Why didn't Jesus preach "ransom theology"

[Elijah John]

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes no mention of blood-atonement theology, no mention that he was to be a "ransom" and the importance of believing this.

If these things are essential for salvation, why didn't Jesus preach them?

Wouldn't those things have been important for Jesus audience to have heard?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

I'm saying the Gospels are based on a combination of Paul's letters and the LXX version of the Old Testament.

Still don't know what the "LXX" version is, did I miss something?

Are you saying that the Gospels contain nothing of the teachings of the real, historical Jesus?

Are you saying there IS no historical, real Jesus, never was? Only a pious fiction?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

1. LXX is the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.

2. The Gospels do not contain any teachings of a historical Jesus.

3. The historicity of Jesus is based on Paul's letters, not the Gospels.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

1. LXX is the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.

2. The Gospels do not contain any teachings of a historical Jesus.

3. The historicity of Jesus is based on Paul's letters, not the Gospels.

Interesting, do you think a real, historical Jesus existed, at all? You seem to be saying that whatever we know about Jesus (real or imagined) is ultimately from Paul?

[bluethread]

Though the RCC and Protestants have built an elaborate doctrine around it, the term is only used three times in the Apostolic Writings. There are two accounts of Yeshua using it (Mt. 20:28, mk. 10:45) in reference to Yeshua's life as a servant, and they are probably both talking about the same incident. Paul uses a derivative of the term in 1Tim. 2:6 in the context of salvation from those in authority for the purposes of living a peaceful Torah observant life.

Now, the principle of Adonai having redeemed His people is common throughout the Tanakh. Paul echoes this in his letter to the Corinthians. (Cor. 6:20) "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1Cor. 7:23) "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." Again this refers to a life of service. Therefore, I think that this doctrine of a heavenly courtroom where eternal plea bargains are conducted is not justified by the limited use of this term. That is a relatively modern western approach, i.e. Greco-Roman. The imagery should be of a liberator freeing people by defeating an oppressor, to whom one now owes allegiance.

[alwayson]

You seem to be saying that whatever we know about Jesus (real or imagined) is ultimately from Paul?

The historicity of Jesus is based on Paul's letters:



https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

[Elijah John]

You seem to be saying that whatever we know about Jesus (real or imagined) is ultimately from Paul?

The historicity of Jesus is based on Paul's letters:



https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

Not entirely, even according to Ehrman, HJ scholars utilize criteria to apply to the Gospels in order to determine the historicity of sayings and events depicted in those Gospels.

They include the criteria of multiple attestation and the criteria of historical context. (from the outline notes of the lectures "How Jesus Became God, page 31)

HJ scholars consider the Synoptics to contain more accurate material regarding the historical Jesus than either the Gospel of John, or the letters of Paul, who never even met the real, historical Jesus.

Yes, the letters of Paul are a good source of what some early disciples believed about Jesus, but not so good for determining what the real, historical Jesus actually said or did.

[Mithrae]

I agree with much of your post here, except for the "10th century monk" part. I think a good case can be made that ransom theology derives from the teachings of Paul, and JWs would probably argue from Jesus himself. (although I don't see that it derived from the real, historical Jesus who probably did not expect to be martyred for his preaching.)

I'll paste my reply from the other thread into this one too - it might be more on-topic here

• Where else does Paul say that Jesus' death was a sacrifice for sin? I can find only two verses, both in Romans (3:25 and 8:3) from the following word searches through his letters (excluding the pastorals and Ephesians):
  Jesus blood
  Christ blood
  Atonement
  Sacrifice
  Offering
  
  Only two times to the Romans, out of all his letters. Well fair enough, but he even more frequently describes himself and other believers as sacrifices and offerings (Rom. 12:1, Rom. 15:6, Phil. 2:17, Phil. 4:18), and in the case of Jesus he tries to make an association with Passover and Firstfruits (1 Cor. 5:17, 1 Cor. 15:20) as well as Yom Kippur. He also uses numerous other examples of explanatory imagery as I've noted; Jesus as fulfilment of the promise to Abraham (Rom. 4 and Galatians 3-4), Jesus as the second Adam (Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15), baptism/'buried with Christ' as a passage into new life (Rom. 6) and so on.
  
  It looks like A) Paul was trying to find significance in Jesus' death in a variety of different ways and B) he often wrote in terms of symbolism and metaphor, including in relation to sacrifice. So emphasizing those two verses above all else doesn't seem to be warranted.
  
  The sacrifice/substitutionary atonement theology became one of the more common Christian doctrines, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was "Paul's baby": That doctrine certainly can be extracted from a couple of verses in Paul's letters, but it's also entirely possible to extract it from Isaiah 53 and the story of Abraham and Isaac. So it's as much the "Tanakh's baby" as it is Paul's. Which is to say, arguably not much at all.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

1. LXX is the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.

2. The Gospels do not contain any teachings of a historical Jesus.

3. The historicity of Jesus is based on Paul's letters, not the Gospels.

(2) how about this one, "foxes have their hole and birds have their nest but the son of man has nowhere to rest his head". or this one , " lose your life to gain life" . Sound enigmatically original to me .

[JehovahsWitness]

2. The Gospels do not contain any teachings of a historical Jesus.

What does this mean? Can anybody tell me what this sentence means?!

Any help would be much appreciated,

JW

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]


viewtopic.php?p=890188#890188