Meaning Of The Cross?

[DCJ]

Sometimes they were wrong, and sometimes they were right on the money ... God will highlight and burn in our souls from scripture what we need to hear and heed.

I agree that God will illuminate the Scriptures for us to understand, but it's very difficult to say with any authority that "Sometimes they were wrong, and sometimes they were right on the money" based mostly on that subjective conviction. There are other methods we can use to determine the meaning and truth of the Bible, such as hermeneutics and textual criticism, like we would use on any literary work. The danger in relying on subjectivism alone is that we tend to let our prejudices slip in.

[curlytop]

Maybe it's not obvious from 2 paragraphs from Taylor's book that I cited earlier, but I don't think he's suggesting that we should rely on subjectivism alone in interpreting the Bible. Rather it's a combined, human-divine effort. That is, our reasoning and interpretive abilities assist us as we discern God's word.

 

We are always in danger of letting our own prejudices slip in. Even hermeneutics and textual criticism are not free of their own special biases. Human consciousness itself is not free from bias, cultural conditioning, and self-deception. That is why we need to pray when we read the scriptures--ask the Spirit to lead us to the truth. It is a combination of reason and faith and divine grace that allows us to hear the word of God.

Edited November 19, 2004 by curlytop

[Oak]

As my Professaors of Bible were saying, a text , without a context , is only a pretext..

 

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus

 

The whole text is about the acceptance of humanity,

 

The Assertion "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement" don't relate to the world of the OT

 

Killing Calf and burning it Lev 9

7 Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."

8 So Aaron came to the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself

.

 

A priest has to sacrifice the victim - Lev 14

7 Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."

8 So Aaron came to the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself.

 

The offering has to be burnt (and Jesus has not been burnt) Lev 16

 

23 "Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. 24 He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people. 25 He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar.

 

 

 

 

According to the other laws - given by God - too - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ cannot be accepted ( Mankind is not a kind to be sacrificized, Jesus died by asphyxiation, )

 

And the necessity for sacrifices had always be removed in the OT , if see Oseah 6:6..

 

No real problems happened during the 70years exile in Babylon, and the post-babylonian community had started to accept this idea..

 

 

So the basis to understand "Jesus is a sacrifice for atonement" is inexistant, no exegetical basis found in the OT..

 

The way Jesus Saves is another problem ..

Basically - apart from the theory of the sacrifice (St Anselm Of Canterbury produced it, but it is not the only one .. more theories have been produced..)

 

The theory of the ransom (Origen)

 

Christ has paid the ransom of humanity to Satan

 

 

 

 

The theory of Abelard

"Once raised , the Christ will attract all the men to him"

 

And the global conception of Auler "Christus Victor"

 

If we want to keep the explanation given by Apostle Paul, we have to understand he was using a metaphor, a common style used in these times by many Jews writers (cf Philo)

 

 

We have a lot of explanations based on the Bible..

[BeachOfEden]

Here is an article I found on this topic that TCPC wrote...let's examine it...

 

Astonishing Assumptions Underlie Belief in Atoning Sacrifice

 

From the TCPC May 2004 Newsletter

By Andrew Furlong

 

"—evangelical preachers and certain film makers try to persuade people to believe that Jesus died for them and for the whole world. That is to say they interpret Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice. I personally do not find it credible to believe in Jesus’ death interpreted as an atoning sacrifice.Here, in my opinion, are some of the assumptions underlying belief in Jesus’ death when interpreted as an atoning sacrifice. "

 

(1) If the correct way to interpret and explain Jesus’ death is to say that he suffered and died in the sinners’ place, then it makes God out to be a very severe, harsh and punitive god. It is saying that there was a punishment that had to be borne, there was a penalty that had to be paid. It should have been us sinners doing so; but instead, it is claimed that Jesus took our place. Furthermore, if this theory of what Jesus’ death meant were correct, it would involve God in an unethical procedure, for it is not part of the ethics of justice for one person to bear the punishment due to be borne by others. It is assumed that this does not matter.

