Why is vicarious redemption something you admire?

[sonatafanica]

It just doesn't seem that necessary to me. I mean, it sounds good when a preacher tells you that a man died a horrible death for your sins, but then you look back and see that sin was created when god threw a hissy fit over someone eating fruit he told them not to eat. And rather than having forgiveness and getting over himself right then and there, he decided however many thousands of years later that he would put on a big show about it by letting his son get killed and yelling "psyche!".

[Adami]

It just doesn't seem that necessary to me. I mean, it sounds good when a preacher tells you that a man died a horrible death for your sins, but then you look back and see that sin was created when god threw a hissy fit over someone eating fruit he told them not to eat. And rather than having forgiveness and getting over himself right then and there, he decided however many thousands of years later that he would put on a big show about it by letting his son get killed and yelling "psyche!".

I think that could be your next comic.

[Perpetual Change]

While I was drifting off to sleep last night, I found myself still thinking about this, and came up with a more-or-less allegorical explanation:

Judas didn't turn Jesus in because he was that interested in a couple silver coins. He did so because he thought Jesus, as the Messiah, would be able to beat whatever they threw his way. He handed Jesus over to the Romans because he wanted to see the Kingdom come to Earth to save Jesus. In sum, he was getting restless, and wanted to set whatever movement Jesus had cooking up into high-gear.

Jesus accepting his execution, then, is more of a lesson for us than a sacrifice. It's what tells us, sure, "we can have a better world if we follow Christ's teachings" but God is NOT going to give it to us for free, and especially not to save himself, aka Jesus. It is something that we all have to work for, not something that can just "happen" because we've killed our Spiritual Leader and now expect God, in light of that fact, to realize that humanity "can't do it" by itself and hold our hands the rest of the way up. That would go against what the New Testament God has to offer us against the vengeful Old Testament system: that us people aren't perfect, but we're good enough, and if you give us what we need to be better and the chance to do it on our own, after some amount of time we will.  

::prepares to be bulldozed by the boards' many theologians::

[reo73]

reo73, care to point me to the places in the gospels where Jesus says he is on equal footing to God and the Spirit and part of a Trinity?

rumborak

Ok...I will attempt to do this as best as possible because this is not an easy theological concept to understand even among Christians.  Nowhere in the Bible is the term "Trinity" found.  It is a theology created by the early church who tried to make sense of the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  It went through a few iterations until orthodox leaders settled on the "Homoousia" theology that described God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being of the same substance or essence.  This theology is largely based on the Gospel of John; see John 1:1-5 and John 1:14.  Also Jesus explains his relationship with the Father largely in Chapter 14.  During his ministry Jesus always kept his place as the son so in his earthly form he does not put himself as equal to the Father.  But, he also teaches that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) and that no-one comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6) and claims himself as Lord and Messiah so we understand him to be more than a man.  Put this and much more all together, throw in a good 300 years of theological study and debate by the orthodox church and you come up with the Theology of the Trinity.

[William Wallace]

My, secular, understanding is that this divinity business was a much later addition. I think early Christians saw him as a chosen leader, but distinctly human, and thus were impressed by him having become a true martyr, one who really gave everything for the cause.

rumborak

Do you have a source for that? And do you know who thought of him only as a martyr?

My "source" is the fact that Judaism doesn't believe in Trinity. The disciples of Jesus were Jews and they saw him as the Messiah. And while the Messiah is many things, he is not God. Because, and Judaism and Islam agree on that, assigning divinity to Jesus is no longer monotheistic. Jesus himself said he does not replace ancient Jewish law, and I'm pretty sure that includes not replacing (or even scratching at) the idea of pure monotheism.

In my humble opinion, if you want to know what Jesus was or wasn't, you have to look at the early church. Not post-resurrection. For example, I find Paul a highly suspect character in his authority towards what Jesus was or wasn't. He never met Jesus, claims to have had a vision, and then completely revamps what Jesus was about, many times overriding Jesus' teachings.

That's an interesting argument, but an unfounded one as well. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. So when I ask who didn't believe Jesus was God, I'm asking who among the early Christians didn't accept his divinity, which is actually a ridiculous question given the definition of "Christianity."

Given that Jesus claimed to be God, your reference to Matthew 5:17 is very clearly out of context. 

I also don't think pre-resurrection examples are more relevant, unless you can establish that the original teachings of Christianity were seriously manipulated after Jesus' death. And I'm not talking about Bart Ehrman examples - different manuscripts lacking certain stories. I'm talking about major theological changes.

