Atonement or Human Sacrifice on the Cross?

[Christianbookworm]

That has nothing to do with this but I am not surprised at your deflection.

Regards
DL

It has everything to do with it. I'm not explaining why.

[NormATive]

Sorry, but you have confused me with someone else. I did not say these things. You seem to be thinking of JohnnyP.

Indeed. I'll deal with his whack-a-doodle posts in a minute.

You did not seem to grasp or accept the distinction that I was making between the differing approaches of Irenaeus and Augustine with respect to whether or not Christians believe God needed to change his plan of salvation. The approach of Irenaeus became that of the Eastern Orthodox fathers and theologians and was continued in the West by the Franciscan school of theology, especially as articulated by Duns Scotus. This approach by and large did not make its way into the work of some Protestant theologians until the 20th century, and most fundamentalists, in my opinion, still seem to hold a caricature of the Augustinian approach. Recall that Luther was an Augustinian monk. I apologize if you were indeed aware of this but you kept insisting that Christians worship another God that needed to change his plan of salvation after story of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Sorry, but 3rd Century Christianity really confounds me. They got sooooooooooo much wrong about Judaism, it would take me a book to cover - not the least of which is interpreting Jewish liturgy as literal history! I'm content to consider Christianity a totally independent religion that has nothing in common whatsoever with Judaism. The G-d the Jewish community worships bears no resemblance to the triune God of Christianity.

I apologize for taking so long to address your post, but I had to wade through all of the nonsense in this thread to make sure I didn't miss any other comments on my posts.

I think that Gnostic Bishop, despite the bombastic rhetoric, is correct at least about one thing. There is no need for a blood sacrifice. G-d forgives sins no matter what. The sacrificing of animals was an act carried over from an ancient people who had just emerged from a pagan, polytheistic past.

This is why I suggest you attend a Yom Kippur service in a synagogue to see for yourself. If you still think we need an extra element for "atonement," then I will listen.

The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and with much kindness. ח. רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן יְהֹוָה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חָסֶד:
He will not quarrel to eternity, and He will not bear a grudge forever. ט. לֹא לָנֶצַח יָרִיב וְלֹא לְעוֹלָם יִטּוֹר:
He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has He repaid us according to our iniquities. י. לֹא כַחֲטָאֵינוּ עָשָׂה לָנוּ וְלֹא כַעֲו*ֹנֹתֵינוּ גָּמַל עָלֵינוּ:
For, as the height of the heavens over the earth, so great is His kindness toward those who fear Him. יא. כִּי כִגְבֹהַּ שָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ גָּבַר חַסְדּוֹ עַל יְרֵאָיו:
As the distance of east from west, He distanced our transgressions from us. -Tehillim 103

NORM

[robrecht]

Indeed. I'll deal with his whack-a-doodle posts in a minute.

Sorry, but 3rd Century Christianity really confounds me. They got sooooooooooo much wrong about Judaism, it would take me a book to cover - not the least of which is interpreting Jewish liturgy as literal history!

Aside from the growing separation and increasing misunderstanding on both sides, which is obviously unfortunate, I did want you to realize, however, that there is quite a bit of theological diversity, as witnessed by Iranaeus even in the late 2nd century, an important witness for the East and West. Christians do not necessarily believe that God changed his plan. And, elements of Jewish theology are also not necessarily opposed to anthropomorphic images of God changing his mind. A hopeful point arising from this early theological pluralism is that it also allows for continuing reformulations of perspectives among theologians throughout the ages, which in the 20th century has finally resulted in an awareness on the part of many Christian theologians of the profound importance of the Jewish roots of our faith.

I'm content to consider Christianity a totally independent religion that has nothing in common whatsoever with Judaism. The G-d the Jewish community worships bears no resemblance to the triune God of Christianity.

No offense, but I really could not disagree more. Jesus and Paul both cannot be well understood except by an appreciation of their Jewish identity and context. Some Jewish scholars have also learned to appreciate how much the study of the New Testament can shed light on this phase of Jewish history.

I apologize for taking so long to address your post, but I had to wade through all of the nonsense in this thread to make sure I didn't miss any other comments on my posts.

I think that Gnostic Bishop, despite the bombastic rhetoric, is correct at least about one thing. There is no need for a blood sacrifice. G-d forgives sins no matter what. The sacrificing of animals was an act carried over from an ancient people who had just emerged from a pagan, polytheistic past.

This is why I suggest you attend a Yom Kippur service in a synagogue to see for yourself. If you still think we need an extra element for "atonement," then I will listen.

