|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2001 : 08:28:15
|
Hi, Folks,
First of all, I must tell you that I am the son of a Lutheran minister, have read (some of) the Bible, and was baptized and confirmed, so I'm not a stranger to Christian teachings.
However, there's one element of doctrine that has always baffled me. Just how, exactly, did the suffering and death of Jesus expiate the sins of all mankind?
I'm genuinely curious about this, and I'm not trying to ridicule anyone's beliefs. Is it a question of punishment - that Jesus accepted on himself the suffering that God would otherwise have inflicted upon sinners? Sort of a "Tale of Two Cities" sacrifice, with Jesus taking the rap for everybody?
Or, is it a purely mystical thing, with Jesus sucking in sin like Pandora's box in reverse? Does the idea of original sin play into this - that Adam's sin condemned mankind and Jesus somehow wiped the slate clean? How so? How does the resurrection fit into the picture - was it doctrinally necessary for the redemption of sin, or did it have some other function (such as fulfillment of prophecy, or impressing the disciples, thereby kick-starting the spread of the gospel)?
Does Jesus' self-sacrifice harken back to earlier belief systems that demanded sacrifices of animals (even human ones) to appease the gods? How is the crucifixion different from that kind of sacrifice?
Do various Christian sects and churches have different interpretations? How do they differ? Frankly, I find the whole concept rather vague. After all, taken to one extreme limit, it would seem that Jesus worsened the situation for mankind, since now any old sin one might choose to commit is automatically forgiven, as long as the sinner has (or later acquires) true faith in Jesus. This seems a rather double-edged gift.
I'd welcome comments from any of our Christian and former Christian participants -- but no prosyletizing, please, I do believe I've heard it all. For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the broad outlines of the Jesus story are true: that he was a real person, and that he died in Judea by Roman crucifixion somewhere around 30AD. I can't concede a physical resurrection, but let's at least assume that his followers were convinced that it occurred.
Enlighten me!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 08:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just how, exactly, did the suffering and death of Jesus expiate the sins of all mankind?
That concept didn't arise until St Anselm (1033-1109) wrote Cur deus homo?
Before that the church held with the "ransom" metaphor espoused by St Augustine and Pope Gregory the Great. God used Jesus as a legalistic "trick" to save man. You see a number of illustrations from this time that show god actually fishing for the devil in the form of the monster Leviathan, using for his line the kings of the royal house of David, with the cross for his hook, and his son affixed there as bait.
In the King Arthur-Grail stories of this period you find "The Fisher King" very prominent for that very reason.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 10:14:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hi, Folks,
First of all, I must tell you that I am the son of a Lutheran minister, have read (some of) the Bible, and was baptized and confirmed, so I'm not a stranger to Christian teachings.
However, there's one element of doctrine that has always baffled me. Just how, exactly, did the suffering and death of Jesus expiate the sins of all mankind?
I'm genuinely curious about this, and I'm not trying to ridicule anyone's beliefs. Is it a question of punishment - that Jesus accepted on himself the suffering that God would otherwise have inflicted upon sinners? Sort of a "Tale of Two Cities" sacrifice, with Jesus taking the rap for everybody?
Or, is it a purely mystical thing, with Jesus sucking in sin like Pandora's box in reverse? Does the idea of original sin play into this - that Adam's sin condemned mankind and Jesus somehow wiped the slate clean? How so? How does the resurrection fit into the picture - was it doctrinally necessary for the redemption of sin, or did it have some other function (such as fulfillment of prophecy, or impressing the disciples, thereby kick-starting the spread of the gospel)?
Does Jesus' self-sacrifice harken back to earlier belief systems that demanded sacrifices of animals (even human ones) to appease the gods? How is the crucifixion different from that kind of sacrifice?
Do various Christian sects and churches have different interpretations? How do they differ? Frankly, I find the whole concept rather vague. After all, taken to one extreme limit, it would seem that Jesus worsened the situation for mankind, since now any old sin one might choose to commit is automatically forgiven, as long as the sinner has (or later acquires) true faith in Jesus. This seems a rather double-edged gift.
I'd welcome comments from any of our Christian and former Christian participants -- but no prosyletizing, please, I do believe I've heard it all. For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the broad outlines of the Jesus story are true: that he was a real person, and that he died in Judea by Roman crucifixion somewhere around 30AD. I can't concede a physical resurrection, but let's at least assume that his followers were convinced that it occurred.