[Perpetual Change]

For what it's worth, WW, I'm still very curious as to why people should only follow faiths that "make complete sense," and, moreover, why religion is supposed to provide explanations for things anyway. Seems like a losing battle to me.

[hefdaddy42]

Just to be a pain in the ass, I don't remember Jesus claiming to be God in any of the synoptic gospels.  So if we rule out John as being the least historical of the gospels (which isn't hard), then we are left with the synoptics, where Jesus spends a lot of time talking about God, and the kingdom of God, but very little time talking about himself.

[bosk1]

1.  There is no reason to rule out John.  It's not hard to make the Bible say [or not say] just about anything if we selectively rule out books, chapters, or verses that contradict whatever the point is that we are trying to make.
2.  It is irrelevant whether Jesus is recorded as saying it if the text itself says it.  (see, e.g., Matt 3:17, 17:5, Mk 1:1, etc.)
3.  The synoptics do record Jesus equating himself with God.  (e.g., Matt 16:13-20, Lk 22:70, etc.)

[hefdaddy42]

1.  There is no reason to rule out John.  It's not hard to make the Bible say [or not say] just about anything if we selectively rule out books, chapters, or verses that contradict whatever the point is that we are trying to make.

It depends on what you're talking about.  I mean, I wouldn't advocate deleting it from the Bible or anything that drastic.  But neither do I base any theology or thoughts of what Jesus may have actually said or done on things that are found only in John.

2.  It is irrelevant whether Jesus is recorded as saying it if the text itself says it.  (see, e.g., Matt 3:17, 17:5, Mk 1:1, etc.)

Whether or not it is irrelevant depends on your view of the text itself.  If your viewpoint is that the entire Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, then I agree, it is irrelevant.  But if that is not your viewpoint, then the relevance grows, depending again on what you're talking about.

3.  The synoptics do record Jesus equating himself with God.  (e.g., Matt 16:13-20, Lk 22:70, etc.)

Matthew 16:13-20 does NOT feature Jesus equating himself with God.  Neither does Luke 22:70.

[rumborak]

Just to be a pain in the ass, I don't remember Jesus claiming to be God in any of the synoptic gospels.  So if we rule out John as being the least historical of the gospels (which isn't hard), then we are left with the synoptics, where Jesus spends a lot of time talking about God, and the kingdom of God, but very little time talking about himself.

And interestingly, that's exactly the impression I got when I read the synoptics a while back. I was reading them, naturally expecting ample support for the mainstream Christian theology of him being divine, part of the Trinity. But instead I was reading about a human Messiah, chosen by God to lead his disciples into the imminent Kingdom. There was a clear "huh?" moment going on.

That's an interesting argument, but an unfounded one as well. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. So when I ask who didn't believe Jesus was God, I'm asking who among the early Christians didn't accept his divinity, which is actually a ridiculous question given the definition of "Christianity."

My very point is that there is huge difference between pre-resurrection "Christianity" and post-resurrection Christianity. Pre-resurrection was just a plain flavor of Judaism, and again, Jesus emphasizes that it is still Judaism ("not replacing God's law"). And, you prove my point implicitly by saying that Christianity and Judaism are not the same religion. Doesn't that go straight against Jesus' statement that he is not replacing God's law?
Post-resurrection Christianity is what we know these days as Christianity. The question I raise is, where do you look to find out what Christianity is? The times and the statements made after which the key figure has died, or the times when he was alive?

rumborak

[bosk1]

The question I raise is, where do you look to find out what Christianity is? The times and the statements made after which the key figure has died, or the times when he was alive?

rumborak

Not to answer for WW, but I think the answer is:  Both.  That is especially true where, as here, where the key figure says he is going to rise from the dead and spends three years saying that things will be different in the coming kingdom after his death.

[rumborak]

That's of course a massive reinterpretation of the "Kingdom". I don't think it's too far a stretch to say that a Jewish prophet who is considered the Messiah by his followers, when talking about the "Kingdom" is talking about the Jewish concept of the Messianic Age. If he meant anything else (e.g. your interpretation) he would have, given his 100% Jewish audience, been explicit about this massive difference.
Jesus mentions major upheaval (e.g. Mark 13:1-8), which is all in line with the Jewish idea of the Messianic Age. And in fact he teaches the upheaval to be imminent (Mark 13:28-30).

rumborak

[reo73]

I am pressed for time this morning so I don't have an abundance of scripture to quote but I will try to answer a few questions.  No where in the Gospels (especially synoptic) will you find Jesus equating himself as God.  He always keeps a clear distinction of God being his Father and he being the Son.  So if you are looking for evidence of Jesus saying he is God you will not find it in his actual quotations.  But, what you will find is clear evidence of his ministry, his purpose, and a sense of his Deity (look at the story of the Transfiguration).  

