have never permitted evil.

You did not mention that Exsultet also says necessary sin.

If sin is necessary then it must be ultimately good.

Regards
DL