NORM

I would love to attend Yom Kippur services. I have already attended regular synagogue services. Speaking of theological diversity, there is quite also quite a bit of pluralism in how Christian theologians interpret the Jewish metaphors of sacrifice as applied to Christ and Christians, in both East and West. And don't underestimate the fact that Judaism did not abandon animal sacrifice by choice, or a natural evolutionary process, or through growing diversity of theological reflection. Jewish animal sacrifice ended only because of the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the repeated defeated of Bar Kokhba's rebellion in 135 CE.

[Tassman]

One, I was using DC not Marvel. Marvel doesn't have a Big Three like DC does. Two, The second part of your trinity definition isn't accurate. It's like saying the whole light bulb is the light coming from it. The Son and Holy Spirit are personal attributes of the Father. Wisdom and Power, respectively. Third, if you want to compare to fiction, then God would be the Author. Likewise, the god/gods of a fictional universe would be the writer or writers involved in the creation of said work. That would make comic book and movie universes polytheistic in a way. Or any work of fiction produced

Not so. Anything less than each person of the Trinity being fullyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Needless to say it's gobbledygook, as is it's complimentary Christological doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, whereby Jesus Christ is both fully God AND fully Man.

[jordanriver]

Sorry, but 3rd Century Christianity really confounds me. They got sooooooooooo much wrong about Judaism, it would take me a book to cover - not the least of which is interpreting Jewish liturgy as literal history! I'm content to consider Christianity a totally independent religion that has nothing in common whatsoever with Judaism. The G-d the Jewish community worships bears no resemblance to the triune God of Christianity.

NORM

wasn't the Book of Isaiah JEWISH SCRIPTURE?

It was there long before "Christianity" , in Hebrew,
...a scroll of Isaiah in Hebrew discovered at Qumran is dated from
"...date ranges between 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC..." (Wikipedia)

to
"...Hebrew Bible preserved among the manuscripts from Qumran is Isaiah; this copy, dated to the first century B.C.,..."
(History.com)

and an online translation reveals the same information I have in my KJV Isaiah 48:16
"Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me."

That according to verse 12 is "the First and the Last" who is doing the talking:
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

and its "the First and the Last", obviously "God" , who says in verse 16 that He has spoken "from the beginning"

THEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, this "God", this "First and Last" says that He was sent by some other Lord God ...
.....AND HIS SPIRIT.....

ok, I count THREE.

1. The First and Last
2. The Lord God ...אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay הֹוָה Yĕhovih
3. and his Spirit ...רוּחַ ruwach

and those words are not missing from the pre-Christianity Qumran Isaiah

might be different verse numbers but the words are still there,

Source: The Translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll

(Chapter 48)
17. (12.) Listen to this, Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, even I am the last. (13.) Yes. My hand also has laid the foundation of
18. the earth, and my right hand has spanned the heavens: I call to them, they stand up together. (14.) All of them gather together and they hear;
19. who is among them and has declared these things? YHWH loved him: he will do my desires on {&waw&} Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. (15.) I, even I,
20. have spoken; yes, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. (16.) Draw near to me, [+erasure+] hear this;
21. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there: and now the Lord YHWH, and his Spirit, has sent me.
SOURCE

© Copyright Original Source

and
2 of the members of Elohiym (a plural term, by the way) are represented in Psalm 110....
....while I don't think there is a Qumran scroll for Psalm 110, there is the LXX, (the Greek Septuagint, translation of the Scriptures during the 3rd Century BC, by Jewish translators requested by the Greek Ptolemy II of Egypt according to legend)

my KJV
Psalm 110:1 (a psalm of David) "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

that is
1. The LORD ...יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah
2. said unto my Lord ...אָדוֹן 'adown (Strong H113), "master" "reference to God" "Lord of the whole earth"


English translation of the Septuagint
(says Psalm 109 but its still the same words, two members of 'God'
109:1 [A Psalm of David.] The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool
source

[Christianbookworm]

Not so. Anything less than each person of the Trinity being fully God is heresy. In the good ole days you could’ve been burnt at the stake. Nonsensical as it is, the definition of the Trinity I provided is correct. It came from the Shield of the Trinity which in turn comes from the 6th century Athanasian Creed, which is the definitive definition of the Trinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Needless to say it's gobbledygook, as is it's complimentary Christological doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, whereby Jesus Christ is both fully God AND fully Man.

Here's my source for the idea. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php

It is not sufficient to object that because Jesus is a person, he cannot be an "attribute" of the Father. Personhood is not incompatible with being an attribute of another person. Moreover, we should not presume that our inability as humans to have a personal attribute also means that God cannot have one.

With Jesus being Wisdom incarnate. No wonder he easily pwned the Pharisees. They are still fully God. One God, three persons. One what, three whos. You really expect a Being that exists outside of Space-time to have a human psyche? If you atheists had undeniable proof, you guys might just stupidly cally him a sufficiently advanced alien or something else dumb.

