Was Jesus Sacrificed For The Sins Of Man?

[Colter]

[seventil]

Hiya, Colter

I see you are still having problems with the blood/sacrifice thing.
I would like to answer your question, again:

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will leave the sheep because they aren't his and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks then and scatters the flock The hired hand runs away because he is merely hired and has no real concern for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and there will be one flock with one shepherd.

The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again. No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."
John, 10:11-18Nice to see you again.
Sandy

Good response, Sandy. This topic has interested me for a while now.

While I can see your point of view in interpreting the above passage one way, I believe there is another way to look at it.

Jesus uses an example of Him being a sheepherder; protecting his sheep. He says specifically He will give His life for us, which He did. However; could it not be possible that He was protecting us by showing us the true and righteous way to live? Sacrificing your life to protect something can mean many things; jumping in front of a bullet to save a friend, dying on a cross and taking the every persons sin onto your own flesh, or showing the world the correct way to live, and them killing you for it.

I am not sure what I believe, honestly. I've always thought of the idea of Jesus sacrificing His blood for our sins a bit brutal and a little to "old school". I like the idea of Jesus coming to die to show us the right way to live, and being killed by the people He is trying to save. I could be wrong, however. Either way, I think Jesus came here to die for us, and that's what the important part is.

[youngborean]

The instution of the Lord's supper seems pretty clear.


Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

This passage does imply the literal death of Jesus as well becasue he says he will not drink the final Passover cup until he is united with believers again.

[Sandycane]

edit

[Colter]

seventil,
I've lost count of how many times I have quoted the above Scripture for a non-believer but, every time I re-type it I see something new.

It is the Ultimate display of unconditional love and forgiveness. How could God command us to do things that He is not willing to do Himself?

Sandy

Jesus lived and died for us, no question, but he did not die as some kind of ransom to make God happy again. Jesus did not die to absolve us of our sins, he never said that. This idea grows out of the primitive idea of sacrifice. At least Mosses was able to put an end to human sacrifice by substituting animal sacrifice. Jesus was appalled at the sacrificial system at the temple and ran them all off. Jesus taught thet we are saved by being born of the spirit, the gift of Gods grace, not human sacrifice. This was human opinion and misunderstanding.

[MagusYanam]

The Crucifixion and Resurrection have many interpretations, of which four are particularly prominent. Mind you, this is all metaphysical speculation - we can never truly know what significance Christ's life, death and resurrection have, but we do have the guides of scripture, tradition and reason.

Most mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians now hold the early Christian view that Jesus' life, death and resurrection would ransom us by example, that through him we might live our lives in such a way as would reflect Christ's divine guidance. This is most consistent with a belief in a loving God who was willing to send his only Son to save us. This theory is known as the 'moral influence' theory, and I believe this one to be the most acceptable.

There is also the 'ransom' theory - this is another early Christian doctrine that sometimes accompanied the moral influence theory - which states that Christ's death was meant to fulfil a sacrifice to appease the powers of sin over us. God shed his blood and life to defeat our bondage to error and death. This view is not very popular anymore, since it attributes too much power to sin and treads dangerously close to Patripassianism.

Then there is the '(substitutionary) atonement' theory, popular among modern Christian conservatives. This doctrine is a lot more recent - in the 1000's, a monk named Anselm formulated this theory. Jesus supposedly died a sacrificial death to appease an angry God who stood willing to condemn us for our feebleness. Mainline Christianity has rejected this view as the behaviour of God in this speculation is morally abhorrent.

When William E. Channing voiced his objections to atonement theory (in the early 1800's), a group of conservative Calvinists attempted to alleviate some of its more abhorrent features. The result was 'governance' theory: Jesus died to satisfy a framework, a cosmic bureaucracy, set in place by a just God that demanded payment for the sins of humanity. The morality of God is preserved in this theory, though the view of the cosmos propagated by this theory seems to denote a bureaucratic God, a view with which I'm not particularly comfortable.

I tend toward a moral-influence standpoint, since it preserves best the spirit of historic Christianity and does not propagate a God who is in any way vicious or petty.

[youngborean]

Why was Jesus called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist if no sacrifice was intended? Why was his death necessary on passover? The spirit is a gift of the new covenant, and no covenant is sealed without blood. It is a commitment of life.

Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Here again Jesus says it was necessary for him to die. That coupled with the fact that he calls his blood the blood of the new covenant, it seems quite clear that he believed that he was the necessary sacrifice for the ratification of the New Covenant.

[Sandycane]

edit

[MagusYanam]

Firstly, I would like some clarification. What is the UB? Sorry if this question is ignorant, but what does 'UB' stand for?