Enlighten me!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
The idea was that Jesus was supposed to take all the vice and suffering from the people. (hereinafter referred to as "the damned") Before this, only a pure, God fearing, unquestioning belief would get you to Heaven. It was the dogma of the church to have a go-between of Jesus. Salvation by proxy for the damned. The church was asking its parishioners to allow the preisthood to act as a go-between for Jesus. (fills the coffers faster) Mostly economic. Even the printings of the early Bibles (circa 1300) had different versions for nobles and commoners.
-- "We were once so close to Heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Proclaiming us the nicest of the damned."
They Might Be Giants
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2001 : 10:36:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
After all, taken to one extreme limit, it would seem that Jesus worsened the situation for mankind, since now any old sin one might choose to commit is automatically forgiven, as long as the sinner has (or later acquires) true faith in Jesus. This seems a rather double-edged gift.
That Donnie, which you probably take to be an essential of the Christian doctrine, is actually a heresy that only dates to the 1500's. Your sins must be confessed to a priest-a member of the Church Authority. They need to keep their eye on you.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:33:00 [Permalink]
|
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the broad outlines of the Jesus story are true: that he was a real person, and that he died in Judea by Roman crucifixion somewhere around 30AD.
Any "meaning" that can be draw from the death and resurrection of Jesus would depend solely on the events being read in a mystic, anagogic way. To reduce it to a popular, non-esoteric, politically manageable, state-supported; "historic event" renders it meaningless.
As history we, by necessity, must drop any attached magic. We know for a fact that nonsense like that doesn't happen. So we have Jesus the smart Jew who studies, not to be a Rabbi, but with John the Baptist, a Zoroastrian. The normally xenophobic Jews would have been somewhat tolerant of this because (A) The Romans would have demanded "freedom of religion" in their territories and (B) The Zoroastrians were the ones who freed the Jews from bondage in Babylon. Cyrus the Great was referred to as a Messiah.
Jesus preaches a version of Aristotelian philosophy. Again not odd considering the many years that Greece had ruled Israel.
So why crucify him? The NT glosses over the offence, but he caused a riot and hurt any number of innocent people when he attacked the moneychanger's at the temple. It would be like going into an American Express office at Christmas time with a baseball bat and flailing away.
So they string him up with a couple of other petty villains.
But the crucifixion isn't a normal one. No ropes, no broken legs, no suffocating under your own body weight.
It's nails and exposure. If you died from it at all it would take days. But he only takes a few hours. Pilate, who must have been an old hand at cruxifing folks, is surprised at the speed. We are told that a soldier speared him in his side, but only a clear liquid came out of the wound.
So they put him in a tomb with a rolling door and come back in two days. I know it's supposed to be three days (the amount of time the moon is new) but it's exactly the same amount of time that Blockbuster gives you on the two-day rental of new videos.
He's gone, surprised?
Not really. Most pre-technology cultures kept the body around for three days. What we Irish call a wake. The point is to make sure that the corpse is really dead. After three days they would be dead anyway for lack of water, until that time you keep checking. It was rare that a corpse wasn't really dead, but it did happen often enough to make the tradition worth while.
The women go to the tomb to check on Jesus and he's up and gone. Well that was what they were checking for. That was why the door was a stone wheel, not for ease of getting in, but for getting out.
As history we must assume not that he died and came back to life (that's just silly), but that Pilate-the expert-was correct.
As history it's a sordid and fairly disgusting story. Something you might read in the check out line tabloids.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 20:30:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So they string him up with a couple of other petty villains.
But the crucifixion isn't a normal one. No ropes, no broken legs, no suffocating under your own body weight.
It's nails and exposure. If you died from it at all it would take days. But he only takes a few hours. Pilate, who must have been an old hand at cruxifing folks, is surprised at the speed. We are told that a soldier speared him in his side, but only a clear liquid came out of the wound.
So they put him in a tomb with a rolling door and come back in two days. I know it's supposed to be three days (the amount of time the moon is new) but it's exactly the same amount of time that Blockbuster gives you on the two-day rental of new videos.
He's gone, surprised?
Not really. Most pre-technology cultures kept the body around for three days. What we Irish call a wake. The point is to make sure that the corpse is really dead. After three days they would be dead anyway for lack of water, until that time you keep checking. It was rare that a corpse wasn't really dead, but it did happen often enough to make the tradition worth while.
