20 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat are you looking to accomplish by belaboring this? Quite frankly, I'm running out of ideas as to how to "appease" you 🙂. Perhaps if you tell me, I can provide it.
Again, I think that the point needs to be belabored. I do not see how exemplarism (which is, as I see it, the more popular view in rationalist circles) has any idea of appeasement. If it has any sense of 'make right with God', it is only in a very limited way. I would think that exemplarism would suit you perfectly.
Are you simply looking to have a discussion about "exemplarism"? We can do that. Regardless, from what I can tell, I don't think it fits me "perfectly".
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelActually we've been through several cycles where they are infrequent I pretty much just ignore his posts. When it becomes too frequent I have to rap him over the snout with a rolled up newspaper (figuratively of course) 🙂 And sometimes I have to take him to task when his misrepresentations of me and my views become too much. I think he subscribes to the theory (Joseph Goebbels?) that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, people will come to believe it. Lately he's once again let his obsession get the better of himself. Like I said, this has been going on for a looooooonnnnng time.
I see your point now. Its good food for thought for the time being.
Yes. Perhaps KM should knock it off. Clearly you are not "coming to the party". Which is well within your rights.
The only problem is then anytime KM replies to your posts you will accuse him of 'stalking'.
What if he just replied every now and then? I still see problems.
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI really wish KM would just knock it off. You don't see me following that guy around and badgering him because he believes differently than me. So far as I know he's the only one on RHP who has that kind of "fatal attraction" toward someone. Seriously, what's up with that?
Evidently my writing needs to be clearer. I was trying to point out the absurdity of Christianity basing its doctrine of "salvation by grace" on such a common primitive concept and having God send Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice Himself so that man could be set right with Him. You'd think an OOO God could have just decided that He wanted man to ...[text shortened]... who has that kind of "fatal attraction" toward someone. Seriously, what's up with that?
----------ToOne--------------------
Knock what off exactly?
Following you around? Who are you anyway , but just some words on a screen?
To set the record straight , people need to realise that you are fatally attracted to Jesus and Christianity , and this is what forms the content of most of our exchanges.
Who believes that Jesus was who he said he was?(ie the Son of the Living God) Me or you?
Who believes in Christianity? Me or you?
I don't know if you noticed but you seem to be fatally attracted to this subject. You seem obsessed with a man and a religion that you can only talk about in a way that criticises others , in a negative sense and yet you appear not to believe in God or the idea that Jesus was the Son of the Living God (even though Jesus explicitly said he was).
You stalk Christianity and Christians with selective reading of scripture and then when I defend what I believe robustly you say I am "stalking"?
You are like a burglar who sneaks into someone else's house , who then complains when he is confronted angrily by the homeowner and then appeals to some lawyer to "sue" for emotional abuse.
It's not me that's hounding your beliefs , you are hounding Christianity.
Cry foul all you like but all these posts between us over the years are defined by one thing . They are nearly ALL about Christianity - ie you being critical of my beliefs, NOT me having a go at your beliefs (whatever they are because you won't say).
So , who is the real stalker here? Since you don't even say explicitly whether you believe Jesus was who he said he was , how can I be "badgering" your beliefs????
The eveidence is there for all to see whose beliefs are being "badgered" here. It sure as hell ain't Atheism! Just look at this thread for example!
20 Jan 10
2 edits
Or Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou mean it's been going on for as loooooooooooooong a time as you have been posting about and attacking Christianity.
Actually we've been through several cycles where they are infrequent I pretty much just ignore his posts. When it becomes too frequent I have to rap him over the snout with a rolled up newspaper (figuratively of course) 🙂 And sometimes I have to take him to task when his misrepresentations of me and my views become too much. I think he subscribes to sion get the better of himself. Like I said, this has been going on for a looooooonnnnng time.
(PS - which is fine as long as you don't do it disingenuously and are prepared to have your attack countered robustly)
BTW- Do you still not have anything to say about Matt 6:9? Or is using the words of Jesus to defend one's OWN Christian beliefs a Nazi propaganda tactic? (lol)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe point is that you have not offered an all-encompassing description of the doctrine of the Redemption and so it is wrong to make a blanket condemnation. I would be interested to hear why you object to exemplarism. All Christologies acknowledge it some extent. Jesus instructed his disciples to carry the cross and he did the same as an example to his disciples. What can be disputed about that?
What are you looking to accomplish by belaboring this? Quite frankly, I'm running out of ideas as to how to "appease" you 🙂. Perhaps if you tell me, I can provide it.
