Roman executioner's are not priests,

[Elijah John]

Roman executioners are not priests, and the cross is not an altar. So how can Jesus execution be considered a "payment for sin"? In any kind of a theologically legal sense, that is.

If Jesus death is truly a legal "payment for sin" as Paul seems to teach, and as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, (ransom), then wouldn't his death have to be performed on the Temple altar, at the hands of a Jewish priest?

1) Is the idea of Jesus death as a "payment for sin" anything more than a metaphor? A metaphor that is useful for Paul and his followers, but not for everyone.

2) Is the notion of Jesus martyrdom as a "payment for sin" Divine revelation? Or theological speculation.

3) Seems Paul wanted to play the legal, Priestly game in regard to Jesus death, so why wouldn't the legal, priestly rules have disqualified his interpretations?

4) Is Pauline blood-atonement theology legalistic?

5) Would Jesus have approved of such a legalistic approach?

Please address any combination of the above.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

I didn't imply trial and error. I implied the planned ability to win 100 ways.

I struggle to see how my analogy couldn't help you. You seem hung up on a relative word bad. A move is only bad if the other person knows how to take advantage of it.

As for your last point. Freewill refutes you. But surely you knew that as you were typing?

What's the point with you? Why persist in bad arguments over several years.

[Elijah John]

So you do acknowledge that Jews made regular sacrifice for their sins?

Yes, for a time. But they outgrew that barbaric, pagan practice with the help of their prophets and sages.

Legalism and being legalistic is following rules in order to get to heaven. In order to not break the rules you create more rules to follow.

This seems to be what Paul has done. Speculation, theological interpretation. It was his attempt to find meaning in the unexpected martyrdom of Jesus and his attempt to establish a theological justification for disregarding the tribal, ritual constraints of Judaism in favor or a more universal application of ethical monotheism that Gentiles could readily adapt. Ironic that in attempting to free himself and others from ceremonial legalisms, he created an even bigger one, namely the making of Jesus martyrdom into a legalistic, blood-ransom dogma.

The bible shows that there are no amount of rules we can follow in order to get to heaven. Accepting Jesus is therefore the opposite of your implications.

Yes, it's all about a heart response to the grace, love and mercy of God. Embracing His will from the heart not about "keeping rules". Christian legalists attempt to confine that grace and mercy of God to their understanding of the meaning of Christ's martyrdom, i.e. as a blood-ransom, atoning human sacrifice.

Also in just a general rebuttal do you think God disregards a sacrifice just because it was offered outside a temple? Isnt that notion in itself legalistic?

That's part of my point. The whole idea of blood-sacrifice is not only barbaric, but legalistic. It is Paul and his disciples who invoke the legalisms of blood-atonement, not me. My point is that if one wants to play the blood sacrificial "game" than one should abide by the blood sacrificial rules. And those rules disqualify Paul's blood theology.

But my understanding is that God never wanted blood sacrifice in the first place, that is a pagan vestige which Jews (with the help of the Prophets, including John the Baptist and Jesus) outgrew, in favor of simple repentance and faith in God. (where does Jesus mention the importance of being "washed in the blood" in the Lord's prayer?)

Outside of the Temple? Apparently (though perhaps not in actuality) God accepted sacrifice outside of the Temple, if the accounts about the Patriarchs are to be believed. But as with all blood-sacrifice, it is my understanding that God only tolerated blood sacrifice for a time, as transitional. What would the Supreme Spirit and Creator of the Universe need or desire blood?

A few considerations:

-The Temple was still in operation when Jesus was crucified, and it is my understanding that there was no provision for "free-lance" sacrifices outside of the Temple walls in the Judaism of Jesus day.

-Also, sacrifice seems to have depended on the intent of the one offering the sacrifice. In this case, the Roman executioners had no intention that the crucifixion of the "criminal" Christ was to be an offering for the purpose of atoning for sins.