 

(2) Our normal explanation of why we die is in terms of natural causes, such as ageing or sickness or war or accident. However to see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice is to accept a different world view. In this understanding, death entered the world as a curse imposed by God because of Adam’s disobedience to Him in the Garden of Eden. It is held that Jesus’ innocent death in obedience to the will of God lifted this curse, so that we could be freed from the powers of death and be able to enter heaven when we die. It assumes scientific explanations are incorrect, and implies that Adam was a real historical person.

 

(3) To see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice assumes that there is no contradiction between believing in a forgiving God who is also a severely punitive god. Why is it assumed to be insufficient to simply believe in a forgiving compassionate God (who is not also a punitive god) and who does not require there to be a mediator or a redeemer between God and humanity?

 

(4) It is possible to understand the ancient sacrificial system of Judaism, similar to other such systems in prescientific days, as an invention by human beings in those societies who thought that this was a way to restore harmony between a people and their god. Such systems developed and were modified over time. Indeed much interesting research has been conducted into the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of words such as “atonement” and “sacrifice” as well as their history within the English language. People who believe in Jesus’ atoning death tend to see the ancient sacrificial system of his religion as divinely ordained; they believe God required a human sacrifice so that peace could be restored between humanity and God. By contrast, there are other people who today look on all the religions as the product of our search as to how we are to live and who claim that we have created for ourselves our theologies and our rituals. Such people have an understanding of the scriptures which allows them to say, “this is what people, thousands of years ago, thought to be right or to be the will of their god, but what they believed then does not constrain how I think today.” What is the underlying assumption behind the idea of sacrifice: is it to appease an angry god? If so, is this an idea we still need to hold onto today?

 

(5) Some of the arguments in favour of seeing Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice depend on what he is claimed to have said himself. This assumes that liberal scholars are mistaken in thinking that a good deal of what Jesus is recorded as saying is in fact the theology of the church put on his lips. But whatever the source of the words or the theological ideas, they are still open to our critical judgement today.

 

(6) Many evangelical preachers tell people that if you believe Jesus died for you, and if you believe that he is alive again, then you are guaranteed a place in heaven. How can such certainty be assumed or justified? For we can’t prove either that there is a God nor can we prove that there is a place called heaven. We walk, as it is said, by faith and not by sight.

 

Will these points give some believers or potential believers in an atoning sacrifice pause for thought? I hope they will. Readers of my book Tried for Heresy, A 21st Century Journey of Faith will have discovered that, while I believe in an ultimate reality characterised by infinite love, goodness, graciousness, forgiveness and compassion, I deny the existence of a severe and punitive god and do not interpret the death of Jesus of Nazareth as an atoning sacrifice. "

 

Ok.. this is the issue that the author of the book "Leaving the Fold" brings forword. That she can not accept Jesus as Savior because she can not accept a God who would force their own offspring to die a horrible death to pay for everyone's sins. First, my interpreation is that God did NOT force Jesus to sacrifice himself but rather Jesus willingly came here and yes it is very violent and complicated...but by Jesus willingly doing this he proves himself a fool-proof Savior for everyon. Now one surely can be a liberal christian who merely follows Jesus as a positive model rather than a Savior..but the question is: can one believe in Jesus as savior AND be a liberal or Progressive? Well, bishop Songe believes so and HE surely IS a liberal...and although I may not share all Sponges' views and DO share his social justices views and like him, I too view Jesus as everyone's Savior and I surley am progressive and NOT on the fundamental right.

[DCJ]

I think a cursory glance at the Bible would've answered most of the author's points; nevertheless, I will give it a try...

 

(1) If the correct way to interpret and explain Jesus’ death is to say that he suffered and died in the sinners’ place, then it makes God out to be a very severe, harsh and punitive god. It is saying that there was a punishment that had to be borne, there was a penalty that had to be paid. It should have been us sinners doing so; but instead, it is claimed that Jesus took our place. Furthermore, if this theory of what Jesus’ death meant were correct, it would involve God in an unethical procedure, for it is not part of the ethics of justice for one person to bear the punishment due to be borne by others. It is assumed that this does not matter.