Are you simply looking to have a discussion about "exemplarism"? We can do that. Regardless, from what I can tell, I don't think it fits me "perfectly".
21 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. Maybe you've been in school too long. It's just a post in an online forum. I wasn't looking to make it air-tight.
The point is that you have not offered an all-encompassing description of the doctrine of the Redemption and so it is wrong to make a blanket condemnation. I would be interested to hear why you object to exemplarism. All Christologies acknowledge it some extent. Jesus instructed his disciples to carry the cross and he did the same as an example to his disciples. What can be disputed about that?
I'm not sure what parts of the following you didn't understand:
As I indicated earlier I get that you don't think "appeasement" fits all flavors of Christianity. As I also indicated earlier, my OP wasn't looking to fit all flavors either. If you don't like the word "appease" I have absolutely no problem with you substituting something else you believe is broader in scope. Since you decline to suggest something, how about if you take my OP and substitute all occurrences of "appease" with "make man right with God" or something else YOU believe best captures all of the flavors of Christianity if that is possible? Or YOU can qualify the word "Christianity" with something that YOU believe brings it down to an appropriate subset. Or both?
If you want to make it air-tight, like I keep telling you, qualify it however you think appropriate. In case I still haven't been clear, I have no interest in trying to do this, but by all means feel free to do so.
Didn't say I "object to exemplarism." I said that "...from what I can tell, I don't think it fits me 'perfectly'". Before we get into another whole "thing", how about if you provide a description of exemplarism that you believe is proper.
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehas😉
Please, somebody sacrifice a lamb and rid Red Hot Pawn of this thread. 😉
Between my last two posts on the “Christ Distilled” thread, ToO’s very cogent references to Jewish development on here (and Conrau’s post re “sacrifice” ), it ought to be clear that Jews were not “without exception” (your phrase) committed to blood sacrifice for atonement by the time of Christ. Jesus may have been (ThinkOfOne’s argument here is, of course, to the contrary); that is not my argument.
[BTW, if you need more, I found that book that had “gone walkabout”, and can provide Neusner’s view as well.]
In any event, it seems clear that Jews—at least from the time of the Babylonian Captivity, and perhaps particularly in the diaspora—had begun to develop prayer and Torah as alternatives to “blood sacrifice”. These alternatives surely subsisted “side-by-side” with such sacrifice in the first centuries BCE and CE.
Once again, my only argument is with the notion that all Jews still held the view that “blood sacrifice” was necessary; surely, there were those who did. Who was in the majority (and how large that majority was) seems to be a matter of historical speculation.
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by vistesdOnce again, my only argument is with the notion that all Jews still held the view that “blood sacrifice” was necessary...
😉
Between my last two posts on the “Christ Distilled” thread, ToO’s very cogent references to Jewish development on here (and Conrau’s post re “sacrifice” ), it ought to be clear that Jews were not “without exception” (your phrase) committed to blood sacrifice for atonement by the time of Christ. Jesus may have been (ThinkOfOne’s argument here is, of ...[text shortened]... n the majority (and how large that majority was) seems to be a matter of historical speculation.
And my view is that Paul's understanding of the 'law and the prophets' is the logical and inescapable one, regardless of the evolution of Jewish tradition. In other words, I not only trust Paul's authority on the subject, but I trust even more the Holy Spirit which spoke through him.
I do appreciate the history, though, and plan on reading some of what you've suggested here.
21 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd I understand that. From your view, both Paul and Jesus thought that those Jews (who had relinquished the idea of the necessity of blood sacrifice for atonement/redemption) were wrong. I happen to think they were right.
[b]Once again, my only argument is with the notion that all Jews still held the view that “blood sacrifice” was necessary...
And my view is that Paul's understanding of the 'law and the prophets' is the logical and inescapable one, regardless of the evolution of Jewish tradition. In other words, I not only trust Paul's authority on the sub ...[text shortened]... do appreciate the history, though, and plan on reading some of what you've suggested here.[/b]
Again, my only argument really was with that “without exception”, with regard to what Jews of the time believed. (Remember, I was talking about the evolution of Jewish belief to that time, not simply after that time; though, to be sure, Jewish tradition continues to evolve.)
21 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdYou might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling.
And I understand that. From your view, both Paul and Jesus thought that those Jews (who had relinquished the idea of the necessity of blood sacrifice for atonement/redemption) were wrong. I happen to think they were right.
