Re: Abraham and Isaac

[whag]

Neither is the NT if you read the whole of it. You never answered my question either, how do you think Jesus judges the quick and the dead, does he just give opinions? Or is it about giving mercy and forgiveness, or punishment, as he chooses? What does the NT say about it?

If you think it says his death on the cross alone atoned for sins as a human sacrifice, then you haven't read the whole thing.

You called Jesus' sacrifice no more a human sacrifice than MLK's assassination. We're through talking.

[JohnnyP]

You called Jesus' sacrifice no more a human sacrifice than MLK's assassination. We're through talking.

If you mean like a pagan human sacrifice, no it wasn't. This article kind of reflects my views, you may find it helpful:

Source: Huffington Post

Unfortunately, some Christians have turned this one metaphor (among many) into a dogmatic system in which Jesus "had to die" in order to avert God's wrath. Some even go so far as to imagine God punishing Jesus -- an especially bizarre concept when one takes seriously the doctrine of the incarnation.

Like all metaphors, sacrificial language has its limitations. It captures some dimensions of Jesus' death but not others. It cannot provide a final or complete explanation for Jesus' death.

For example, the sacrifice metaphor cannot account for one of the most basic aspects of Christian experience, the sense that Christ's death and resurrection somehow empower believers to live better lives, to "conquer" sin. Early Christian authors, notably Paul, turned to another metaphor for that. Paul talked about "participation," that believers somehow participate in Christ's death, freeing them from bondage to old, deadly ways. Likewise, believers participate in Christ's resurrection life, experiencing divine power for the here and now. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

So you see that we all have to go before the Judgment Seat before it turns into the Mercy Seat, if we are granted it:

Source: KJV

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

© Copyright Original Source

If you want to keep arguing that Jesus was just a human sacrifice to appease an angry God, then you are simply cherrypicking and ignoring verses like these showing that isn't how he actually saves people. He saves them by giving them mercy, his death on the cross was how he got that position of power. Pretty simple.

[Kelp(p)]

Here's how I look at it. Jesus was a "sacrifice" in that He came down to Earth willingly and our sins killed Him, essentially. But in becoming one of us and redeeming the human condition, He made a way for us to be saved and sanctified before God. As St. Gregory the Theologian put it, he was a "ransom" for us to death itself. Because of Him, we can have the life of God in us.

[Kelp(p)]

That's wrong. Just look at the many verses that describe Jesus as the Lamb of God, and you'll see how far off the mark you are.

He was a sacrifice in the sense that He died to accomplish a goal. But as CP pointed out, that's not just what makes one a human sacrifice. This is not like the Aztecs in which the gods demand a human heart to eat in exchange for rain. Christ died at the hands of sinful human beings as part of His general redemption of our life and world. You can't reduce it down to a quid pro quo the way you can an act of theurgy.

[Cow Poke]

Here's how I look at it. Jesus was a "sacrifice" in that He came down to Earth willingly and our sins killed Him, essentially. But in becoming one of us and redeeming the human condition, He made a way for us to be saved and sanctified before God. As St. Gregory the Theologian put it, he was a "ransom" for us to death itself. Because of Him, we can have the life of God in us.

Yes, but to trivialize that and dismiss its incredible significance, one can just hand wave it away as "yet another 'human sacrifice'".

[whag]

Yes, but to trivialize that and dismiss its incredible significance, one can just hand wave it away as "yet another 'human sacrifice'".

I did not say that. If my doubt is a handwave to you, fine, but I never said it was just another human sacrifice. I was emphasizing that it involved the same concept of propitiation that all human sacrifices try to achieve. That is biblically supportable.

[Cow Poke]

I did not say that. If my doubt is a handwave to you, fine, but I never said it was just another human sacrifice.

I never SAID you SAID it, Whag. I inferred it all by myself, but I think it's because you implied it whether you intended to or not.

To describe Babe Ruth as "a baseball player" is similarly ignoring or downplaying the incredible contribution he made to baseball. While it's TRUE that Babe Ruth was, indeed, "a baseball player", somebody who chose that phrase to describe him is really selling him short.

Words have meanings.

I was emphasizing that it involved the same concept of propitiation that all human sacrifices try to achieve. That is biblically supportable.

And the implication is that Christ's atonement is no more significant than "any other 'human sacrifice'". But I should expect no more from you.

[robrecht]

And the implication is that Christ's atonement is no more significant than "any other 'human sacrifice'". But I should expect no more from you.

I think his implication is that human sacrifice is a bad thing in general, regardless of the exalted nature of the person. It just reflects poorly on God that he would require or desire any human sacrifice. In my opinion, some of this is simply an over literal reading of metaphorical or symbolic language from within a culture that still practiced animal sacrifice as a means of propitiating God.

[whag]

I never SAID you SAID it, Whag. I inferred it all by myself, but I think it's because you implied it whether you intended to or not.

To describe Babe Ruth as "a baseball player" is similarly ignoring or downplaying the incredible contribution he made to baseball. While it's TRUE that Babe Ruth was, indeed, "a baseball player", somebody who chose that phrase to describe him is really selling him short.

Words have meanings.



And the implication is that Christ's atonement is no more significant than "any other 'human sacrifice'". But I should expect no more from you.

It's not my aim to sell him tall or short. It's a given that the sacrifice was different, thanks to thousands of theologians and pastors like yourself who've emphasized the difference over millenia. The more interesting part is the one you tried to deemphasize.

I really like tussling with you, you old geezer.

[Cow Poke]

It's not my aim to sell him tall or short. It's a given that the sacrifice was different, thanks to thousands of theologians and pastors like yourself who've emphasized the difference over millenia. The more interesting part is the one you tried to deemphasize.

Which part was that? The one where you thought Babe Ruth was a football player? (kidding)

I really like tussling with you, you old geezer.

Good, cause there's something about you I USUALLY enjoy!

[whag]

Which part was that? The one where you thought Babe Ruth was a football player? (kidding)



Good, cause there's something about you I USUALLY enjoy!

Amening this, though my conscience told me not to.

[whag]

I think his implication is that human sacrifice is a bad thing in general, regardless of the exalted nature of the person. It just reflects poorly on God that he would require or desire any human sacrifice. In my opinion, some of this is simply an over literal reading of metaphorical or symbolic language from within a culture that still practiced animal sacrifice as a means of propitiating God.

I think too much, I think. I often wonder if Jesus dying from a heart attack pre-Gethsamane would've accomplished the same work. That sounds decidedly less sacrificial than an event like the crucifixion, but still meets the requirement that he die.

[robrecht]

I think too much, I think. I often wonder if Jesus dying from a heart attack pre-Gethsamane would've accomplished the same work. That sounds decidedly less sacrificial than an event like the crucifixion, but still meets the requirement that he die.

Specifically, what 'requirement that he die' are you thinking of here? Just normal human mortality? Or more probably some use of metaphorical imagery from the Jewish scriptures?

[Cow Poke]

Amening this, though my conscience told me not to.

Agnostics don't have conscienceseseses.

[whag]

Specifically, what 'requirement that he die' are you thinking of here? Just normal human mortality? Or more probably some use of metaphorical imagery from the Jewish scriptures?

That's what I'm getting at. Let's push it further past Gethsemane: Jesus somehow gets pardoned by Pilate, and the Jews calling for his death divert their rage to another person. Jesus grows old and dies normally. What happens then?