The women go to the tomb to check on Jesus and he's up and gone. Well that was what they were checking for. That was why the door was a stone wheel, not for ease of getting in, but for getting out.
As history we must assume not that he died and came back to life (that's just silly), but that Pilate-the expert-was correct.
So, IOW, Jesus never really died in the first place? He just passed out and when he came to, it was before the three days were up and he just walked out? So simple and yet so complex.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 09:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, IOW, Jesus never really died in the first place? He just passed out and when he came to, it was before the three days were up and he just walked out?
Well, I'm not saying "swooned." The story says that the guy had the crap beaten out of him, he would have gone into shock.
Remember the people who took him down didn't have an EKG or a stethoscope or for that matter a glass mirror to hold under his nose. His wrists were mangled so the only place to get a pulse would be his neck or with an ear put to his chest. They were outside with all the background noise of an execution site going on. There would be no way to detect a faint heartbeat.
Traditionally the tomb is only a few feet from the site of the cross-in fact today they are both housed in the same building.
The problem with the Jesus story is all the glamour that's been put on it makes you miss the most simple facts.
Some years ago in the NYC morgue one of the bodies-an Hispanic woman who had ODed-that had been on the slab all day sat up and started talking. Scared the hell out of the woman attendant who ran out of the building. The OD was dead "again" by the time other people found her. But no one, not one person, suggested that it was anything other than a mistake to have brought her to the morgue in the first place. No one thought that she had died, freed the rightous pagans from hell, and had come back to life. Conquering death itself, God's only begotten daughter.
No, everyone followed Occam's Razor--they assumed a simple mistake had been made.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 10:41:59 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for your input, folks.
If you don't mind my saying so, I think the thread has drifted away from my OP and toward the "historicity" question, which I explicitly attempted to avoid by conceding the fact of Jesus' existence and crucifixion for purposes of this discussion.
Frankly, I feel the question of the physical death and resurrection of the individual we're calling Jesus is pretty much moot. The fact is, a large religion has grown up accepting these as fact, and has incorporated it as a central element of its credo.
What I was trying to question was the next step in the chain of reasoning: how does the death and resurrection of one Jew in a backwater country on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the first century imply that mankind has been redeemed from sin? Surely Christian doctrine must include some mechanism by which this is supposed to occur.
Is it simply symbolism? Is God supposed to have used his incarnation as Jesus as a sort of pre-industrial neon sign saying "OK, humanity, I forgive you, whatever it is?"
Personally I kind of like the "Pandora's Vacuum" idea... 
Oh, and as to the issue of "faith" vs. "good works" as the key to salvation (that is, could one wipe out a lifetime's worth of evil acts with a deathbed conversion), that's a whole other discussion (which I've seen in threads on the Straight Dope board, I think, or was it here?). You call it a heresy, but there are certainly large branches of Christianity that accept it. I don't really see a direct connection to the topic of this thread, except in the sense I posed in the OP: if Jesus' sacrifice absolves mankind of sin, then it would seem to imply that evil was OK, or at least not an absolute barrier to eternal reward. I'm thinking here in terms of "blanket immunity", to make a comparison to the legal system. I hope this is clear...
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 13:27:44 [Permalink]
|
Frankly, I feel the question of the physical death and resurrection of the individual we're calling Jesus is pretty much moot. …What I was trying to question was the next step in the chain of reasoning: how does the death and
resurrection of one Jew in a backwater country on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the first century imply that mankind has been redeemed from sin? Surely Christian doctrine must include some mechanism by which this is supposed to occur.
I guess I wasn't making my opinions clear enough, sorry.
You put forward as a condition of this thread the historicity of Jesus and then based your query on that. My point was that if you take Jesus out the mythological realm and place him in the "real" world his death and resurrection become meaningless. Like you (and Andrew Lloyd Webber) said, some Jew in a backwater town. "I'm not dead yet. I'm feeling better."
If one assumes Jesus' reality then he must take on everything that reality implies. So you are reduced to a Jesus who wipes his ass with leaves and you lose the one who walks on water.
Is it simply symbolism? Is God supposed to have used his incarnation as Jesus as a sort of pre-industrial neon sign saying "OK, humanity, I forgive you, whatever it is?"
If you've gotten this far without reading Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces don't waste another day. Go out and buy a copy.