Again, my only argument really was with that “without exception”, with regard to what Jews of the time believed. (Remember, I was ta ...[text shortened]... at time, not simply after that time; though, to be sure, Jewish tradition continues to evolve.)
http://www.thenazareneway.com/holy_week/assault_on_blood_sacrifice.htm
It was the cult of sacrifice that Jesus tried to dismantle, not the system of monetary exchange. In all three gospel accounts of the event, those who provided the animals for sacrifice are mentioned first: they were the primary focus of Christ's outrage.
The Gospel of John gives the most detailed account of the event.
"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)
Matthew's gospel does not detail the kind of animals that were being sold for slaughter, but it gives the same order of events.
"Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 'It is written,' he said to them, 'My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.'" (Matthew21:12-13)
The same account is given in the gospel of Mark who, like Matthew, also reports that Jesus accused those at the Temple of making God's house into a "den of robbers." And there is universal acknowledgement that in both gospels, when Jesus said this, he was quoting from the prophet Jeremiah (7:11).
That prophet had hurled the same accusation at the people of his own time, almost six hundred years earlier. He said it while standing at
the Temple entrance, after he had already warned the people "do not shed innocent blood in this place." And when Jeremiah said God's house had been turned into a den of robbers it could not have had anything to do with moneychangers--they did not exist in his time.
What do you make of it?
21 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell my friend, I have foresworn both interpreting the NT texts and trying to tell Christians what Christianity is about, or what Jesus or Paul were about.
You might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/holy_week/assault_on_blood_sacrif ngers--they did not exist in his time.
What do you make of it?
My point with Epi has simply been that any attempt to define a single, unitary and univocal Judaism with which to compare/contrast a single, unitary and univocal Christianity is wrong—and already was wrong in the first centuries BCE and CE. Whether or not one can make the claim for Christianity, one cannot make it for Judaism, then or now. I don’t know whether or not Jesus or Paul, or anyone else in the NT was actually making that claim: if they were, they were wrong.
If Jesus or Paul, or anyone else in the NT, was simply claiming that blood sacrifice is necessary for atonement/redemption/salvation—contra those Jews who held a different view—then I think they were wrong about that. At the time, that could be seen as a kind of intra-Jewish disagreement (aside from the question of Jesus as messiah, and what that means).
The whole matter is naturally one of great concern among Christians, since salvation is a (and probably the) central concern. It is not in Judaism (whether one is a dualist-monotheist or a non-dualist; and I am still a non-dualist). That may be difficult for Christians to grasp, and may be one of the paradigmatic differences between the two religions.
So—the most I can say in answer to your question would be that it seems possible to me, from my perspective of embracing multiple possibilities, which seems, however, different from that of most Christians. So, once again, I have to let Christians decide what their own scriptures mean to them. As far as Jeremiah goes, I do tend to view him as one of the prophetic voices (along with, say, Micah and Hosea) moving away from blood sacrifice for atonement.
By the way, thanks for posting those references to historical Jewish belief. I found them helpful.
Be well.
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling.
You might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/holy_week/assault_on_blood_sacrif ...[text shortened]... ngers--they did not exist in his time.
What do you make of it?
------ToOne---------------------
At least you accept that this is speculation and not explicitly stated. I presume that it's Ok for you to speculate about stuff like this but not Ok for me to speculate about Matt26:28? -KM
-----------------------------------------------------
"You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation.
Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.
You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation."
---------------ToOne-----------------------------------
I think my speculation about Matt 26:28 is far more valid because Jesus does actually explicitly compare his blood and body to the blood(wine) and body(bread) of the passover Lamb. This must mean that he is drawing an analogy between the meaning of his death and the death/sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. So from that I infer logically that Jesus has directly tied in the meaning of his death with a known Jewish blood sacrifice. He would not have done this if he found the whole thing abhorent (as ToOne does).
There is obviously something he is trying to say in Matt 26:28 and if he finds the whole connection with blood sacrifice abhorent and all that this implies then he has a very strange way of saying it (LOL)
However , it seems I am not allowed to speculate , but ToOne is.
Interesting.........
ToOne also says......"Actually, what I'm doing is "disregarding every aspect of scripture that contradicts" the teachings of Jesus."
But in reality , how can you disregard Matt 26:28 ? You must include Matt 26:28 IN the teachings of Jesus. And if you do then it's impossible to ignore that he did compare his own body and blood with that of the passover lamb. He also said that the shedding of his blood would achieve something for mankind .