Also, Christianity is a religion based solely on the premise of a resurrected Christ so there is no such thing as a pre-resurrection Christian religion.  A Christian by the orthodox definition is someone who believes in his resurrection, his deity, and his power of salvation.  If you do not believe this you are not an orthodox Christians (I use the term orthodox because there are people who would say they are Christian but don't hold to orthodox theologies.)  

[rumborak]

And you don't find it weird that the guy this whole thing revolves around wouldn't even mention the meat and potatoes of his own religion? I mean, that strikes me as weird. Jesus teaches for several years about all kinds of things to his disciples, but you're saying the important part only happens after he's dead, and even though he knew that all along, he would never mention it to his disciples? Including the crucial fact that he's part of the "Godhead"?

rumborak

[Adami]

I am pressed for time this morning so I don't have an abundance of scripture to quote but I will try to answer a few questions.  No where in the Gospels (especially synoptic) will you find Jesus equating himself as God.  He always keeps a clear distinction of God being his Father and he being the Son.  So if you are looking for evidence of Jesus saying he is God you will not find it in his actual quotations.  But, what you will find is clear evidence of his ministry, his purpose, and a sense of his Deity (look at the story of the Transfiguration).  

Also, Christianity is a religion based solely on the premise of a resurrected Christ so there is no such thing as a pre-resurrection Christian religion.  A Christian by the orthodox definition is someone who believes in his resurrection, his deity, and his power of salvation.  If you do not believe this you are not an orthodox Christians (I use the term orthodox because there are people who would say they are Christian but don't hold to orthodox theologies.)  

That's a very interesting point. I wonder then, what were the original disciples following? I mean, if they didn't already know before hand that jesus would die for their sins and be resurrected and so forth, what were they attracted to? And, whatever that was, is it more important or less important than what modern christians are attracted to?

[bosk1]

That's of course a massive reinterpretation of the "Kingdom". I don't think it's too far a stretch to say that a Jewish prophet who is considered the Messiah by his followers, when talking about the "Kingdom" is talking about the Jewish concept of the Messianic Age. If he meant anything else (e.g. your interpretation) he would have, given his 100% Jewish audience, been explicit about this massive difference.
Jesus mentions major upheaval (e.g. Mark 13:1-8), which is all in line with the Jewish idea of the Messianic Age. And in fact he teaches the upheaval to be imminent (Mark 13:28-30).

rumborak

Well, yes, Mark 13 does talk about a big upheaval (and one that did occur relatively soon after Jesus said it would), but there is nothing in that passage about the kingdom.  The only time the word even appears in that chapter is when he says "kingdom will rise against kingdom."  That whole chapter is very different than what he describes as the kingdom.

And regarding the kingdom and him being the messiah, yes, he did say the kingdom was immenent.  And it arrived imminently.  So I'm not sure what "interpretation" you are talking about.  What he said would happen happened. 

I am pressed for time this morning so I don't have an abundance of scripture to quote but I will try to answer a few questions.  No where in the Gospels (especially synoptic) will you find Jesus equating himself as God.  He always keeps a clear distinction of God being his Father and he being the Son.  So if you are looking for evidence of Jesus saying he is God you will not find it in his actual quotations.  But, what you will find is clear evidence of his ministry, his purpose, and a sense of his Deity (look at the story of the Transfiguration). 

Also, Christianity is a religion based solely on the premise of a resurrected Christ so there is no such thing as a pre-resurrection Christian religion.  A Christian by the orthodox definition is someone who believes in his resurrection, his deity, and his power of salvation.  If you do not believe this you are not an orthodox Christians (I use the term orthodox because there are people who would say they are Christian but don't hold to orthodox theologies.)   

That's a very interesting point. I wonder then, what were the original disciples following? I mean, if they didn't already know before hand that jesus would die for their sins and be resurrected and so forth, what were they attracted to? And, whatever that was, is it more important or less important than what modern christians are attracted to?

Good question.  Rumborak isn't completely offbase by not understanding what kingdom was all about.  It is obvious that during Jesus' lifetime, a lot of the disciples also made the mistake of misunderstanding what Jesus was saying and thought he was talking about a physical kingdom.  Even the disciples closest to Jesus, including the twelve, seem to only have grasped bits and pieces of what Jesus was really saying until after his resurrection.  He is constantly asking them why they don't get it, and having to break it down for them.

