DiscussMormonism.com

Can any of you believers explain that? Why is the earliest surviving gospel lacking in any mention of sacrifice for sin, or of salvation being dependent upon belief in Jesus? Doesn't this tell you that the doctrine of the atonement/grace was developed long after Jesus' death, and after the gospel of Mark? Maybe it was a way for disappointed acolytes to explain Jesus' death, which was unexpected. After all, the prophesied Messiah was not supposed to be a martyr, killed for the sins of the world. That is found nowhere in the Old Testament.

I'm no New Testament scholar (or any other type for that matter), so further elucidation would be welcome from all sources. In my disbelief, though, skeptical examination of the life of Jesus has come last of all. I was a bit of a freak as a missionary as my favorite scriptures were always from the New Testament, not the Book of Mormon. I had a real fondness for Jesus, so that's the area I've subjected to the least critical examination. It's been easier for me to unflinchingly look at Old Testament/Book of Abraham/D&C/Book of Mormon problems.

Buffalo wrote:Can any of you believers explain that? Why is the earliest surviving gospel lacking in any mention of sacrifice for sin, or of salvation being dependent upon belief in Jesus? Doesn't this tell you that the doctrine of the atonement/grace was developed long after Jesus' death, and after the gospel of Mark? Maybe it was a way for disappointed acolytes to explain Jesus' death, which was unexpected. After all, the prophesied Messiah was not supposed to be a martyr, killed for the sins of the world. That is found nowhere in the Old Testament.

Very good. using the argument that Joseph Smith never had the first vision on all of Christianity. I don't know if Mark cancels out the other accounts on the basis of it being earlier though.

I'm no New Testament scholar (or any other type for that matter), so further elucidation would be welcome from all sources. In my disbelief, though, skeptical examination of the life of Jesus has come last of all. I was a bit of a freak as a missionary as my favorite scriptures were always from the New Testament, not the Book of Mormon. I had a real fondness for Jesus, so that's the area I've subjected to the least critical examination. It's been easier for me to unflinchingly look at Old Testament/Book of Abraham/D&C/Book of Mormon problems.

Interesting. I too fell in love with the New Testament. At the end of my mission I think you could have heard me say something like, "I enjoy reading the New Testament more than any other of the standard work".

Buffalo,

Many scholars consider the atonement theme to be present in Mark. For example, Mark's passion narrative appears to be built around the fourth servant song of Isaiah (52-53) and his crucifixion with the subsequent rending of the temple's vail is an extended reference to the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Both of these pericopes are centered around the very theme of atonement and forgiveness of sin through sacrifice arranged by God himself. In this context, when Mark talks about Jesus giving his life as a "ransom" for many (10:45) and shedding his blood for many (last supper, forget the verse), this is usually seen in the context of sacrifice for sin.

Cheers.

J Green wrote:Buffalo,

Many scholars consider the atonement theme to be present in Mark. For example, Mark's passion narrative appears to be built around the fourth servant song of Isaiah (52-53) and his crucifixion with the subsequent rending of the temple's vail is an extended reference to the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Both of these pericopes are centered around the very theme of atonement and forgiveness of sin through sacrifice arranged by God himself. In this context, when Mark talks about Jesus giving his life as a "ransom" for many (10:45) and shedding his blood for many (last supper, forget the verse), this is usually seen in the context of sacrifice for sin.

Cheers.

Thanks for your answers.

Follow up: I understand that the Isaiah chapters you reference are not actually messianic, but speak of the sufferings of post-exilic Israel (and furthermore, were written long after the death of Isaiah).

However, the verse about giving his life as a ransom for many does seem to hint at some sort of vicarious sacrifice, although it's not explicitly stated.

Can you find any connection between belief in Jesus and salvation?

I'm not familiar with the Leviticus connection, so I'll check that out.

Thanks!

Buffalo wrote:Thanks for your answers.

Follow up: I understand that the Isaiah chapters you reference are not actually messianic, but speak of the sufferings of post-exilic Israel

Jewish commentary has traditionally interpreted the suffering servant as being the nation of Israel as a whole while Christian commentary has interpreted the servant as the Messiah. Mark appears to be following the latter tradition in his narrative. He calls Jesus the son of God and references the royal psalm (Psalm 2) for his birth. He sets the narrative up as deity coming down to offer himself as the priestly sacrifice, the suffering servant.

Buffalo wrote:(and furthermore, were written long after the death of Isaiah).

With few exceptions, scholars identify the fourth servant song (along with chapters 40-55) as the work of a sixth-century BCE prophet in the exile, whom they term Deutero-Isaiah.

Buffalo wrote:However, the verse about giving his life as a ransom for many does seem to hint at some sort of vicarious sacrifice, although it's not explicitly stated.

Can you find any connection between belief in Jesus and salvation?

You're right, it's not explicitly stated. And I don't remember seeing any overt connection there between belief and salvation. My own impression is that, as you suggest, the concept of atonement progressed over time. I'm not sure we see a systemic taxonomy of atonement that is stand-alone Christian at this point.

What I think we see is, like in Hebrews, an attempt to position Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish priestly vicarious sacrifice. The "ransom" reference is likely a nod to the priestly requirement of payment to ransom the firstborn (Num 3?). There are priestly overtones throughout. And it is the High Priest who offers the blood in the Most Holy Place behind the veil for the atonement of Israel's sins. I think Mark is trying to make the point that Jesus is the fulfillment of all this priestly activity. But you're right, he's not using very explicit Christian formulas.