John 3:61

[_Nightlion]

...

Your post is a good example of why I don't do this very often: people get mad and/or hurt. So I think I'll stop now. I've had my say.

...

They get mad all right. They also sometimes say they are hurt.

I am however afraid that this may well be no more than a ploy to get you to stop offering views they don't like, and are unable to rebut by rational argument.

I suggest you simply assure people of your goodwill, and refuse to let a heckler's veto silence you.

Mad would be IF I expected better and got disappointed. Same with hurt. Chris simply wants to save his intellectual cred and stay out of the corners. How do you figure I am a mere heckler? I actually bring original thought to the table. Where have I failed to rebut? I have transcended all his vulgarity. You are greatly prejudice. Nothing personal here, all good

[_Nightlion]

I think it points out that the New testament does not have clear simple explaination of what is meant by the atonement. .

The gospel is not understood by saying only, and that includes writing only, or reading only. The gospel is only understood after the doing. All the much speaking and thinking and writing and learning the writings and commentaries are stupid. You got to do it. If you don't nothing else matters. Wont somebody do it anymore?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I have transcended all his vulgarity.

Vulgarity?

[Guest]

This post seemed to me to be a reasonable first response to the opening post by CaliforniaKid. I was puzzled that it was not picked up on much.

It's true that many scholars have claimed Anselm was the first to say Christ bore the penalty for our sins in order to appease the wrath or justice of God. According to these scholars, the "classic" theory ("Ransom Theory") was that the payment was made not to God, but to an autonomous power such as Death, Justice, or the Devil.

My response to this is twofold.

First, not all scholars agree with this assessment. Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach find satisfaction theory taught in nearly all the early Fathers. They point, for example, to Irenaeus's statement that Christ "did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance" (Against Heresies 4.8.2). It's true that Irenaeus elsewhere speaks of the atonement in terms of ransom, but this just suggests Irenaeus saw the two theories as complementary, with Death, the Devil, and Justice acting as subordinates of God rather than his autonomous equals. (See also Job, where the Devil is more an official in God's court than his avowed opponent.)

Second, it's not surprising that the Greek Fathers, who generally despised the Jewish sacrificial system, explained the atonement in terms more consonant with their worldview. However, it seems clear to me that the first-century Jewish Christians who wrote the New Testament understood the atonement in terms of Jewish sacrificial theology as a payment made to God, not the Devil. The very term "atonement"-- a New Testament term-- assumes that framework. I'm happy to listen to alternative interpretations of the passages I quoted in my previous post, but I don't see how they can be interpreted to support a ransom theory or any of the other popular alternatives. And if the satisfaction model was the original Jewish understanding, then the subsequent Hellenistic reinterpretations of that model are just revisionism. Little wonder they haven't caught on, since they virtually ignore the Jewish context of Jesus's life and mission, and prefer instead to impose interpretations foreign to the text.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I guess what I'm saying is that if theologically "liberal" Christians today want atheists to address their watered-down and Westernized versions of Christianity's core doctrines rather than focusing on the more conservative versions, they're going to have to explain why we should take their versions seriously. Their versions are formulated with neither authority nor justification, and frankly don't seem to fit Christianity's founding myths and texts.

[_Chap]

I guess what I'm saying is that if theologically "liberal" Christians today want atheists to address their watered-down and Westernized versions of Christianity's core doctrines rather than focusing on the more conservative versions, they're going to have to explain why we should take their versions seriously. Their versions are formulated with neither authority nor justification, and frankly don't seem to fit Christianity's founding myths and texts.

Indeed. Like New Order Mormonism, the kind of liberal Christianity that removes all the strong doctrines (admittedly sometimes mutually incompatible) that have been taught through the centuries and still command much belief today is an entirely parasitic phenomenon on the actual Christian religion (in which, by the way, I no longer believe). Liberal Christianity could never have got itself started as a religion on its own, in the same way that New Order Mormonism, which shuffles aside as embarrassing huge swathes of the teachings of past prophets, could ever have attracted any believers if it had not had the pre-existing Mormon church to draw them from.

These are religions for people who like the atmosphere, aesthetics and modes of sociability of main-stream religions, while wanting little that they offer doctrinally apart from a generalised 'spiritual' uplift that does not commit one to much by way of belief.

