Originally posted by KnightWulfeI guess I can't see how your definition of sacrifice is different from that of being victimized. It seems that nobody could willingly sacrifice because their willingness makes their action an investment toward a desired goal.
I would not wish to belittle what your Grandfather gave up, but that is all he did...he gave up certain things so that you could make the accomplishments you wished, and he wished for you. To have done that is a wonderful and honourable thing to do. However, he did gain out of it. He gained the furthering of his own proginy. he gained the betterment of h ...[text shortened]... ul thing.)
The word "sacrifice" is thrown around far too much, just like the word "love."
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyBecause so-called Christians like yourself insist that this sacrifice is of the #2 variety rather than
1. The offering of something to a diety.
2. The forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of something or someone considered to have a greater value or claim.
3. A relinquishing or something at less than its presumed value, a loss sustained.
I think Christ's sacrifice is best described by the second definition. Humanities value was considered o ...[text shortened]... value than the temperal sufferings of Christ and temperal seperation of Christ from the Father.
the #1 kind both demonstrates tremendous ignorance of what the word 'sacrifice' would have meant to
a 1st-century Jew and contributes to the chagrin that non-Christians have towards the
Christian movement. You insist that God (who had nothing to gain) sacrificed (as per #2) for
humankind; that is, humankind is 'of greater value or claim' than God. Well, that's just plain stupid.
That's why non-Christians keep saying: it's not a sacrifice if Jesus knew He wasn't going to lose
anything. So, take a little time to understand 1st-century Judaism, will you?
The sacrifice was understood as an expiation for sins, just like the sacrifice of doves was for the
ritual purification of a woman after childbirth to render her clean.
The latter is a ritual cleaning of the corporeal, the former was viewed as a spiritual cleaning of the
soul. The highly Jewish language St Paul uses does not point the exchange in #2. Instead it is
clearly analogous to a spiritual mikvah, but with a powerful symbolic irony. Water (naturally)
was used in the ritual, bodily cleanings. Blood, by contrast, was one of the many things that would
render an observant Jew unclean (even touching something that had touched blood would render
the Jew unclean, unless the object underwent a special ritual cleaning). But, St Paul turns this
understanding upside down -- Jesus's blood doesn't make one unclean, but instead cleans the soul!
This would have been deeply controversial at the time (and, indeed there is no doubt that it was),
but the analogy would have also been immediately apparent.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYou are correct, the #1 definition, "offering to a diety", also fits like a glove in describing the sacrifice of Christ. Christ is referred to as the sacrificial lamb in the New Testament. No longer are animals needed to be sacrificed, rather, the sacrifice of Christ is all that is needed to cleanse us of our sins. It seems that both the Old and New Testament give rise to the fact that sacrificial blood has a cleansing effect in the sight of God when it comes to the sin of man. My apologies and thanks for the correction.
Because so-called Christians like yourself insist that this sacrifice is of the #2 variety rather than
the #1 kind both demonstrates tremendous ignorance of what the word 'sacrifice' would have meant to
a 1st-century Jew and contributes to the chagrin that non-Christians have towards the
Christian movement. You insist that God (who had nothing to that it was),
but the analogy would have also been immediately apparent.
Nemesio
Just as a side note, why is blood necessary to wash away sin in the sight of God? What does everyone think?
Originally posted by KnightWulfeI don't think that case ever exists. The "sacrificee" must receive something from being sacrificed or else the sacrificee would not chose willingly to do so. The reward need not be pecuniary or material but could simply be "warm glow" from helping some one else or fulfilling a mission (like a suicide bomber).
To be victimized, one is an unwilling participant in the actions taking place. A sacrifice is willingly and freely given, well knowing there is nothing that will be received in return.
A rational person cannot sacrifice themself willingly without finding it more desireable to be sacrificed than not to be.
Perhaps you could give a counterexample?
Originally posted by thesonofsaul"...can certainly consider it and by that light realize how they have strayed from God and turn to Him with a penitent heart. No blood needed, as far as I can tell."
Using language of accomodation, the term "ultimate sacrifice" is meant to be a shocking term, to shock the hearer into drawing a similar parallel to their own situation. As fallen and depraved humanity cannot possibly relate to absolute perfection, the situation presented with the Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice is couched in terms we can understand. Na ...[text shortened]... reep any closer to making sense, or explain why any of it was necessary to begin with.
Sensing that there is a God of nature and actually communing wtih that God of nature are two different propositions. This topic touches on many areas of theology, including affinity and will. However, the blood (representation of the work of Christ on the cross, of life) is unavoidable, given our fallen nature.
I don't understand this one iota...
Essentially harkening back to the question of God's creation of the other in the first place. In His ominscience, He knew wills would collide and had to have a solution for the same. Not only did He create those wills and the possibility for them to collide, He provided the solution for differences in desires. His perfection did not diminish in creating the other, as He shaved off part of Himself to give to the other. Similarily, we shave off parts of ourselves to give to to others (for instance, Telerion's grandpa) and are more richly rewarded as a result. Love is freaky.