Congratulations! The author has just discovered the Gospel, the Good News which says Jesus bore the punishment that was due us sinners. Though I must admit that I chuckled when the author referred to the crux of the Greatest Story Ever Told with the anti-climactic "unethical procedure."

 

(2) Our normal explanation of why we die is in terms of natural causes, such as ageing or sickness or war or accident. However to see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice is to accept a different world view. In this understanding, death entered the world as a curse imposed by God because of Adam’s disobedience to Him in the Garden of Eden. It is held that Jesus’ innocent death in obedience to the will of God lifted this curse, so that we could be freed from the powers of death and be able to enter heaven when we die. It assumes scientific explanations are incorrect, and implies that Adam was a real historical person.

Science is being used out-of-bounds here; science can only tell us that the second law of thermodynamics happens, not why it happens. Science can no more explain the reality of heaven and life after death than it can the reality of the soul. And of course Adam was a real person, as Jesus Himself referred to passages in Genesis dealing with Adam.

 

(3) To see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice assumes that there is no contradiction between believing in a forgiving God who is also a severely punitive god. Why is it assumed to be insufficient to simply believe in a forgiving compassionate God (who is not also a punitive god) and who does not require there to be a mediator or a redeemer between God and humanity?

Because such a god would not be good. A judge that simply winks at sin is not righteous but actually furthers evil. Thankfully the God of the Bible is just: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty."

 

(5) Some of the arguments in favour of seeing Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice depend on what he is claimed to have said himself. This assumes that liberal scholars are mistaken in thinking that a good deal of what Jesus is recorded as saying is in fact the theology of the church put on his lips. But whatever the source of the words or the theological ideas, they are still open to our critical judgement today.

The earliest manuscript evidence we have has Jesus saying the same things he says in our current Bibles (with a few caveats such as the end of Mark.) There is no evidence of the "church" committing a mass-rewrite of the early manuscripts. The author's skepticism would be more appropriately directed at late manuscripts such as the Gospel of Thomas.

 

(6) Many evangelical preachers tell people that if you believe Jesus died for you, and if you believe that he is alive again, then you are guaranteed a place in heaven. How can such certainty be assumed or justified? For we can’t prove either that there is a God nor can we prove that there is a place called heaven. We walk, as it is said, by faith and not by sight.

We can't "prove" the author's unorthodox position either. What is his faith in? Evangelicals certainly live by faith, faith that God's revelation is reliable, which says: "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

[Oak]

Some points have not been answered in fact by people who support the "theory of the human sacrifice"..

 

Anybody can support the theory of Anselm of Canterbury (he has been the first to support the theory of the "human sacrifice")

 

But he has to accept the consequences :

 

- The image of God bult from this theological construction is a contradictory god - with an unethical behaviour.. Accepting an human sacrifice what is else ?

 

- prescribing human sacrifice for the atonement of the sin , when the opposite is asserted in the Torah, in the Jew people

- the concept of a human sacrifice to redeem the sins of all men, is opposite to some teachings aa Ezechiel "The sinning soul will die"..

 

The verse of Hosea 6 relates to the Exile times when there were no bleeding sacrifices at all, and the Covenant has been kept.. (without bleeding sacrifice..)

 

Evangelicals must accept the consequences of their theology, either change it in order to improve it..

[BeachOfEden]

"Evangelicals must accept the consequences of their theology, either change it in order to improve it.."

 

I think that the problem with Evangelical Protestantism and all fundamental versions of Christianity lies not on that fact that they teach that "Jesus died for everyone's son..._" But the problem lies in that- when they quote the key word in this phrase "Everyone"...their lies a contridiction in 'their' interpretation of what this means.

 

The Evangelicals say that Christ died for everyone..but...then they have this sneaky way or turning around and saying only those who concure with 'their' interpretations of the Bible will actually benifit from this,,that is... be saved.