[Christianbookworm]

Is tassy a ? Cause I may just block him if he is. Or entertain myself.

[NormATive]

...Jesus and Paul both cannot be well understood except by an appreciation of their Jewish identity and context. Some Jewish scholars have also learned to appreciate how much the study of the New Testament can shed light on this phase of Jewish history.

I guess the difference is that I don't view it as a competition. I don't CARE how Jewish Paul was or wasn't. The point is that the religion Paul is most associated with differs on a very fundamental level with Judaism, and no; I don't want to get into that here. I don't need Christianity to be like Judaism for me to appreciate it. And, I don't appreciate the always present assumption among Christians (not necessarily saying that you do - that I'm not sure of) that Judaism is somehow "incomplete" without faith in Jesus of Nazareth - as though we are just too stupid to see it (Luther).

... And don't underestimate the fact that Judaism did not abandon animal sacrifice by choice, or a natural evolutionary process, or through growing diversity of theological reflection. Jewish animal sacrifice ended only because of the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the repeated defeated of Bar Kokhba's rebellion in 135 CE.

Nevertheless, animal sacrifice was never considered the SOLE means of forgiveness - by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the Jewish faith has carried on famously for 2,000 years since the destruction of the Temple (despite the most outrageous attempts to eradicate it) ought to be ample evidence.

NORM

[robrecht]

I guess the difference is that I don't view it as a competition. I don't CARE how Jewish Paul was or wasn't. The point is that the religion Paul is most associated with differs on a very fundamental level with Judaism, and no; I don't want to get into that here. I don't need Christianity to be like Judaism for me to appreciate it. And, I don't appreciate the always present assumption among Christians (not necessarily saying that you do - that I'm not sure of) that Judaism is somehow "incomplete" without faith in Jesus of Nazareth - as though we are just too stupid to see it (Luther).

Do you think I view it as a competition?

Nevertheless, animal sacrifice was never considered the SOLE means of forgiveness - by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the Jewish faith has carried on famously for 2,000 years since the destruction of the Temple (despite the most outrageous attempts to eradicate it) ought to be ample evidence.

NORM

I agree.

[NormATive]

I never argued that Jesus was a human sacrifice, my position has always been as shown from the Tanach that the Davidic Messiah has power to judge, either giving mercy or punishing. Because Jesus remained obedient to the Father though being tempted as any other human, he was found worthy to be in that position of judgment. Period.

But, the fact that Jesus is divine (according to Christian doctrine) makes him ineligible to be mashiach according to Jewish prophecy. Also, the mashiach will be a great MILITARY leader. Jesus definitely was not that - in fact, quite the opposite. Here's something from Judaism 101 (a website created for Jewish children to prepare them for their Bar or Bat Mitzvah):

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being. Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

That's important to do, I agree, the NT also says to make peace with your fellows, Matthew 5 for one. But some may have died in the meantime, is an apology to a corpse or grave sufficient? What about a kid you made fun of in grade school, if you can't find him on Facebook or something are you out of luck?

That's nice to do too, but that was my point there anyway, in Judaism it's not just as simple as asking God to forgive you. As you agree you're expected to try to make amends to those you've wronged.

Try. That's all that G-d asks. G-d is longsuffering and generous in forgiveness (Psalm 103).

Since many Jews talk about a Third Temple and restoration of the Priesthood I'd have to say I don't think that view is seen to be a permanent or universal belief in Judaism.

Well, in my circle, no one talks of a third Temple. We are content to be individual advocates for peace, understanding and love in our own realm.

Back to my view, as I've explained, if one reads the entire NT and understands from the Tanach the function of the Messiah, it's also not just as simple as Jesus as a human sacrifice on the cross and that's it, all is forgiven. He's not a passive lamb in all this, as King and Judge of the quick and the dead, he has the power to give mercy or punishment according to what's in our hearts.

Once again, his death in remaining obedient to God was how he was found worthy to be inheritor of David's Kingdom. It was a sacrifice to follow God's will and to be a righteous King for us, but not like an animal sacrifice. I am hoping it's clear now that I don't adhere to that position.

I don't think this is orthodox Christian belief. According to Paul, it's all about the crucifixion and resurrection - without which, your faith is in vain? No? 1 Cor. 15:14?

NORM

[NormATive]

Do you think I view it as a competition?

No, actually, I think you are very impressed with Jewish thought and philosophy, but unable to let go of your Christian belief system. I think that you greatly desire to find a middle way in which both religions could be reconciled. Unfortunately, in order to do that, both would suffer irreparable damage.

I don't think you are unique among Christians, considering we were raised to believe that Christianity is the FULFILLMENT of Judaism rather than another faith expression. In Sunday School, I was always fascinated with Jewish history and cultural identity. Later, as I began to doubt the mythology surrounding the person of Jesus, I wanted there to be a middle way too (albeit, in a different direction - I wished for Christianity to be more like Judaism).