Unfortunately, all of this doesn't make the statement creep any closer to making sense, or explain why any of it was necessary to begin with.
Hopefully I've answered the why. If not, I'm willing to give it another whack.
Originally posted by telerionHmm.
I don't think that case ever exists. The "sacrificee" must receive something from being sacrificed or else the sacrificee would not chose willingly to do so. The reward need not be pecuniary or material but could simply be "warm glow" from helping some one else or fulfilling a mission (like a suicide bomber).
A rational person cannot sacrifice themse ...[text shortened]... e desireable to be sacrificed than not to be.
Perhaps you could give a counterexample?
I'm concerned about the parsing here.
I mean, the person sacrificing willingly always believes s/he is gaining more than losing -- either
in the long run, or in some cosmic scheme or something. This would undermine the concept of
sacrifice in and of itself, because traditionally means to give up more than you gain.
So, if I were to take a bullet for my son, I may 'sacrifice my life,' but in doing so I've saved
his and will feel I gained in the trade. Is it still a sacrifice? What about living frugally while
young and saving pennies so you can buy a house earlier? Is that a sacrifice?
I would say yes, because I think the measure has to be apart from any metaphysical, 'warm glow'
classification. I think it has to be measured by a sort of third party -- 'Gee whiz, he took a
bullet for his son. What a sacrifice!' Or, 'Wow he doesn't go out much so he can save up for that
dream house. I don't think I could make that sacrifice.'
If you don't I think the word becomes nonsensical.
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly about this, though.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with you, Nemesio. That has been the point I've been trying to make. I'm just not as eloquent as you so I confuse people instead.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about the parsing here.
I mean, the person sacrificing willingly always believes s/he is gaining more than losing -- either
in the long run, or in some cosmic scheme or something. This would undermine the concept of
sacrifice in and of itself, because traditionally means to give up more than you gain.
So, if I were to take a bu ...[text shortened]... omes nonsensical.
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly about this, though.
Nemesio
The OP speaks of "ultimate sacrifice." Some have denied that Jesus made this "ultimate sacrifice" because what he did was not sacrifice. I too deny that Jesus made the "ultimate sacrifice," but I take issue with the word "ultimate" not the word "sacrifice."
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionSo if I believe and I'm correct that the only things in this life that are
I agree with you, Nemesio. That has been the point I've been trying to make. I'm just not as eloquent as you so I confuse people instead.
The OP speaks of "ultimate sacrifice." Some have denied that Jesus made this "ultimate sacrifice" because what he did was not sacrifice. I too deny that Jesus made the "ultimate sacrifice," but I take issue with the word "ultimate" not the word "sacrifice."
important are the souls of people in the light of eternity, does that
mean that if I lay down all possessions I have it isn't a sacrifice,
because in eternity I get more and what I get will be eternal?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you've confused my position for that of some other non-believers here. I have never argued that what Jesus did was not a sacrifice. You should ask KnightWulfe or BDP.
So if I believe and I'm correct that the only things in this life that are
important are the souls of people in the light of eternity, does that
mean that if I lay down all possessions I have it isn't a sacrifice,
because in eternity I get more and what I get will be eternal?
Kelly
I'm saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't the "ultimate" sacrifice because others have given up far more. Even if I accept your paradigm that only the eternal matters, I can still argue that Judas made a far greater sacrifice than Jesus.
Originally posted by telerionWhat Judas did wasn't a sacrifice, and ultimate is all that you have
I think you've confused my position for that of some other non-believers here. I have never argued that what Jesus did was not a sacrifice. You should ask KnightWulfe or BDP.
I'm saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't the "ultimate" sacrifice because others have given up far more. Even if I accept your paradigm that only the eternal matters, I can still argue that Judas made a far greater sacrifice than Jesus.
isn't it? You can not ultimately give more than you have, and in
Jesus' case He gave what he had here which as his life while here in
this life.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionThe phrase itself 'ultimate sacrifice' speaks only to the giving of a person's life: there is nothing greater on this planet that can be offered, one for another. While there exists varying degrees of giving, one cannot give more than their life in place of another.
I think you've confused my position for that of some other non-believers here. I have never argued that what Jesus did was not a sacrifice. You should ask KnightWulfe or BDP.
I'm saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't the "ultimate" sacrifice because others have given up far more. Even if I accept your paradigm that only the eternal matters, I can still argue that Judas made a far greater sacrifice than Jesus.
However, God's sacrifice must be considered the ultimate of sacrifices by virtue of what was taken. God, perfectly happy in and of Himself, thought to make others and knew to do so, something of Himself would be required to pay the cost. He suffered the loss, we were afforded the gain.
Originally posted by telerionThe word 'ultimate,' I feel, is rather problematic. It has two basic meanings. The original
The OP speaks of "ultimate sacrifice." Some have denied that Jesus made this "ultimate sacrifice" because what he did was not sacrifice. I too deny that Jesus made the "ultimate sacrifice," but I take issue with the word "ultimate" not the word "sacrifice."
meant final, last or total. The second, perhaps more common, means utmost or unsurpassable.