-Finally, there was no provision in Judaism for human sacrifice...at all. Even if that supposed sacrifice was supposed to have been God incarnate Himself. But that is another notion rejected by Judaism (presumably including Jews such as Jesus himself) that God would ever "enflesh" Himself in the first place.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Elijah John:
This seems to be what Paul has done. Speculation, theological interpretation. It was his attempt to find meaning in the unexpected martyrdom of Jesus and his attempt to establish a theological justification for disregarding the tribal, ritual constraints of Judaism in favor or a more universal application of ethical monotheism that Gentiles could readily adapt. Ironic that in attempting to free himself and others from ceremonial legalisms, he created an even bigger one, namely the making of Jesus martyrdom into a legalistic, blood-ransom dogma.

Paul created a fiction far from reality and did a disservice to the truthful teachings of Jesus. Paul did a sinful act. Right, please?
I agree with one here.

Regards

[marco]

Paul created a fiction far from reality and did a disservice to the truthful teachings of Jesus. Paul did a sinful act. Right, please?

You are right that Paul misinterpreted Christ's message, but since he seemed to have acted in good faith, he was hardly sinful. Muhammad also distorted the gospel message to make himself look more important than Jesus. This was deliberate, and so this would have been sinful.

From Paul's interpretation we get the fiction of sacrifice as well as a vast amount of prudishness.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I think the whole idea of something needing to be sacrificed in order to atone for wrongdoing is silly but also understandable - as in why people would create such stories and believe in them as truth.

If you were to die and from that find yourself in another reality - a nice good reality, one in which you retain your memory of your prior existence and everyone you every knew and had passed on prior to you, were now there with you, even those who had done you wrong - ripped you off, raped you, tortured you, lied to you etc...sinned against you - would their presence really matter to you, given the new reality you were enjoying?
Would you feel like something unjust was happening because those people who contributed to making your prior life more miserable than it would have been had they not done what they did, are there enjoying the new reality right along side of you?

Would a story about a GOD who offered His son as symbolic sacrifice for the atonement for all the wrongdoing humans did to one another in their prior life be enough for you to accept the presence of those who are guilty of doing wrong to you, there in that other reality you and everyone passed over to?

Or could you accept their presence without the additional requirement of the sacrifice?

Add to that the notion that only those who accept the sacrifice and in doing so believe that they are saved from the consequence of wrongdoing and for that will be rewarded with a new reality free from such concerns, and they find those who have done them wrong are also there with them, even that those ones did not accept the sacrifice story, how do you think it might be for them, having those who did them wrong share in the same joyful experience of this new reality?

Lets assume that the nature of the new reality removes the desire to ever do anyone wrong. So these prior wrong-doers not only don't want to continue doing wrong but are genuinely repentant for having acted the way they did and in all sincerity say so to those who they have wronged.

And that the nature of the new reality also compels those who had suffered the effects of the wrongdoers, to forgive them for those prior actions...then what need then would there be for notions of sacrifices and the added condition of having to accept Jesus as your savior for the price he paid for your personal wrongdoing?

Thus the whole notion assumes forgiveness, repentance and reward for that as a way of justice in the form of vengeance and reparation which suits many as a catalyst for being able to forgive and move on with their lives, but not really because - while the price was apparently paid, there is still a price to pay. Does that make any sense at all?

Not to me it doesn't.

What in the examples below, seems more logical?

(1) That a GOD would create a means by which a sacrifice for the atonement of all without further need for retribution is enabled.

(2) That a GOD would create a means by which a sacrifice for the atonement of all, but only under the condition that one has to accept the sacrifice or there will still be further need for retribution.

(3) That no sacrifice is or ever will be required because a new reality will be entered into which will enable everyone to understand - to fully comprehend their prior behavior in a prior reality as something they can be genuinely sorry for and understand that it was just one of those things and move on in the new reality, transformed and no longer even thinking about doing evil or worrying about past evil that was done.

Which 'solution' from the above would it be logical to assume an actual Loving GOD would create?

[bluethread]

So you do acknowledge that Jews made regular sacrifice for their sins?

Yes, for a time. But they outgrew that barbaric, pagan practice with the help of their prophets and sages.

Modern man likes simplistic explanations. Yet few things in life have simple explanations. The concept of blood sacrifice, as expressed in the Scriptures, is no exception. So far on this thread there have been several and varied explanations, which I believe are more about supporting the personal perspectives of the posters than understanding it's place in the social order of Adonai's people. Even if is not a theist, it is only reasonable to recognize that it's role in that social order must involve more than mere blood lust or masochistic suicide. I have chosen to address your post, because, of all the posts so far, it comes closest to acknowledging that there is such a role.

To address the two statements above directly, I do not see the sacrifices as simply payment of a fine. When one looks at the sacrifices of the patriarchs they are either graphically symbolic, communally cohesive, or both. They were also not central features of gory revelry. The use as graphic symbolism is seen in the covenant of Adonai with Avram. The other is seen in Yacov slaughtering the lamb that her presented to Yitzchak, before receiving the blessing. To understand the importance of these things one really needs to do more than fit it into a personal doctrine, or focus on an initial knee-jerk reaction.

Legalism and being legalistic is following rules in order to get to heaven. In order to not break the rules you create more rules to follow.

This seems to be what Paul has done. Speculation, theological interpretation. It was his attempt to find meaning in the unexpected martyrdom of Jesus and his attempt to establish a theological justification for disregarding the tribal, ritual constraints of Judaism in favor or a more universal application of ethical monotheism that Gentiles could readily adapt. Ironic that in attempting to free himself and others from ceremonial legalisms, he created an even bigger one, namely the making of Jesus martyrdom into a legalistic, blood-ransom dogma.

Yes, these exemplify two forms of legalism. When one looks at a law as a means to an end, rather than as a part of a greater social system, it can appear shallow or cruel. However, that is really not fair to the culture of which they are part and leads to a rather elitist view of it's practices.

The bible shows that there are no amount of rules we can follow in order to get to heaven. Accepting Jesus is therefore the opposite of your implications.

Yes, it's all about a heart response to the grace, love and mercy of God. Embracing His will from the heart not about "keeping rules". Christian legalists attempt to confine that grace and mercy of God to their understanding of the meaning of Christ's martyrdom, i.e. as a blood-ransom, atoning human sacrifice.

I think you are both correct in part. There is no amount of rules that can force someone to understand the principles of grace, love and mercy. However, without constant and reminders, it is very difficult for us humans to stay focused on such things. In the context of Torah culture, that is exactly what blood sacrifice does.

Also in just a general rebuttal do you think God disregards a sacrifice just because it was offered outside a temple? Isnt that notion in itself legalistic?

That's part of my point. The whole idea of blood-sacrifice is not only barbaric, but legalistic. It is Paul and his disciples who invoke the legalisms of blood-atonement, not me. My point is that if one wants to play the blood sacrificial "game" than one should abide by the blood sacrificial rules. And those rules disqualify Paul's blood theology.

That appears to me to be a rather legalistic take on Paul's writings. He does make it clear that the Levitical sacrificial system and the nature of Yeshua's sacrifice are similar, they are not the same. The one is graphic symbolism and the other is exemplary living. Requiring that the one match the other in every detail is to miss the underlying principles that both exemplify.

But my understanding is that God never wanted blood sacrifice in the first place, that is a pagan vestige which Jews (with the help of the Prophets, including John the Baptist and Jesus) outgrew, in favor of simple repentance and faith in God. (where does Jesus mention the importance of being "washed in the blood" in the Lord's prayer?)

I do agree that blood sacrifice was an end unto itself. Not only does Yeshua not speak of being "washed in the blood", I know of no place in the Scriptures where one can find that phrase. It is a popular protestant hymn, based on the combination of the the mikvah and the sacrifice. However, these are two different rituals that refer to two different principles.

Outside of the Temple? Apparently (though perhaps not in actuality) God accepted sacrifice outside of the Temple, if the accounts about the Patriarchs are to be believed. But as with all blood-sacrifice, it is my understanding that God only tolerated blood sacrifice for a time, as transitional. What would the Supreme Spirit and Creator of the Universe need or desire blood?

Adonai did not need blood sacrifice, we did. It is easy to take things for granted, when we do not have graphic reminders.

A few considerations:

-The Temple was still in operation when Jesus was crucified, and it is my understanding that there was no provision for "free-lance" sacrifices outside of the Temple walls in the Judaism of Jesus day.

Different sacrifice. The Temple sacrifices were symbolic, Yeshua's was exemplary.

-Also, sacrifice seems to have depended on the intent of the one offering the sacrifice. In this case, the Roman executioners had no intention that the crucifixion of the "criminal" Christ was to be an offering for the purpose of atoning for sins.

It is the intent of the one making the offering, not the one facilitating the sacrifices.

-Finally, there was no provision in Judaism for human sacrifice...at all. Even if that supposed sacrifice was supposed to have been God incarnate Himself. But that is another notion rejected by Judaism (presumably including Jews such as Jesus himself) that God would ever "enflesh" Himself in the first place.

Living a sacrificial life is integral to the lifestyles of Adonai's people and is exemplified throughout the Tanakh.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]


Kindly read post 10 in this thread, please.
Regards

[marco]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]


Kindly read post 10 in this thread, please.
Regards

It doesn't give any references that would help disel wrong ideas. It does say:

"Jesus remained in hiding, met only to his followers secretly, did not meet the public or the "adulterous Jews" to whom he was to show a sign as promised by him, and went out of Judea lest the Jews catch him and crucify him again. "


Does this mean he met the non-adulterous Jews or is it just the case that all Jews were adulterous? And why would he show a sign to the Jews who committed adultery, but not to the ones who kept to the straight and narrow?

As Oscar Wilde nearly said in The Importance of Being earnest:
"To be crucified once is a misfortune; to be crucified twice is carelessness." Do you think your extension to the Jesus narrative is more plausible? From what early document would it draw any support?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ!

Roman executioners are not priests, and the cross is not an altar. So how can Jesus execution be considered a "payment for sin"? In any kind of a theologically legal sense, that is.

Roman executioners were not priests, but Christ IS (a priest). Christ is the high priest, to be exact, and the sacrifice that He offered was Himself.

The lambs sacrificed (from the passover in Egypt) were also not sacrificed on the altar of the temple, and then later given to each household to eat and spread the blood over the doorposts.

Christ is the Passover Lamb.

(I'm also not sure why it would matter that He was not sacrificed literally upon the physical altar of the physical temple, since His sacrifice was given for the whole world, from the beginning. Cain and Abel made sacrifices as well, if you recall. Besides which, Christ is Himself the Temple.)


You seem to be arguing against legalism, using a legalistic argument.

If Jesus death is truly a legal "payment for sin" as Paul seems to teach, and as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, (ransom), then wouldn't his death have to be performed on the Temple altar, at the hands of a Jewish priest?

See above.

1) Is the idea of Jesus death as a "payment for sin" anything more than a metaphor? A metaphor that is useful for Paul and his followers, but not for everyone.

I don't think you can make this about those who follow Paul. Because Christ is the One said that He came to give His life as a ransom for many.

Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Since He did give His life, I'm not sure why you think that would be literal, but the ransom would be metaphor.

Who He was ransoming people back from is a good question (imo), but THAT he gave his life as a ransom, is not in question, not according to Christ.

4) Is Pauline blood-atonement theology legalistic?

5) Would Jesus have approved of such a legalistic approach?

I have a question for you, EJ, if you do not mind?

What exactly is it about a legalistic approach that you find objectionable? How are you defining 'legalistic'?

Because a covenant (which is a contract between two or more parties - such as between God and Israel; among others) is a legal and binding thing, yes? Both parties have certain obligations that they agreed to under the contract; and if those are not met, the contract/covenant can be nullified (depending upon the terms).


It may help to better understand your objection.


Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Because a covenant (which is a contract between two or more parties - such as between God and Israel; among others) is a legal and binding thing, yes? Both parties have certain obligations that they agreed to under the contract; and if those are not met, the contract/covenant can be nullified (depending upon the terms).

This is not quite the case, Tam. In Genesis we have:

"Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.�

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.�

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.�


There is a decree from God, a promise of no more violence. Agreement does not come into it. It is imposed on unborn generations. There is nothing to agree to anyway. As for the rainbow "reminding" God of his promise not to kill people in floods, he seems to have forgotten this part of the bargain in some recent tsunamis he sent. But he escapes censure on a legal technicality: "He will not destroy ALL life." But then he didn't, earlier.