Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is The Atonement?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 15 of 202 (251668)
10-14-2005 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-13-2005 10:20 PM


Do yo think that Jesus' death was just an incidental by-product of his sacrifice ? I mean, he was a man, so he would have died at some stage. It just happened to be on the cross.
To me that would seem to make a lot more sense than Jesus being portrayed as some 'ransom' that God has to pay to himself.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-13-2005 10:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:09 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 22 of 202 (251753)
10-14-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
10-14-2005 12:09 PM


I think that the accounts in the synoptics are the ones most likely to reflect the historical Jesus. I think so not only because they sound more plausible (excluding the resurrection) but also they contain the least metaphysical elements (compared to Paul, John & others) and they were written within the generation of Jesus.
Paul's letters were also written within the the generation of Jesus, but by a man who didn't know Jesus and -by the looks of it- didn't even know what Jesus taught. John, on the other hand, was written much later and contains influences that I find difficult to attribute to an uneducated Jewish man in his nineties (as the alleged author, John, would have been at the time of writing).
Jesus' teachings and life, in the context of the synoptics accounts, makes sense and commands respect.
It's when I try to put it in the context of the rest of the Christian mythology and doctrine that it all gets muddled up and ridiculous.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:50 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 39 of 202 (251790)
10-14-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
10-14-2005 12:50 PM


Re: How to muddy the water in one easy lesson.
jar writes:
I think it's refering to those Christians that forget that everything hangs on the two Great Commandments. When Christians discriminate against others, whether other Christians, Non-Christians, Gays or just take any exclusionary position, then IMHO, they miss the gate.
Jar, if only more Christians were like you, the world would be a better place.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:50 PM jar has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 48 of 202 (251839)
10-14-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
10-14-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
Hi iano,
iano writes:
"Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many"
What is a ransom. It is something paid to free an individual from the clutches of someone....or biblically, something. .......THE LAW.... We are all captives to the law
I'm a bit confused with this concept. I find it difficult to answer these questions :
1) Who paid this ransom ?
I understand you're saying it's God. IF yes, what did he give away as ransom ?
2) Who received this ransom ?
...??
3) Who was set free ?
You're saying we are set free from the law. Are you referring to the Mosaic Law or the law of God in general ?
You have a good weekend now. Maybe you could answer me next week.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:35 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by purpledawn, posted 10-15-2005 10:06 PM Legend has replied
 Message 61 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 7:58 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 56 of 202 (252136)
10-16-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by purpledawn
10-15-2005 10:06 PM


Jesus as a ransom is an absurd notion
So, Jesus (who according to the majority of orthodox Christianity *is* God) paid a ransom to God to set us free from sin, death, and hell.
The points that strike me here are:
1) God paid the ransom. God doesn't need to pay any ransom to anyone. To do so would imply that God abides by some external law that is beyond his power to control. And I'm not even going to go into the absurdity of someone paying a ransom to himself.
2) What exactly was the ransom ? what was given away, i.e. lost, by the party who paid the ransom ?
Is Jesus not sitting to the right of the Father as we speak ?? (allegedly)
2) God received the ransom. One receives a ransom in exchange for someone's freedom. Though this might make sense for your average Greek/Roman slaveowner, for an omnipotent deity who allegedly loves us it just doesn't work. It implies that the receiving party (God) restricts, in some way, the freedom of the party that's being ransomed (humanity). This clashes with both the OT concept of free will with immediate retribution and with the NT concept of free will with judgement in the afterlife.
which brings me to my final point,
3) We are supposed to have been set free from sin, death, and hell. How exactly ? Are we now even less susceptible to sin, death, and hell than before the ransom was paid ?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by purpledawn, posted 10-15-2005 10:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by purpledawn, posted 10-16-2005 11:25 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 67 of 202 (252362)
10-17-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by iano
10-17-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
There are some things that are hard to get the head around. Eternity is one, trinity is another. 3 distinct persons but 1 God. This is not the same as dualism plus another God. The Trinity is one God, but three persons. The best description I heard of it is ice/water/steam. Different but all the same. But still no one can truly comprehend it.
I am familiar with the concept of the Trinity and I have no problem with it.
iano writes:
God the Father sacrificed something in order to 'satisfy' his love,
One sacrifices something in order to 'satisfy' someone else. Similarly, one offers ransom to someone else.