[rumborak]

Well, yes, Mark 13 does talk about a big upheaval (and one that did occur relatively soon after Jesus said it would), but there is nothing in that passage about the kingdom.  The only time the word even appears in that chapter is when he says "kingdom will rise against kingdom."  That whole chapter is very different than what he describes as the kingdom.
[...]
And regarding the kingdom and him being the messiah, yes, he did say the kingdom was immenent.  And it arrived imminently.

But, none of the stuff in Mark 13 happened, especially nowhere near his death. Sure, the temple was destroyed in 70AD, but that's way beyond a "generation", and nations didn't rise against each other, or the moon stopped giving light. And certainly the stars didn't fall from the sky.
How can you see the kingdom having come when none of this stuff happened?

rumborak

[bosk1]

Again, that passage has nothing to do with the kingdom.  Why are you blurring those two issues together?

[rumborak]

What is he talking about then in Mark 13? A random apocalypse not related to anything?

rumborak

[bosk1]

What is he talking about then in Mark 13? A random apocalypse not related to anything?

rumborak

No, I don't think it is random at all.  He definitely is talking about the destruction of the temple (and more), as is clear from 1, 2, and 14.  At least, that's what he is talking about in verses 1-20.  I believe there may be a shift at verse 21.  But in any case, there is nothing about the coming of the kingdom in this chapter.

[rumborak]

The destruction of the temple is very well documented. I can't recall reading about nations warring or stars falling out of the sky. Your interpretation is very unlikely, especially the theory of shifting topics in the chapter.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

My very point is that there is huge difference between pre-resurrection "Christianity" and post-resurrection Christianity.

I know, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your argument. What exactly changed about Christianity? Who made the changes? When? etc.
 

Pre-resurrection was just a plain flavor of Judaism, and again, Jesus emphasizes that it is still Judaism ("not replacing God's law"). And, you prove my point implicitly by saying that Christianity and Judaism are not the same religion. Doesn't that go straight against Jesus' statement that he is not replacing God's law?

You're still confused. You can't select certain passages to make your argument and ignore the whole picture. The text indicates, in Matthew 26:28 for example, that Jesus' death and resurrection superseded the ceremonial laws that applied (ready for this?) only to the Jews. By coming to earth, ministering and dying, he was fulfilling the law. So, no, Jesus actually being God does not violate the law. I think that's what you're arguing, based on your earlier post.

Also, if I'm not convincing enough, here is a scholarly refutation of your goofy ideas.

[rumborak]

I know, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your argument. What exactly changed about Christianity? Who made the changes? When? etc.

WW, you have a habit of posting "I still don't know what you are talking about!" posts. In addition to the very thing we discussed on the last page, i.e. that pre-resurrection Christianity was almost exclusively about the imminent Kingdom as prophesied by a Jewish Messiah, whereas post-resurrection this "Kingdom" was reinterpreted to mean something very different, there's also things like that Jesus required his followers to completely shed their earthly belongings and renounce their ties to their families (not surprising, because the Kingdom was imminent!). This is in stark contrast to post-resurrection Christianity, which overrode this requirement and also included gentiles.
bosky's theory was essentially "well, the disciples were dense, they didn't get it", and "Jesus switched topic halfway in!", neither of which I find particularly convincing. 12 guys who are there can't figure it out, but a guy who never directly met Jesus does?

rumborak

[bosk1]

bosky's theory was essentially "well, the disciples were dense, they didn't get it", and "Jesus switched topic halfway in!".

rumborak

1.  Disciples didn't get it:  They clearly didn't, and Jesus said so over and over.  For example:  "But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, 'Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?'"  (Mk 8:17)  This is a VERY common theme throughout the gospels.  I'm surprised you could even question that.
2.  Jesus switching topics halfway in:  Not really important to the issue we are actually discussing, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.  But it does seem likely to me that Jesus does shift slightly in topic.  As you yourself said, he was obviously discussing the temple.  Then he says in verse 24:  "But in those days after that tribulation..."  So, yeah, he is talking about topic A (the temple), and then talks about something that will occur at some point "after that."

So...do you not yet perceive nor understand? 

[reo73]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRE-RESURRECTION CHRISTIANITY!  Christianity is a religion born out of the resurrected Christ.  It did not exist before hand.  The pre resurrection Jesus was not a "flavor of Judaism", he was not an institution.  He was a man who had followers and created a following that was an affront to Jewish legalism.