The self sacrificing hero is standard mythological fare. Jesus, Moses, Loa-tse, Apollo, Buddha even the Frog King from the fairy tale are this sort of hero. They all must face what is called "the night sea journey". They must die and be reborn as something better in order to save the rest of us.
It's a myth that goes back to our earliest beginnings.
The cliché of it is the South Seas native virgin jumping into the volcano. She has to be a virgin because she is giving herself to the gods. Being a virgin represents "perfection." The gods won't settle for second best.
If you dig out your copy of Frazer you find that the early Minoan civilization had something called Regicide. Every seven years the King would sacrifice himself-cut himself to bits, starting with his sex organs, in front of the population. He gave himself to Bal in order to protect his people. He made a bargain with the gods for the benefit of all. Then a new king was chosen. A perfect man. And for seven years he lived in splendor.
Eventually some king was a bit less heroic than his predecessors and he started the sacrifice of multiple "perfect" people, instead of himself, to appease the angry gods.
Then came a time of great religious change. New religions arose with the sole purpose of stopping these horrible human sacrifices to Bal. You find myths from this casting off of the old religion all over the Mediterranean. Theseus and the Minotaur, Andromeda and Perseus, Abraham and Isaac are all about deposing the ancient Bal based religion.
(Interesting change in these myths, now the hero, in order to be perfect, must also be a male.)
But the concept of appeasing an angry god lived on. Bad things still happened so the gods must still be angry.
Unless you view this from a completely mythological view point, all of these deaths served no purpose. Jumping into a volcano does not stop the lava in the historic, everyday, world. But in mythology, where Madam Pele is a real entity, it has meaning.
It's when you get the mytholigical and the physiological confused that people start getting killed.
Oh, and as to the issue of "faith" vs. "good works" … You call it a heresy, but there are certainly large branches of Christianity that accept it.
True, but I'm talking about the original Christianity not some version of Christianity that has evolved today.
I don't really see a direct connection to the topic of this thread, except in the sense I posed in the OP: if Jesus' sacrifice absolves mankind of sin, then it would seem to imply that evil was OK, or at least not an absolute barrier to eternal reward. I'm thinking here in terms of "blanket immunity", to make a comparison to the legal system. I hope this is clear...
Yes, thank you, that is what I took it to mean. What I was pointing out was that this was a concept that had been added to Christianity 1200 (some say 1500) years after it started. If we are talking about the motives of Christianity itself, we should stick with the original version.
The original Christianity had Jesus as a human sacrifice to free man from original sin and only original sin. A concept from Mithraism. The Jews don't feel that god blames them for Adam's fall. In fact it cannot be too strongly stressed that not only was Jesus a "perfect" man but to make him doubly appealing to a blood thirsty god he was a god himself--a story that had been popular in Persia and India for thousands of years.( See Krishna)
When you were baptized into the church you were absolved of original sin. That's why infants are baptized. This left you with a blank slate. It was no more than an initiation. Your good deeds and your bad went on your permanent record which, in medieval legend, was over seen by Saint Peter. Jesus gave Christians the opportunity that was denied to Pagans of entering heaven. He did not guarantee it; you were left with certain civic responsibilities that you must first fulfill. This was the official-on pain of death for treason-religion of the Imperial Roman Government after all. Civic duties were of primary concern.
Rule breakers, those who opposed the will of Rome, could not only be put to death but would be tortured FOREVER. So even if the cops missed you, you were still doomed.
Pagans, who were breaking the Roman law by not being initiated, always had original sin. Therefore it didn't matter if their behavior was otherwise exemplary, no heaven for them. (This brings us to Dante and Virgil, but I'm getting beyond myself again.)
What you were talking about was a rules change that came much, much, later, and deals with political rebellion against Rome and not changes in heavenly mandates.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 14:43:16 [Permalink]
|
Slater
In spite of me better judgement  , having come to read over your posts, am repeatedly impressed with your historical grasp in both scope and detail, of holy scriptures. You must have been a very serious 'seeker' at one time. Knowing it won't go to yer head, me being easily impressed and suffering from a stunted historical perspective. Am just now, coming to a limited appreciation of the social divisions, and their still present residue within our country, of our own 'civil war,' for example.
Might i encroach upon this thread and your good will, to ask of "the orginal sin?" Have heard the stories of "the Tree of Life," and the knowledge of good and evil. What is your understanding of it, in the mystical intent and its practical social alplication?