[_Nightlion]

I guess what I'm saying is that if theologically "liberal" Christians today want atheists to address their watered-down and Westernized versions of Christianity's core doctrines rather than focusing on the more conservative versions, they're going to have to explain why we should take their versions seriously. Their versions are formulated with neither authority nor justification, and frankly don't seem to fit Christianity's founding myths and texts.

Am I to understand that you find a standard of conformity to an authentic Christian origin from Jewish traditional models? When were they NOT in a state of high hypocrisy? Every prophet among them was at odds with his generation. The truth was as hidden from the Ancient Jews as it is today.

Did the masters of Israel understand the gospel?

Jeremiah 4: 4
4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

This was to say: know the Lord, and that is only in doing the gospel right and no longer remain a child of Belial. The Old Testament sounds exactly like the Book of Mormon in this regard, once you SEE it.

I wholeheartedly agree that today's Christians/Mormons are not Christian or Mormon.

[_huckelberry]

It is true that many scholars have claimed Anselm was the first to say Christ bore the penalty for our sins in order to appease the wrath or justice of God. According to these scholars, the "classic" theory ("Ransom Theory") was that the payment was made not to God, but to an autonomous power such as Death, Justice, or the Devil.

My response to this is twofold.

First, not all scholars agree with this assessment. Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach find satisfaction theory taught in nearly all the early Fathers. They point, for example, to Irenaeus's statement that Christ "did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance" (Against Heresies 4.8.2). It's true that Irenaeus elsewhere speaks of the atonement in terms of ransom, but this just suggests Irenaeus saw the two theories as complementary, with Death, the Devil, and Justice acting as subordinates of God rather than his autonomous equals. (See also Job, where the Devil is more an official in God's court than his avowed opponent.)

You have, I think, a good point about Anselm. Yes I have heard the simplified history you mention. Perhaps Anselm marks a change in emphasis in how people spoke of how the atonement works not some brand new version replacing the old view. Irenaeus is personally dear to me so I am happy with your observation that he saw the theories as complimentary. I am not inclined to say substitutionary atonement is wrong. I certainly believe in Jesus priestly act, sacrifice, propitiation. I do not stand back from thinking of myself as washed in the Blood of the Lamb or eating the flesh and blood of Jesus our passover.

[_Kishkumen]

I can't help but think that the OP represents a kind of failure to think about the historical context thoroughly enough. The question is not what such a spectacle looks like to a modern interpreter, but what it signaled in the Roman Empire to its inhabitants. Is a reading out of context a fair reading here?

[_huckelberry]

Second, it's not surprising that the Greek Fathers, who generally despised the Jewish sacrificial system, explained the atonement in terms more consonant with their worldview. However, it seems clear to me that the first-century Jewish Christians who wrote the New Testament understood the atonement in terms of Jewish sacrificial theology as a payment made to God, not the Devil. The very term "atonement"-- a New Testament term-- assumes that framework. I'm happy to listen to alternative interpretations of the passages I quoted in my previous post, but I don't see how they can be interpreted to support a ransom theory or any of the other popular alternatives. And if the satisfaction model was the original Jewish understanding, then the subsequent Hellenistic reinterpretations of that model are just revisionism. Little wonder they haven't caught on, since they virtually ignore the Jewish context of Jesus's life and mission, and prefer instead to impose interpretations foreign to the text.

I believe that Jesus is propitiation to the Father by being the true righteousness that God desires. Because we can be joined to Jesus he becomes the first fruits of the successful overcoming and defeat of evils war against humanity and God. I think Pauls view is important, that in Jesus our old man dies and and a new creation in Jesus is commenced. That is a sacrifice of pleasing odor for God. As John remembers, We are the branches and Jesus is the vine. In that connection we are friends of God. I think it is important in John to follow how human sin and darkness produces hostility towards God. Jesus accepts all of that hostility and dies from it. He approaches the evil by turning his cheek and forgoing destruction in order to invite people to recognize the evil and anger in themselves to turn away from it. In following that we learn turning the cheek, learn mercy and become branches on the vine.(a savory odor to God)