It wasn't until after my first full year of immersing myself in Hebrew lessons and reading the Talmud that I saw how incredibly different the two approaches to divinity are in practice and mindset. At its most basic level, Judaism is focused on perfecting our present reality, while Christianity is quite apocalyptic and focused on a supernatural transcendence from this existence.

Also, Christianity depends on one to accept the supernatural, and that is something I just cannot do. I can't say that the supernatural does not exist - no one can be sure either way. Judaism works whether one accepts the supernatural or not.

NORM

[robrecht]

No, actually, I think you are very impressed with Jewish thought and philosophy, but unable to let go of your Christian belief system. I think that you greatly desire to find a middle way in which both religions could be reconciled. Unfortunately, in order to do that, both would suffer irreparable damage.

I don't think you are unique among Christians, considering we were raised to believe that Christianity is the FULFILLMENT of Judaism rather than another faith expression. In Sunday School, I was always fascinated with Jewish history and cultural identity. Later, as I began to doubt the mythology surrounding the person of Jesus, I wanted there to be a middle way too (albeit, in a different direction - I wished for Christianity to be more like Judaism).

It wasn't until after my first full year of immersing myself in Hebrew lessons and reading the Talmud that I saw how incredibly different the two approaches to divinity are in practice and mindset. At its most basic level, Judaism is focused on perfecting our present reality, while Christianity is quite apocalyptic and focused on a supernatural transcendence from this existence.

Also, Christianity depends on one to accept the supernatural, and that is something I just cannot do. I can't say that the supernatural does not exist - no one can be sure either way. Judaism works whether one accepts the supernatural or not.

NORM

The Catholic Christianity I grew up in is not at all apocalyptic and intensely interested social ministry, as are many non fundamentalist mainline churches, I think. I do not believe the two religions can be reconciled except at the individual level and in some small groups.

[37818]

Norm,

I found your comments quite interesting.

But, the fact that Jesus is divine (according to Christian doctrine) makes him ineligible to be mashiach according to Jewish prophecy. Also, the mashiach will be a great MILITARY leader. Jesus definitely was not that - in fact, quite the opposite. Here's something from Judaism 101 (a website created for Jewish children to prepare them for their Bar or Bat Mitzvah):

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being. Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

. . . all that G-d asks. G-d is longsuffering and generous in forgiveness (Psalm 103).

So do you feel that should supersede the Torah as attributed to Moses?

". . . Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them. . . . " -- Deuteronomy 27:26.

Jesus is attributed to have claimed, ". . . if ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?" -- John 5:47.

Well, in my circle, no one talks of a third Temple. We are content to be individual advocates for peace, understanding and love in our own realm.

So am I to understand the Torah as attributed to Moses is not important?

According to Paul, it's all about the crucifixion and resurrection - without which, your faith is in vain? No? 1 Cor. 15:14?

Yes. Christianity stands and falls with this. Even as Christianity stands and falls with the truths of the Jewish faith.

As Jesus is cited to have said, ". . . salvation is of the Jews." -- John 4:22.

In 70 CE the temple was destroyed. And the the writing of Danial comes to mind, ". . . determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. . . . shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . . " -- Daniel 9

As a non-Jew, as I see this, either Judaism is not true, G-d not restoring them His temple for His people to follow as He instructed them through Moses, or the Jesus whom Christians think is the Messiah (Christ) did die and rose from the dead 30 CE as believed. (Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12; Jeremiah 31:31-34 ". . . I will make a new covenant . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.")

Your thoughts?

[NormATive]

That's why my belief is that Jesus is this child of David's, resurrected into Mary's womb to claim his birthright, Mary simply acted as a surrogate:

I will probably regret this, but could you please explain this statement? How could Jesus, the son of Mary, be a descendant of David? Mary is a descendant of David (according to the Gospel account), but lineage flows through the father, not the mother in ancient Jewish thinking (they were unaware of the way human reproduction works with the sperm and the egg). Also, it was a Virgin Birth (article III of the Apostle's Creed), so any supposed lineage would be a moot point.

It's kind of funny, actually. The Church leaders came up with the idea of the Virgin Birth in an attempt to sidestep the lineage question (going through the father's line) before modern science discovered how human gestation happens. Previously, they thought that the male "seed" grew the child without any involvement of the mother other than as a giant incubator. Had they just left it alone, and had Joseph and Mary hooking up, the lineage claim would be valid (biologically speaking).

Also: resurrected in Mary's womb?? Is this Orthodox Christian belief these days?

NORM

[Christianbookworm]

Reincarnation is not a Christian belief. Jonnyp's bein' weird.