As you know, don't have a burnning interest in "dogma's," but confess a growing fasination with their social ramifications. Perhaps 911 brought home the fact, their influence is a 'reality' within the world, for good or evil. Thanks
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 06:38:16 [Permalink]
|
Uh.., guess that's a 'no.' Thanks for nothing...
At least can get back into and post to, SFN again. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 10:02:39 [Permalink]
|
To NubiWan: Go easy, friend! Slater may have been affected by the same technical problems that prevented me from participating in this forum for most of this month.
To Slater: Thanks, your insights are always thought-provoking. I'm afraid, however, that I still feel my original question isn't fully answered (through no omission of yours!)
To me, the term "Christianity" is not limited to the original Christians only, but applies broadly to all who profess that faith, both in the past and today. I guess what I really mean to ask is, how does a contemporary Christian understand and explain the phrase "Jesus died for your sins"? Is this perceived in a literal sense, or more metaphorical? Is it believed that Jesus' sacrifice actually erased some cosmic slate, or that he gave mankind an example of selfless sacrifice?
But now that I express the question in those terms, I guess it answers itself: "All of the above". I have read that there are over 1500 distinct branches of Christianity, so I suppose for any interpretation I might suggest, there have been some folks who accepted it as a pillar of faith.
So unless someone with specific knowledge of the current theological position of some specific church or sect cares to jump in, I'll consider the issue closed.
Thanks again for your input!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 10:13:33 [Permalink]
|
I once asked this same question to a Christian co-worker. What I got in return was a little inpatient shake of the head, and the words "John 11:40" in a manner that suggested every good Sunday School pupil should understand such a simple fact.
So, trying to be a good Sunday School pupil, I dutifully looked up John 11:40; "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?"
Well, obviously, I'm no closer to enlightenment than I was before.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 11:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I once asked this same question to a Christian co-worker. What I got in return was a little inpatient shake of the head, and the words "John 11:40" in a manner that suggested every good Sunday School pupil should understand such a simple fact.
So, trying to be a good Sunday School pupil, I dutifully looked up John 11:40; "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?"
Well, obviously, I'm no closer to enlightenment than I was before.
That's about as clear as asphalt.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 14:04:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Uh.., guess that's a 'no.' Thanks for nothing...
At least can get back into and post to, SFN again.
Hey, gimme a break. I'm on a Mac with Netscape and was getting nothing but headers and blank pages.
I only just saw this thread this minute.
The "World Tree" is a pervasive Indo/European myth. Buddha, Odin and even the Tuatha De Danann are all involved with it.
The fall from grace is another matter- it only occurs in the desert of the Near East and not in Europe or India.
I'll have to get back to you on this because the Myths are very complicated and easily misunderstood if I'm not as clear as I should be.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2001 : 17:27:41 [Permalink]
|
Opps! Me bad, no disrespect was actually intended, but reading over it now, does seem a bit brusque at that, sorry. And that was me 'easy-go' mode, pitiful isn't it?
quote:
..., if thou wouldest believe (in god), thou shouldest see the glory of God?
Welp, that seems pretty straightforward enough to me, and not at all confined to Christianity. IOW, if you would believe in a god, you ought to look for him, or at least his handiwork. Seems to make some sense to me, where did me go wrong? Certainly am no scholar of the subject, but it seems to me, that some of these 'prophets,' actually claimed no special attributes, Jesus, Mohammed, for example. To me little mind, it was the amusing efforts of the various religious authorities, who said something to the effect. "OK, ok, perhaps 'he' did walk and talk with the almighty, but he was a special case, and the only one, that could have found god without our benevolence. Besides, (insert your fav) was our man..., now, anyway. So give it up." They, then go on to attribute all these extraordinary abilities and events, to (your fav), demonstrating just how exceptional he really was, while you aren't of course.
Slater: Am not playing a 'got-ya,' so just a general overveiw of your opinion, would be appreciated. It's the concept of all of us, being born within 'sin,' that intrigues me. Not to put words into your mouth, but do you perhaps, see it as just a scheme to establish the need of salvation, with all paths leading to the 'estabished' religious orders? Which in a way, would tend to reenforce the "Ignorance is bliss," notion. It is a historical inquiry, when, which teaching, first came up with this idea? Satisfy yourself as to the degree of exactness 'general' would imply of course, but no need to expend a great deal of effort at it. Again thanks.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