The only "primitive" idea about Christ's crucifiction here is the one that comes from the UB that teaches that Christ, the Son of God, was brutaly murdered by mortals for no good reason.

The reason is simple: those who murdered Christ couldn't see the inherent beauty of His message. The Roman Empire viewed Jesus merely as a threat to their hegemony, and sought to snuff out any potential rebellion with his execution. Indeed, there is much figurative language in the Gospel that would suggest some form of sacrifice. But there is more than one way to interpret these passages. Is it not possible, for example, that the title 'Lamb of God' could refer to the trust that Jesus had in propagating the inherent generosity of God? The symbol of the lamb indicates a give-and-take between man and God which involves trust on the part of the one giving the sacrifice.

Is this the sort of god you chose to believe in- one that is at the mercy of it's creation?

I dare not speak for Colter - only for myself. No, I do not believe in a God that is at the mercy of His creation. I believe rather in a God who is active in the lives of men, and who is capable of working through and for those seemingly lost. I believe in a God who is not thwarted at the first sign by the feeble rebellions of an imperfect, though loved person. In attaching strings to God's grace, religious conservatism does Him a great disservice: 'you will be saved if you do x, y, z and t'. They are implying that God's grace is at the mercy of a person's openness to it. I believe, rather, that God commits his grace universally and is able to work on those who don't at first accept it.

God is not accountable to anyone for how he dispenses his favour. Not any nation, not any denomination. I would go so far as to say not any religion. Those who believe that their religion has a unique and exclusive copyright, as it were, on God I view as severely misguided.

[Dilettante]

If I may say this, a god who becomes furiously angry at his creatures for eating a piece of fruit, and then becomes happy again and reconciled with them when they execute his only begotten son is not the kind of god which merits worship. Jesus's suffering could not possibly have transactional value to God, unless God is a sadist. Come on. God can do better than that, can't he? If he can't, what's the point of worshipping him? Just because he's all-powerful and may strike us dead or send us to the lake of fire for eternity? By that logic, any arbitrary, absolutist ruler would be equally deserving of our allegiance. The way some Christians depict God almost leads me to become an atheist rather than an agnostic!

Magus Yanam has, fortunately, reminded us of an alternative explanation called the "moral influence theory" or "exemplary theory", a theory which was, I believe, first advanced by the great French logician and theologian Pierre Abelard in the Middle Ages. Another theory, not covered here yet, is that the atonement is achieved by the Incarnation. In fact, "atonement" comes from the words "at-one" (to make one), and that is exactly what God would have done through the Incarnation: make God and man become "as one" again.

If human sacrifices were to be replaced by animal sacrifices (downgraded sacrifies?), wouldn't it be a move in the wrong direction to require God to be sacrificed? Now for those who like Bible references for everything, Hosea 6:6 calls for mercy rather than bloody atonement, and Hosea 13:2 condemns human sacrifices in the same breath as idolatry.

youngborean wrote:

Why was Jesus called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist if no sacrifice was intended?

How do we know John the Baptist really uttered those words? Most likely that anecdote was orally transmitted long before it was written down. But it was not written down by John the Baptist himself. Human memory is not perfect. Many people believe that Humphrey Bogart said the words "play it again Sam" in the movie "Casablanca", but he didn't. He said "play it, Sam", "play it for me", etc, but not "play it again, Sam", even though that is the phrase which has always been associated with the movie.

Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
[...]
Here again Jesus says it was necessary for him to die. That coupled with the fact that he calls his blood the blood of the new covenant, it seems quite clear that he believed that he was the necessary sacrifice for the ratification of the New Covenant.

But how exactly did he express that? What were his words? Again, we don't have Jesus' version of the Gospel. Would that we had it!

Contrary to popular belief, stories of gods or demi-gods who are killed and then miraculously resurrected are not uncommon, from Osiris to Quetzalcoatl. This does not necessarily mean they are all totally false, but helps us put things into perspective.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Unfortunately here Jesus seems to be making a mistake, since the end of the world did not come during the lifetimes of those listening to him. If the Gospel is taken to be absolutely reliable, the implications of this fragment are devastating...

All the more reason for agnosticism, I guess...

[youngborean]

The assertion was that Jesus didn't teach that he was a blood sacrifice, not whether or not Jesus wrote a Gospel or whether or not the Gospel is authoritative history. The sacrifice of Jesus in no way assumed any new practice such as human sacrifice, it only brought in the command that we believe in Jesus and are saved. This is the New Covenant, brought on by the death of Jesus.