These ASK ABOUT topics are focused on INFORMATION about new paths, rather than on sharing our personal journey. Please keep it to one topic per new path. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their new path is wrong or why we disagree with them.
agricola wrote:He also didn't die at the Temple, he wasn't slaughtered on an altar, the person(s) who killed him weren't priests, and his throat wasn't slit at all.
His death in no way meets any of the requirements of a sacrifice, laying aside that human sacrifices were totally forbidden.
Part of his meat wasn't saved for the priests to eat either.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Ivy wrote:Wait. What is CENI-S? I have never heard of the S part. I am so out of touch with the cofc experience.
The S part is Silence of the Scriptures. CENI by itself can be used to say anything, so they make the S prohibitive to say things like no instrumental music. We're commanded to sing, but since no mention of instrumental music is made, the silence prohibits it. Without the S, we could use instruments all we wanted, as long as we're still singing. Note that the S doesn't apply to using song books, powerpoint slides, singing 4-part harmony, etc. Those are expedients. But a piano? "False worship".
Not disagreeing with the posts above, but rather explaining how some Christians, such as N T Wright, understand Christ's sacrifice.
The earliest view of the church fathers was the Ransom view of atonement, also known as Christus Victor.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Unlike the Satisfaction Doctrine view of the Atonement (the “Latin” view) which is rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the “classic” view of the Early church (Christus Victor) is rooted in the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Aulén argues that the Christus Victor view of the Atonement is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the Powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin.
The later church developed the idea of penal substitution (someone has to pay the penalty for our sins), but that was not the earliest view of the church.
There is an element of substitution in the earliest view, but it's not penal substitution, but rather the "headship" of Jesus that's involved. In the ancient Hebrews' way of thinking -- and we see elements of this even in individualistic America-- the way the "head" of a group acts is "counted" as the whole group acting in that way.
continued from above
As N T Wright points out, in the Christus Victor view of atonement, it's not Jesus' sinlessness that is needed to accomplish God's purpose, but rather Jesus' trusting submission to his Father, even though Jesus came to understand this would result in his death.
As Paul appears to have understood it, Jesus was the descendant of Abraham who qualified by his trusting obedience to God to be the covenant head (king) with whom God chose to renew his covenant. As covenant head, what was true of Jesus was counted as true of Jesus' followers. As Paul said, Jesus' resurrection from the dead assures also that Jesus' followers will be resurrected.
Paul did not believe that individuals are "born in sin", but he did believe that humankind as a whole (not each and every individual) had wandered away from God, and needed help to come to know God again and delight in God's love. Paul understood God to have acted in Jesus, through Jesus, and as Jesus, to accomplish this.
N T Wright believes that Jesus came to understand his role as that of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. In the Isaiah text, the Suffering Servant is spoken of first as God's people Israel who suffer on behalf of the gentiles to bring healing between the gentiles and God. Later, the text speaks of one individual who would arise within Israel to accomplish on behalf of Israel the responsibility that God had given to Israel.
As Paul saw it (Romans 1 and 2), Israel who had been given the assignment of bringing the knowledge of God to the world, had herself gone astray and needed rescuing as well. And Jesus is the one who accomplished this. This "knowledge of God" and "healing" of relationship is not primarily about gaining eternal life, and especially not about avoiding hell (the earliest church did not believe there was a place of eternal torment). It's about how wonderful and good it is to know God and to become the people God intended us to be, living in harmony and acting with love toward one another.
agricola wrote:He also didn't die at the Temple, he wasn't slaughtered on an altar, the person(s) who killed him weren't priests, and his throat wasn't slit at all.
His death in no way meets any of the requirements of a sacrifice, laying aside that human sacrifices were totally forbidden.
Well, except that the Jewish priestly leadership rationalized and justified to themselves that it was better for one to suffer/die for the people. So yes, it does qualify as a sacrifice even if they used the Romans to accomplish their long sought goal of seeking opportunity to put Jesus to death. It is called symbolism and responsibility.
If we are going to be technical about it....then really sacrifices were not always performed at the Temple seeing that the ordinance of sacrifice was established prior to the construction of a temple as well as after the return but before the reconstruction of the replacement temple.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Sacrifices did not resume (after the destruction of the first Temple) until after the Second Temple was constructed. Sacrifices are currently in abeyance once more, since the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.
Progressing from a period during the Judges when sacrifices were offered at more than one place by any priest, to the Temple period under the kingdom when sacrifices were restricted to the Temple site in Jerusalem (in the Southern Kingdom - the Northern Kingdom of Israel established its own primary sacrificial location) - once the kingdom consolidated Temple worship at and only at the Temple, it became 'wrong' to conduct a sacrifice at any other location.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Teresa,
How would NT Wright see Jesus in terms of the prophesied Mesiah? Did he see him as Israel's Messiah?...or perhaps more of a "pre-Messiah"??....
There are huge - I mean, HUGE - misconceptions in the Christian NT about the purpose and place of sacrifices - not least, where it ways 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness'.
Forgive me, but that is COMPLETELY FALSE, which I hope the previous quotes from Israel's prophets has shown.
According to millenia-old Jewish thought - and documented in Jewish scriptures - God forgives the contrite heart.
Period.
Which - by the way - (and among other quibbles) renders the whole question of Jesus' death and/or resurrection moot: it had no effect, could have no effect, and was not needed in the first place.
God forgives the contrite heart.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