Prior to Jesus the Jewish people practiced Mosaic law to atone for the sin.  Prophesy led them to believe (erroneously) that the messiah would be a political leader.  When Jesus came and announced himself as the Messiah his ministry was radically different from that of a political leader.  His following was probably due in part to divine intervention, to his radical and amazing teachings, and his miracles.  But through-out his whole ministry prior to his death the disciples were confused about his purpose.  They still expected a political leader and would never of conceived him dying at the hands of the Jewish leaders and Romans.  It wasn't until he resurrected and continued his ministry with the disciples that they fully understood (enter the Holy Spirit) his purpose of providing the final atonement for man's sin.  From these disciples the Christian religion was born.

Christ's ministry fulfilled Jewish law.  It provided the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of those with faith both past and present.  It established a new covenant between God and man.  We are currently living in the period of "upheaval" that Christ talks about in Mark Chapter 13.  The "Abomination of Desolation" is the destruction of the temple.  The Kingdom that Christ refers to as His has not come yet.

[rumborak]

1.  Disciples didn't get it:  They clearly didn't, and Jesus said so over and over.  For example:  "But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, 'Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?'"  (Mk 8:17)  This is a VERY common theme throughout the gospels.  I'm surprised you could even question that.
2.  Jesus switching topics halfway in:  Not really important to the issue we are actually discussing, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.  But it does seem likely to me that Jesus does shift slightly in topic.  As you yourself said, he was obviously discussing the temple.  Then he says in verse 24:  "But in those days after that tribulation..."  So, yeah, he is talking about topic A (the temple), and then talks about something that will occur at some point "after that."

So...do you not yet perceive nor understand?  

o_0?

I personally don't seem to possess this special brand of "scripture reading". The wording is "But in those days, following that distress". "Those days" obviously referring to both the destruction of the temple and the apocalyptic events he describes right in the next line.
I know you won't agree with me on this, but plain fact is, whatever Jesus is describing in Mark 13, it didn't happen. It was supposed to be a sequence of dreadful events that were going to happen within their generation, but none of it happened. Especially because he mentions the timeline after the description of the apocalyptic events. I take it your theory also posits he covertly switched back to talking about the temple?

And I can't fathom that you're relegating the same guys who allegedly wrote the gospels, to be a bunch of dense guys who didn't know what Jesus was preaching, despite them traveling with Jesus for years.

rumborak

[bosk1]

rumborak, just read what the text says.

[rumborak]

I'm reading text usually not assuming the speaker switches contexts all the time.

rumborak

[reo73]

I'm reading text usually not assuming the speaker switches contexts all the time.

rumborak

Jesus' dialogue in Mark 13 is more than likely a summary of various dialogues about the end times and is not meant to be seen as one continuous thought.  He discusses the destruction of the temple which happened soon after his death, but then goes into discussion about the tribulation which is not an event with a specific timetable to it.  Many theologians believe we are currently living in the 1st stages of the tribulation (wars, earthquakes, kingdom against kingdom, etc.) and the other stages are yet to come.

The Gospel scriptures are narratives compiled from different eye witness accounts of Jesus' words and actions.  These accounts were then mashed together to form a narrative story by the author for a specific audience.  Sometimes the passages convey a chronological history of events, but not always.  Sometimes they just convey ideas that may be a mash-up of various dialogues Christ had with his disciples at various times.

On the surface this may seem like convoluted mess however the overall purpose of the Gospel scriptures, that is to record his ministry so others later may benefit, is not compromised.   
 

[bosk1]

Many theologians believe we are currently living in the 1st stages of the tribulation (wars, earthquakes, kingdom against kingdom, etc.) and the other stages are yet to come.

Yes, but many theologians are doofuses.

[j]

Many theologians believe we are currently living in the 1st stages of the tribulation (wars, earthquakes, kingdom against kingdom, etc.) and the other stages are yet to come.

Yes, but many theologians are doofuses.

Doofi.

-J

[hefdaddy42]

Many theologians believe we are currently living in the 1st stages of the tribulation (wars, earthquakes, kingdom against kingdom, etc.) and the other stages are yet to come.

Yes, but many theologians are doofuses.

Yet again, we find the common ground of agreement.

Doofi.

[bosk1]

If Queensryche wrote a song about them, they'd be smiling next to you in silent dooficity.

[hefdaddy42]

If Queen wrote a song about them, it would be a veritable doofisian rhapsody.

[bosk1]

If...
If...

I got nuthin'.