So even if we agree with you when you say..........."As to Matthew 26:28 the word you quote as translated as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom, dismissal, release" and is only figuratively used for "forgiveness" from the sources I have found." -ToNE---
....it doesn't really matter because Jesus is saying that his death is setting us free from sin (because he said so) and condemnation because this was how the jews were protected from the wrath of God by putting sacrificed blood on their doors.
So there is a clear and direct , unambiguous analogy being made in Matt 26:28 by Jesus himself. But you still seem to imply that thinking of Jesus's death in these terms (ie like a blood animal sacrfice) is abhorent and contrary to his teachings.
However , anyone who is honest with themselves can see that this is what he taught.
You say ................" I addressed not only his post on Matthew 26:26-28, but also epi's (see page 1). But neither of them responded and of course, like usual, KM starts waving his arms and crying "foul" and saying that I don't answer questions." -ToOne---
But the point is that you skirted round it by trying to draw out a distinction between freedom and forgiveness.
The problem for you in Matt 26:28 is that Jesus explcitly compares his death to animal sacrifice and a specific animal sacrifice at that. Therefore we need to think about the meaning of the Passover Lamb rather than your speculations.
Maybe I have misjudged you and you are just not intelligent enough ( or authentic enough?) to realise what problems there are for you in Matt 26:28.
In any case , it seems that you still play with loaded dice and see fit to make tenuous speculations yourself , whilst at the same time dismissing Jesus's own symbolic statements.
So a clear question for you.....
Do you deny that Jesus is symbolically comparing his own blood/body with that of the blood /body of the Passover Lamb in Matt26:28?
Second question.....Why would Jesus use all this symbolism if he really thought that the whole idea of animal/blood sacrifice to escape the wrath of God was abhorent?
IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
22 Jan 10
2 edits
=====================================
Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.
================================
Jesus taught that He was God and He was man. Here He teaches that He was the God of the Old Testament (Matt. 23:37):
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! ... For I say to you, You shall by no means see Me from now on until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
This passage proves that Jesus taught He was the one coming in the name of the Lord as a Man and at the same time the God of the Old Testament Who wanted to protect Jerusalem from her enemies.
"It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isaiah 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence, when Jesus said, " I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself."
And Zechariah chapter 2 verses 8 through 11 prove that Jehovah God can be at one time both the Sender and the One Sent.
Jesus taught that He was sent by the Father but the Father never left Him in that sending. He came with the One Who sent Him.
Jesus taught that the new covenant was established in His blood. And that new covenant says that God would remember the sins of those under the covenant no more.
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days ... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will remember no more." (See Jeremiah 31:31-34 for the full prophecy ) I am focusing here only on the redemptive aspect.
This new covenant is the new covenant that Christ established in His blood which was shed on the cross, according to His own words:
"And similiarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant estabished in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)
"And He took the cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26:27,28)
23 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdAppreciate your views on what you felt comfortable in giving.
Well my friend, I have foresworn both interpreting the NT texts and trying to tell Christians what Christianity is about, or what Jesus or Paul were about.
My point with Epi has simply been that any attempt to define a single, unitary and univocal Judaism with which to compare/contrast a single, unitary and univocal Christianity is wrong—and already was w ...[text shortened]... nks for posting those references to historical Jewish belief. I found them helpful.
Be well.
I was wondering if you could also comment on the follow excerpt from the same article insofar as it applies to "ancient Israel". Do you view this claim of a distinction made between 'robbers' and 'thieves' as sound?
The same account is given in the gospel of Mark who, like Matthew, also reports that Jesus accused those at the Temple of making God's house into a "den of robbers." And there is universal acknowledgement that in both gospels, when Jesus said this, he was quoting from the prophet Jeremiah (7:11). ..In the time of Jeremiah, as in the time of Jesus, there was a great distinction made between "robbers" and "thieves." In contemporary times that distinction can best be understood by comparing the crime of petty theft with crimes of armed robbery by those who violently attack/kill their victims. But in ancient Israel there was an even greater distinction. A thief could be anyone who succumbed to a momentary impulse to steal something, but a robber was someone for whom violent crime and killing was a lifestyle...When they said God's house had become a den of "robbers" the Hebrew word that was used (here, transliterated) was "per-eets'" defined as "violent, i.e., a tyrant--destroyer, ravenous, robber." It was the violence of the system, the killing of innocent victims in the name of God, that they were condemning.