[DCJ]

I must admit that I'm not very familiar with Anselm's work; I get my ideas about the Atonement from the clear teaching of the New Testament and related commentaries.

 

Referring to Jesus' death on the cross as merely a "human sacrifice" loses the crucial fact that Jesus was fully God as well (as He attested to). Thus, it was God (in the person of the Son) who took on the burden of sin, as only He could do, since the infinite offense of sin by man required a God/Man redeemer.

 

And I don't say that Christ died for "everyone," since this would mean that everyone is saved. But clearly not everyone will be saved. Some Arminians use this kind of language because they believe Christ's atonement made it possible for everyone to be saved. Calvinists would say that Christ died for the elect. Regardless of which side of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate you fall on, Christ only died for those who would come to him. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

[BeachOfEden]

So you are saying that in your view their are these views on Salvation:

 

1) Arminians=universalism= everyone is saved.

 

2) Calvinists =Christ died for the elect.

 

So which are you?

 

I suggest a 3rd view..

 

3) Conditionalism= Everyone is NOTY oddomatically saved...but EVERYONE gets a 'FAIR" chance if NOT in THIS life then the next.

 

Billy Graham teaches that their is NO second chance after death. To me, this IS Calvinism. So I don;t concure with Graham on this. i condsider myself a conditionalist.

 

"Regardless of which side of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate you fall on, Christ only died for those who would come to him. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

Question: Do YOU believe it's possible to "Come to Christ" even if you don;t know his name or pronounce Christ's name differently? I DO.

[BrotherRog]

Exactly, Jesus is the gatekeeper, but it is very likely that Jesus is very gracious and inclusive about who all He lets in. In fact, IMHO, most all humans will be saved and/or "in heaven" - as it is it would be hard to turn down such a gracious offer (upon one's physical death). So, I'd say that practically, it is individuals who determine if they are saved or not; i.e. whether or not they choose to accept God's gift of love and being home. If there are people in hell, I'd say it is because they are souls who stubbornly turn away from God's loving invitation and grace and who relegate themselves to sitting in the corner - much like a child who throws a tantrum and who goes to their room instead of taking part in the family gathering that's going on in the dining room.

 

And, it should also be remembered that according to John 3:16, God so love the world (cosmos - i.e. everything in creation), that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life)..

So, with this in mind, salvation isn't only intended for humans!

[fatherman]

I'm often fascinated by interpretations of the Bible from a non-western, non-christian perspective (especially considering that Jesus was neither Western or Christian). The following excerpt from Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda gives an interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion that is at least interesting (if not mindblowing). It fits in with the "Atonement" category. Yogananda is narrating a story about his guru and how he healed many of his disciples during a period of illness. He breaks from the story to explain how and uses Jesus as a prime example.

 

Fortunately for his disciples, Sri Yukteswar burned many of their sins in the fire of his severe fever in Kashmir. The metaphysical method of physical transfer of disease is known to highly advanced yogis. A strong man can assist a weaker one by helping to carry his heavy load; a spiritual superman is able to minimize his disciples' physical or mental burdens by sharing the karma of their past actions. Just as a rich man loses some money when he pays off a large debt for his prodigal son, who is thus saved from dire consequences of his own folly, so a master willingly sacrifices a portion of his bodily wealth to lighten the misery of disciples.

 

By a secret method, the yogi unites his mind and astral vehicle with those of a suffering individual; the disease is conveyed, wholly or in part, to the saint's body. Having harvested God on the physical field, a master no longer cares what happens to that material form. Though he may allow it to register a certain disease in order to relieve others, his mind is never affected; he considers himself fortunate in being able to render such aid.

 

The devotee who has achieved final salvation in the Lord finds that his body has completely fulfilled its purpose; he can then use it in any way he deems fit. His work in the world is to alleviate the sorrows of mankind, whether through spiritual means or by intellectual counsel or through will power or by the physical transfer of disease. Escaping to the superconsciousness whenever he so desires, a master can remain oblivious of physical suffering; sometimes he chooses to bear bodily pain stoically, as an example to disciples. By putting on the ailments of others, a yogi can satisfy, for them, the karmic law of cause and effect. This law is mechanically or mathematically operative; its workings can be scientifically manipulated by men of divine wisdom.

