Halcyon

 

 

The thing is, it is used in a very manipulative way in evengelical christianity. We are bludgeoned with guilt and convinced we are 'sinners' and then told a very emotionally manipulative story about a sacrifice being made for us. It's easy for many to be sucked in by that. It did me s much damage. I mean, how can it do your self esteem any good to be told that are fundamentally worthless unless you accept this 'sacrifice'. Agreed.

 

When I started to think about these things recently, it started to fall apart. If one takes the genesis narrative literally, you have to believe in a god who:

• put temptation in the way;
  
• penalised man for a choice he gave him the capaicty to make;
  
• chose to banish man from the garden;
  
• punished all mankind for something they didn't do; and
  
• refused to 'forgive' unless this blood sacrifice was made
  

But all this was pre-ordained, or "pre-known" by God, yes? He KNEW that man would make the choice he did, He knew that by placing temptation in the way that man would choose to eat the apple. (why did he place temptation there anyway? To demonstrate that we have free will, and our free will always chooses the "wrong" thing? He didn't give an option for a "good" choice, unless you consider NOT eating the apple to be a choice. It reminds me of a famous experiment with children where they were told NOT to eat a marshmallow placed in front of them, and they would be rewarded with MORE marshmallows in the future. None could stop themselves from eating the marshmallows NOW.) When you say God "refused to forgive unless a blood sacrifice was made", I don't really get this--wasn't it God's sacrifice? It was HIS Son, so He (God) was the one who would suffer upon his death. And he KNEW this would happen, because he is all-knowing, right?

So if one is to take the Genesis narrative NON-literally, what does it say to us? As a parent myself, I can't help but think of this in terms of my own children. Would I place a ice cream sundae in front of them and then leave the room, reminding them that the only thing they're NOT allowed to do is eat the sundae? I know what most kids would do I would know IN ADVANCE that my children would eat the sundae. And then...what? I punish them? I can't see myself doing that. But God did, no?

 

That is, as I look at this view, God set up all the parameters, definitions of sin etc with foreknowledge and then requires the world to 'accept' this sacrifice. THis all damaged my heart so much and like others on this post it doesn't make sense. Agreed. It seems a bit of a set-up, no? God is going to create this intricate path that we have to "believe" in, but all along he knew the outcome.

• 
  

 

Jenell's right; that the need for substitutionary sacrifice is founded on original sin. If we tell the Garden of Eden story as a step up into maturity, of taking responsibility then it makes sense to see Jesus as a model and that we are his Twins. He is showing us the way: that it is only through death of our old selves and resurrection of the new thing that Jesus has begun in us that we will be able to experience heaven in the here and now. It is only in this moment, the Apocalyptic now, when heaven might come to earth. To be best prepared we must let our old selves be crucified, shattered so that we can be present in this moment.

 

Perhaps all of us have those moments where everything we understood about the world stopped working. The shattered pieces lay on the floor. We are resurrected when we start a new thing. Jesus' death and resurrection point the way out of being the living dead.

 

The theologian John Haught says that to move from a mundane life to a higher experience of life we must pass though chaos. From the living dead through the death of an ordered world, experiencing the fear of chaos and loss of control in order to reach a higher level of experience through Jesus' eyes.

 

Dutch

It's seems like you're saying that Jesus' death was more to set an example for us, the sinners, to die to our former selves? Not so much substitution, but example? This makes more sense to me, but I hadn't heard it before. It is always drummed into one's head "Jesus died for your sins".

This is a question that has been on my mind for a long time, but I never felt comfortable asking anyone about it. It seems like such an obvious thing, so obvious that I am perplexed as to why I don't understand it.

It is said that Jesus died for our sins. That God sacrificed his only son for us, that he paid the ultimate price. The thing I don't get is....how does this work? How does the death of one release us from sin? The sins still happened. The consequences still resound. How does the son of God dying "pay" for this? What is "payment" in this context? Is it like an exchange? A barter? If it is, why would the death of God's son (which one could argue is not a good thing) pay for sins (again, not a good thing). It's like saying that crashing my new car will release me from mortgage payment on my house. I guess what's missing for me is the relationship, the thread, connecting Jesus' death with my sins.

I am probably making no sense. If so, then forgive me. If you have any clue as to what I'm trying to get out here, perhaps you have insight.

Today I had a medical procedure which I have been dreading. All's well, thankfully. Home with the family for pizza and books. Tomorrow, we'll be attending son's hockey game and then going to watch a skateboard competition

THank you Jenell. I have the Oxford Bible Commentary, which I enjoy very much. I wonder how similar it is to your suggestion.

the New Interpreter's footnote to Mark 8:31-38 stressed that the idea of the necessity of suffering has been used to oppress women and others.

Interesting connection.

Way to fundamentalist evanglical oriented for me. But that's just me. And I'm not fond of the ASV version. Since I went to NRSV, I guess I'm really stuck to it. I do still refer to KJV to find familiar text, all main concordiances and Hebrew/Greeklexicons are keyed to KJV text, too. And I still find some of the language poetic and beautiful.

I too like the NRSV translation the best. However, I can't seem to find a study bible that I like using NRSV translation. I own a few study bibles which are really quite worthless to me (New Living Translation gifted to me) and am looking for something more informative and historical.

Hi, Halcyon,

 

In addition to those mentioned in this thread I would add this one. It is progressive, including footnotes from a feminist theologian's perspective.

 

The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha by Walter J. Harrelson (May 2003)

 

This is comparable in price to the ESV Study. Could you tell us why you have started with the ESV? Our suggestions might be more helpful if we knew more.

 

Dutch

I have the NRSV and an ESV (not the one I linked) and I actually find them quite comparable in most places that I've compared so far. That said, if they had this study bible in an NRSV translation I would prefer that...but they don't. Thank you for your suggestion! I am looking at it now on Amazon and it looks very interesting. I am going to try to find a preview online so I can see some sample pages. Thank you.

Can I ask what people think of this study bible? I've had my eye on it for a while. I understand it's a bit more conservative than I'd probably like, but the maps and history look interesting.