Who did God the Father sacrifice to ?
iano writes:
God the Son offered himself as the sacrifice, because of his love.
The doctrine of the Trinity relies on the fundamental concept that, although there is subordination in order amongst the 'persons' of the Trinity, there is no subordination in stature or will. In other words, Jesus cannot do or will for something that the Father doesn't will for and vice versa.
Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice to the Father means that
- the Son wanted something (e.g. free us of the law) that the Father didn't want ( subordination of will)
or
- the Father could do something (e.g. free us of the law) that the Son couldn't ( subordination of stature)
Either way, God the Son offering himself as the sacrifice to God the Father, is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine.
iano writes:
God the Father required the sacrifice/ransom to 'satisfy' the fact that he is just and wrath.
Since when does God need something to 'satisfy' his own nature ?. He either is just or he isn't.
A fact's a fact. It doesn't need any confirmation, especially in the case of God.
iano writes:
Sin must be judged and punished.
But Jesus was sinless! This conflicts with the notion that God is just, as somone who was sinless was punished for sin! (unjust)
Were the sinners judged and punished with Jesus' sacrifice ? If not, then the above law wasn't satisified with Jesus' sacrifice.
iano writes:
God the Father recieved the ransom
This again contradicts both common sense (you don't pay a ransom to yourself) , the definition of the word 'ransom' and also the Trinity doctrine as I explained above.
oh, and one more thing :
what was *given up* by God the Father when he sacrificed his Son ?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 7:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 11:01 AM Legend has replied
 Message 70 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 11:39 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 72 of 202 (252388)
10-17-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
10-17-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
God sacrificed his Son in order to 'satisfy' his (the Fathers) attribute, Love, because his (the Fathers) attribute, Justness and Wrath demanded, in order to be 'satisfied', that sin be convicted and punished. All attributes must be perfectly 'satisfied'
So, the Father sacrifices his sinless son in order to 'satisfy' himself that sin is convicted and punished ?!
- why God needs to be satisified that his nature is as it is? Doesn't he know it already ?
- how punishing a sinless man 'satisfy' God that sin is convicted and punished ?
Legend writes:
In other words, Jesus cannot do or will for something that the Father doesn't will for and vice versa.
iano writes:
I'm not sure that cannot is the right term. Jesus asked "if it were possible" to let this cup (the wrath to come on him from the Father) pass "but not my will but yours be done". Jesus, could have not done the will of the Father, but always chose to do so. This is not the same as 'cannot'
Ok, I concur. Let me re-word it : "Jesus will not do or wish for something that the Father doesn't wish for and vice versa."
My point still stands.
iano writes:
They both wanted the same thing for the same reasons. Love. Remember that the Holy Spirit has a part to play too. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts (or convinces) a person of their need for a saviour.
Thus all three persons play a part that the other doesn't play. This doesn't indicate subordination of anything. 'Co-equality' doesn't mean 'exactly the same in every way'
Yes, I agree. I said there is subordination in order (i.e. each person plays a different part) but not in will or stature.(i.e. each person is not submissive to the will or power of the other).
So we agree that all three persons of the Trinity wanted to free mankind from something (the law as you claim), right ?
Legend writes:
Either way, God the Son offering himself as the sacrifice to God the Father, is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine.
iano writes:
In what way, given the above comments.?
According to the Trinity doctrine both the Son and the Father would have *wanted* and *could* set mankind free.
When you sacrifice -or pay ransom- to someone you submit to their will and/or power. They set the terms (their will) and you pay what's required (you submit to their will). It also implies that they have some power over you otherwise you'd be able to get what you want without the need for sacrifice or ransom.
It makes no sense for two persons of a Trinity to sacrifice something to each other in order to achieve something.
To do so would imply that these persons had either different purpose or different status. It would mean that one of them didn't *want* to set us free as much as the other or that one *couldn't* set us free without the help of the other.
Either way, God the Son offering himself as the sacrifice to God the Father, breaks the Trinity doctrine.
If both *wanted* and *could* they could have set us free. No sacrifice is required!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 11:01 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Philip, posted 10-17-2005 12:48 PM Legend has replied
 Message 74 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 1:02 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 75 of 202 (252406)
10-17-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
10-17-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
Consider sin as illegal drugs. I have them. The cops are coming. Another takes the drugs from me and puts them in his own pocket. The person who is in possession of the drugs takes the hit. The law doesn't mind who has the drugs. All the law is going to do is punish the person in possession. "let he who is without (indicating possession) sin, cast the first stone"
So do you think that punishing someone for a crime they didn't commmit is just ?
iano writes:
Whether YOU agree or not or think it just or not - matters not.
Of course it matters! If the biblical words convey meaning different to that used by the vast majority of the people then what's the point of even reading the bible. If the bible says 'flower' when referring to fish, then we might as well bin the whole thing. 'Just' is just.
Furthermore, Genesis says that I can judge good or evil like God does. So if I think something God did is unjust, then that means that either God is unjust or that Genesis is just an allegorical folk tale. Which is it ?
Legend writes:
Were the sinners judged and punished with Jesus' sacrifice ? If not, then the above law wasn't satisified with Jesus' sacrifice.
iano writes:
The sinners aren't punished because they don't have sin in their possession.
So if the sinners don't have sin in their possession are they punished at all ? Ever ?
Also, that confirms my initial statement that no sinners were judged and punished with Jesus' sacrifice.
Legend writes:
This again contradicts both common sense (you don't pay a ransom to yourself) , the definition of the word 'ransom' and also the Trinity doctrine as I explained above.
iano writes:
It was ransom paid by Love to Justness and Wrath. Ransom is a human word - don't get too hooked on it as befitting what goes on in eternity. Like, Hell won't be a place with a high temperature. The word Fire is something that is used as a picture of Hell in terms we (humans) can get some grip on.
So, Love (Jesus) paid the ransom (Jesus) to Justness and Wrath (God the Father). So do you think that Jesus hasn't got the same Justness and Wrath as the Father, or that the Father lacks the love of Jesus ?
Legend writes:
oh, and one more thing : what was *given up* by God the Father when he sacrificed his Son ?
iano writes:
The same thing as the Son gave up: perfect communion between Father and Son. And for those inclinded to think "well the time between Jesus saying "My God, My God..." (separation) to "Father forgive.." (Reunion) was only an couple of hours - Big Deal" they don't know a} what it means to lose this relationship b) it happened in the spiritual - which is eternal. And who knows what that's like?
In what way is the perfect communion between Father and Son lost ? Is Jesus not sitting to the right of the Father as we speak ?!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 11:39 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 3:08 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 86 of 202 (252436)
10-17-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by purpledawn
10-16-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Jesus as a ransom is an absurd notion
purpledawn writes:
IMO, it isn't talking about giving up life as in death, but more like dedicating his life to serving others.
The verse in 1 Timothy 2:6 is when the idea of substitution was brought in.
The word for ransom in this verse is antilutron.
The word for ransom in the Mark passage is lutron which seems to be indicative of personal payment. Not something that accounts for everyone.
You bring up a very good point and this is something I have been thinking about too.
The initial meaning of the word was to denote the money a slave would pay to their master to be set free. Contrary to popular belief, many slaves in ancient Greece were getting paid (albeit minimally) and were allowed to wonder free of supervision. Paying the ransom was a symbolic gesture as much as a practical one, symbolising the end of their life in servitude.
In that context, I wonder whether Jesus's reference to ransom- if indeed he did say that- was a reference to a life of servitude, rather than any misconstrued sacrifice.
The word lost its meaning and context in the subsequent 'evolution' of Jesus's teachings that became the Christianity of today.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by purpledawn, posted 10-16-2005 11:25 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 5:46 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 88 of 202 (252440)
10-17-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Philip
10-17-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Sacrifice
quote:
Seems there is no *divine* loving-forgiveness (in scriptures) SANS sacrifice.
it's funny how humans can forgive someone without requiring any suffering to take place, while an all-powerful, all-loving God can't (or is not willing to)!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Philip, posted 10-17-2005 12:48 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 4:36 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 100 by Philip, posted 10-17-2005 6:36 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 91 of 202 (252446)
10-17-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
10-17-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
You go to a persons home for a meal. At the meal you have a bit too much to drink. In this state you stagger into a lampstand and knock over this ornate lamp which smashes into pieces on the ground. Horror! The owner say "It's okay Legend, it's okay - I forgive you. Now just give me the $6000 it takes to replace it"
Very good example. Tell me, Is God expecting us to pay anything to replace his lampstand ?
iano writes:
Is that forgiveness. You wouldn't think so. For the owner to forgive you, it's the owner who has to suffer, to pay the price. He's got to say "Legend, I forgive you"....period. That's what forgiveness is.
Absolutely, 100% agree!!
Now maybe you can tell me why God didn't do just that ?!
iano writes:
For God to forgive you, God had to pay the price. And he did. He gave up the most precious thing he had. Jesus is the Light of the world. Your sin smashed him. God offers to forgive you for smashing him.
Hold on....now he's offering to forgive me ?! I thought you said:
iano writes:
He's got to say "Legend, I forgive you"....period. That's what forgiveness is.
Now, it's conditional ?? What is the offer based on then ?
don't tell me , I think I know..[drumroll].. is it that we accept His Son as our saviour ?
So, unlike the landlord in your analogy, God just cannot say "I forgive you". period.
There's still a price to pay, though it's more subtle.
And you know what, if you don't pay that price either then God will demand his $6000 back! And he doesn't take no for an answer.
God is effectively saying:
"you don't have to give me $6000 now, you can give me $1000 later"
"Oh and -by the way- if you don't give me that $1000 later I'm going to break your f***ng legs"
This is not forgiveness! You said so yourself.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 1:02 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 5:18 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 97 of 202 (252462)
10-17-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by iano
10-17-2005 5:18 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
That is precisely what he did.
So....God forgave us ?! Period ?! No strings attached ?!
iano writes:
But if the person won't accept it then God can't make them. This is where the salvation by works gig hits the wall. God is saying "I'll pay for the lamp (Jesus). And we say "No (hic) way, shure I paysh for ish" The trouble is we ain't got the $6000.
ahh...here's the catch! Unfortunately (for you) forgiveness does not depend on the person that is forgiven. It is the prerogative of the offended party only. Forgiveness is not an offer!
You either forgive someone or you don't. There's nothing to accept or reject. Period. You said so yourself.
iano writes:
And God says that if we don't accept his payment (he can't insist on us accepting it -our free will is our free will after all) then okay, pay the 6000. Pay it in full. And if we don't pay it to the last cent (keep all the law) then carted off to prison for default we will be
reminds me of a second-hand car dealer I know. He's not very forgiving either!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 5:18 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 6:06 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 116 of 202 (252649)
10-18-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by iano
10-18-2005 6:06 AM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
Then the Judge does something unusual. He step steps down from the bench, takes out his chequebook and proceeds to write out a cheque for $100,000. He walks across the court and offers the cheque to the defendant in the dock.
The defendant can choose to take it or not
Poor analogy, on so many counts.
The Judge offering to pay the fine is an act of mercy, not an act of forgiveness. You can't forgive if you've not been offended against. The accused broke the law (which is above the Judge), he didn't personally act against the Judge. You can't forgive if you've not been offended.
Your lampstand analogy was much more suitable.
We broke God's lampstand. Has God forgiven us, yes or no ?
*EDIT* for spelling.
This message has been edited by Legend, 10-18-2005 08:00 AM

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 6:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 9:09 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 133 of 202 (252739)
10-18-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
10-18-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
iano writes:
They are only analogies Legend. You liking one over the other makes neither a complete expression of the way it is.
Merriam-Webster online writes:
Analogy: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike
Your 'Judge' analogy had very little resemblance to the situation you were trying to illustrate (God, sin, forgiveness). I've already pointed out the main one.
Your 'lampstand' analogy had much more resemblance to the situation you were trying to illustrate .
Therefore I think that the 'lampstand' analogy is the better one.
iano writes:
You say the Judge one is poor because the Law is above him. A weakness in that part of the analogy. Now add the biblical bit where the Judge IS the one who has set the law and against who you are offending. Strenghten the analogy and reiterate
Ok, I did that.
So now, has the Judge forgiven the man ? Can the man go on living his life ?
Oh no, there is a condition: the man must accept the money from the Judge to pay the fine !
The Judge is not willing to just waive the fine (after all he's the one who set it in the first place). He wants something in return!
This is not forgiveness. When you forgive you don't set conditions. You just forgive. Period. You said so yourself.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 9:09 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 1:12 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 134 of 202 (252740)
10-18-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
10-18-2005 9:09 AM


*bump*
iano, just to remind you that you haven't answered the question:
Legend writes:
We broke God's lampstand. Has God forgiven us, yes or no ?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 9:09 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024