 

The spiritual law does not require a master to become ill whenever he heals another person. Healings ordinarily take place through the saint's knowledge of various methods of instantaneous cure in which no hurt to the spiritual healer is involved. On rare occasions, however, a master who wishes to greatly quicken his disciples' evolution may then voluntarily work out on his own body a large measure of their undesirable karma.

 

Jesus signified himself as a ransom for the sins of many. With his divine powers, his body could never have been subjected to death by crucifixion if he had not willingly cooperated with the subtle cosmic law of cause and effect. He thus took on himself the consequences of others' karma, especially that of his disciples. In this manner they were highly purified and made fit to receive the omnipresent consciousness which later descended on them.

 

I often think of this before dismissing the notion that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world (or his disciples).

[DCJ]

The Bible is largely silent in terms of anything resembling post-mortem salvation. Rather, many of Jesus' parables and other New Testament teachings imply that our eternal destiny is determined by how we respond to "God's loving invitation and grace" on this side of the grave.

[BeachOfEden]

See other thread"Billy Graham's View On Salvation."

[Oak]

must admit that I'm not very familiar with Anselm's work; I get my ideas about the Atonement from the clear teaching of the New Testament and related commentaries.

The works of Anselm have been used by the reformers to support their opinion of the atonement..

 

The New testament has a background and an intent ..

 

The bacground is the society of the 1st-2nd century, and the intent is to affirm the message of the gospel is for all the human beings..

 

The author can use metaphoric expressions, and in these times a lot of these expressions were understood as metaphoric..

 

(For Apostle Peter "The flow is a metaphor for baptism" , and it doesnot relate to the real existence of a flow who would have covered all the earth.. (Has Himalaya been drowned under water ? Is it possible ??)

 

But for the Apostle Peter , The Flow is a Metaphor for Baptism.. We could find more and more metaphors in the New Testament and in the Old)

 

Such writings as litterature, are litterally metaphoric..

 

Is it good to understand them as from a naturalistic point of view ??

 

Old and New testament in the firsts century were understood as metaphors..

 

(see Philo of Alexandriae, Origen)

 

And it couldnot be understood in another way..

 

The Old Testament had been written/edited after Exile, in order to support some theological opinions..

 

(We can understand easily how prophecies match, if the scrolls have been composed after - in order to create the massoretic text -

 

And some parts could have been written after..

 

The value of the Old Testament in the 1st Century is the value people give to the text .. and no more..

 

Some parts of the New Testament are not valuable as translation of the Old testament ..

 

Isaiah 7 cannot translate "ALMAH" by "PARTHENOS" , if the author of the NT has translated like this it means only he didnot know Hebrew..

 

So the popular legends, myth and tales have imbibed the authors of the New Testament..

Till the belief in "the virginal birth " appear..

 

So i think we can compare the making of the belief in "The Virginal Birth" and the making of the belief in Anselm conception of the Atonement..

 

Several centuries after , Anselm makes his conceptions and this conception is accepted by some people including Reformers..

 

(Who were not ready - challenging papacy - to challenge this opinion)

[DCJ]

The works of Anselm have been used by the reformers to support their opinion of the atonement..

Some of the earlier church fathers believed Jesus' death on the cross was a ransom paid to the devil. Regardless, they all believed that a debt had to be paid (to God or the devil) on account of man's sins.

 

So the popular legends, myth and tales have imbibed the authors of the New Testament..

Till the belief in "the virginal birth " appear..

The Jewish culture wasn't interested in legends and myths. When the authors of the Apostle's Creed say "Virgin Mary," they really mean a virgin named Mary.

[October's Autumn]

Crucifixions were a dime a dozen at that time in history. I don't know the numbers but many, many people were killed by that method (or the more horrific method of impaling).