If we are viewing it as corporeal sacrifice (which sadly many Christians seem to like to do,
which I think is a product of sensationalism), then naturally there are others who have made
sacrifices like Jesus's -- a policeman killed in the line of duty, a parent rushing into a burning
building for a child. And, in the 1st century, there were plenty of people, especially Jews, who
were crucified. Generally, I suspect that crucifixion wouldn't have even elevated a heartbeat
in the general community, given how common it was (perhaps liking hangings in 19th-century
America).
But I think it's clear that the early church didn't view things this way; this sacrifice was for
spiritual atonement. And, we note that the Gospel writers have characters in their narratives
who are incredulous at the idea of the 'forgiveness of sins;' invariably, the listeners seem to
feel that such a concept was reserved for the divine. Consequently, that St Paul and the
Jewish-Christian audience came to understand Jesus's death as a sacrifice in expiation for
sins, I would suspect that they would have viewed it as the ultimate sacrifice.
St Paul, in particular, makes it clear that Christ Jesus's death destroyed death forever; this
seems to tie in with the idea of ultimate that I prefer: a last, conclusive, act not to be surpassed
with a greater one.
That this idea is perverted and sensationalized by modern Christians comes as no surprise to me;
just look at the television: they can't have Jesus running around with babes in bikinis, so bleeding
all over the place is the next best thing. That most have no concept of a Jewish concept of
sacrifice, purification, or atonement except the scattered passages of Scripture that they've
memorized shouldn't come as a shock to either of us.
However, I think St Paul and the early Jewish Christians most certainly viewed the Crucifixion as
both a sacrifice and ultimate.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioCan I point out that the original meaning of the word “sacrifice” is “to make sacred or holy?” A soteriology of sanctification keeps closer to this sense of the word.
The word 'ultimate,' I feel, is rather problematic. It has two basic meanings. The original
meant final, last or total. The second, perhaps more common, means utmost or unsurpassable.
If we are viewing it as corporeal sacrifice (which sadly many Christians seem to like to do,
which I think is a product of sensationalism), then naturally there are oth most certainly viewed the Crucifixion as
both a sacrifice and ultimate.
Nemesio
Although there is the idea of blood sacrifice in ancient Judaism, it is not the only kind of sacrifice. In the NT, the Greek thusia means an offering, generally a sacred offering (but see Philippians 4:18). Hence, such things as “a sacrifice of prayer.”
I looked up the main NT references to the Christ as a “blood sacrifice” of atonement. This theme seems particularly prominent in the anonymous Letter to the Hebrews, but is also found in Romans 3:25, Ephesians 5:1, Colossians 1:20, and Revelation 5:9 (not listing other references that could more easily be interpreted differently, e.g., where the “blood” reference need not refer to the cross, if one does not bring an a priori soteriological lens to them). Remember, that “blood” also refers to the Christ’s humanity, and is a eucharistic reference as well.
I don’t have time right now to research some of the other soteriological viewpoints. “Blood atonement” was not, however, the only soteriological theory in the early church, or in the churches today—and certainly not that God required or demanded a blood sacrifice. This latter point is clearly made by Gregory Nanzianzen (c. 330-390):
“If it was a ransom offered to the Father, the question arises, for what reason? It was not the Father that held us captive. And then, why should the blood of his only Son be pleasing to the Father who refused to accept Isaac when Abraham offered him as a burnt offering, accepting instead the sacrifice of a ram?”
As Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement sums it up: “So Christ’s sacrifice was not in the least demanded by the Father, as the only thing that could satisfy divine justice, appease the wrath of God, and incline him favourably toward the human race... Christ’s sacrifice is a sacrifice of praise, of sanctification, of restoration, by which he offers the whole of creation to the Father, so that the Father may bring it to life in the Holy Spirit.”
The deeper “sacrifice” (in the original meaning of the word!) was that God made humanity sacred by becoming human, living as a human being—in body and blood—and, hence, also experiencing human death, however that death came. In Eastern Christianity, the “sacrifice” is first of all in the incarnation—and is confirmed in the resurrection and ascension. (Remember, in Nicene/Chalcedonian Trinitarianism, this is God-incarnate; Jesus as the Christ, the logos become human, is the God-man, and the whole “sacrificial” endeavor is played out by the Trinity.) The crucifixion is included, as well as its symbolism, but not singled out in a radical “theology of the cross,” as it has been in some Protestant lines. This may be because of the stronger emphasis on “sanctification,” rather than “justification” in the Orthodox churches.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-395) put it thus:
“The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....” That is what makes it “ultimate.”
A soteriology of sanctification is far less “juridical” in outlook, viewing “salvation” as iaomai, healing or restoration, rather than being saved from punishment. (This can, of course, all be taken allegorically, as opposed to historically—that is not an argument I want to enter into.)
* All quotes from Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism.