|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:28 am
From an article I wrote a while back. Discuss. Originally posted here.1 Corinthians 15:3: For I handed onto you as of first importance what I in turn had received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. This verse here appears to be the very crux of substitutionary atonement, the idea that Christ was some sort of blood offering to appease God. Since Christ is the perfect image of the Father, a literal human sacrifice does not make sense. Is it not also written by Paul that no one can please God? So why hold to the notion that Christ’s death was to appease God? I can imagine someone saying “God demands justice, he’s not going to let things slide.” A just God is one that has mercy, for if there was no mercy, then there would be no justice. Was it not said by Jesus that if someone strikes you on the check, to give him the other? If his Father demanded retribution, then why would Jesus ask his followers to not demand retribution? I think the entire idea of substitutionary atonement is flawed since the answers to these questions make God out to be a monster. Let’s relook at the passage again. “Christ died for our sins”. Let’s re-examine what sin is. Sin mean “missing the mark” implying one of two things: being an inch or two off target or aiming at the wrong target all together. Now let’s go over the mythos of Christ’s death. The story makes it clear that Christ died. How did he die? He died the shameful death of a political traitor. What this death just? According to the mythos, no, he was not a political leader. He was killed because of what he was perceived to be. He was believed to be a threat to those in power, particularly those who used the law to persecute others, much like children who will tattle on others as a way to deflect others from seeing their own shortcomings. So yes Christ died for our sins in that he was killed because we were aiming at the wrong target. Rather than looking at our own sins and trying to correct them, we not only refused to do this but point out everyone else’s faults. This mindset drove us to the point where we even accused the one who is faultless, the Christ. Now this leads to the next part and the most important part, who were they sacrificing Christ to? If it wasn’t to God, then who was it? It was the system, the god of this world, whatever name you wish to give it. It was to appease that which was created to serve us. Whether it be the Laws of Moses or the Laws of the Gods. It was purely retributive vengeance, the eye for an eye mindset that dominated the ancient world. If the Law was broken, then “justice” had to be delivered and it had to be delivered swiftly. This was how the system worked. Now while the important part is that he died, the most important part is that he was resurrected. His death appeased the gods of this world, but his resurrection showed that they did not have the absolute power as they would have their followers believe they had. For if the system was perfect and absolute, then Christ should have remained dead. His death and resurrection shows that one does not remain dead to shame. That even if there are consequences for one’s actions, life continues. Shame is only temporary and if one holds to what is true, shame has no power over you. In this ancient society, to be shamed or to be in a shameful class was to be considered dead. So yes Christ died for our sins but not as a sacrifice in substitution for our sins, rather as a victim caught up in our deformed views of “justice”.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:53 am
These are actually the questions that have laid unsettled in my mind for awhile now...
TBH, I haven't asked them out loud for fear of further stigmatizing my self with the heretical title. It's all good online and semi-anonymous, but real life is a different matter... I get tired of hearing, "I'm praying for you and your family..." or "You have opened yourself to a demon of confusion..." and the other similar tripe that goes along...
But really.... if I would believe that God is all Loving, Merciful, and full of Grace... there is no reason whatsoever for a sacrifice... If He must have one, He is not the God I want to serve...
The only conclusion I feel I have solidly drawn for myself is that humanity is all about symbols... It wasn't that God needed a substitution to accept us, but that we needed it to accept that God could take us (generally speaking)....
Yet, that doesn't quite hold water for me either, because the people who were responsible for the Crucifixion weren't "sacrificing" Jesus, there intention was to simply to remove Him...
If you were to take the Sacrificial take on the whole thing, wouldn't the old ways of sacrifice come into play. A certain attitude must be present within the people presenting the sacrifice for it even to mean anything and be acceptable?
I don't believe that Christ was a sacrifice at all... I believe He meant to be an example. He made the ultimate example in showing Love for everyone, including those who murdered Him. He loved the unlovable when any normal person in that situation would succumb to hate for the injustice being done to them...
As for the "having died for our sins"... I completely agree, and have come to a similar conclusion about the "target"... You put it much more elegantly than I could though, and have helped me zero in exactly how I feel by putting it to written word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:11 am
Eltanin Sadachbia These are actually the questions that have laid unsettled in my mind for awhile now... TBH, I haven't asked them out loud for fear of further stigmatizing my self with the heretical title. It's all good online and semi-anonymous, but real life is a different matter... I get tired of hearing, "I'm praying for you and your family..." or "You have opened yourself to a demon of confusion..." and the other similar tripe that goes along... I can understand this. Quote: But really.... if I would believe that God is all Loving, Merciful, and full of Grace... there is no reason whatsoever for a sacrifice... If He must have one, He is not the God I want to serve... Amen. Quote: The only conclusion I feel I have solidly drawn for myself is that humanity is all about symbols... It wasn't that God needed a substitution to accept us, but that we needed it to accept that God could take us (generally speaking).... The world is a series of symbols. The confusion comes when the symbol gets confused with the message and essence. Quote: Yet, that doesn't quite hold water for me either, because the people who were responsible for the Crucifixion weren't "sacrificing" Jesus, there intention was to simply to remove Him... Sacrificing him to the Laws. The Laws had to be upheld, the system had to be upheld. It was a sacrifice to prove the system was "perfect". It wasn't. Quote: If you were to take the Sacrificial take on the whole thing, wouldn't the old ways of sacrifice come into play. A certain attitude must be present within the people presenting the sacrifice for it even to mean anything and be acceptable? The law is of God(s). This person disobeyed (the) God(s). The law says the person has to die. So we sacrifice the person to the Law. It's mindlessness when you get right down to it, tribalistic ritualism. "It our custom to do it this way and damn it, even if evidence says otherwise, we are going to ******** do it this way." Or that's how I see it. Quote: I don't believe that Christ was a sacrifice at all... I believe He meant to be an example. He made the ultimate example in showing Love for everyone, including those who murdered Him. He loved the unlovable when any normal person in that situation would succumb to hate for the injustice being done to them... Sounds good. Quote: As for the "having died for our sins"... I completely agree, and have come to a similar conclusion about the "target"... You put it much more elegantly than I could though, and have helped me zero in exactly how I feel by putting it to written word. Why thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:19 am
Eltanin Sadachbia I don't believe that Christ was a sacrifice at all... I believe He meant to be an example. He made the ultimate example in showing Love for everyone, including those who murdered Him. He loved the unlovable when any normal person in that situation would succumb to hate for the injustice being done to them... I agree with this. To part of my own thoughts on this, Jesus wasn't really the sacrificial lamb as some have said. Who would he be sacrificed to? At the time, the Romans were pagan, not Christian or Jewish, so if the cross was a sacrifice, it would not be to YHVH. It would have been to Jupiter or Pluto or maybe even Mars. So that thinking, in regards to historical context always seemed a little off putting. Then, if you go by the Trinitarian belief, which makes little sense to me when I look at the verses that people try to use to justify it, you get a weird picture. One which anti-Christians are quick to jump on, only they tend to whine about it. The trinitarian is: God is God. Jesus is God made flesh. The Holy Spirit is God who impregnated Mary who begat Jesus. Now, if Jesus was the sacrifice, then he really would have been sacrificing himself to save himself. As we all have seen the stories of Noah and Lot, then we know that God could just smite the sinners and be done with it. Why sacrifice himself to save himself? "God, why has thou forsaken me," is a popular phrase you hear a lot, and if that statement is true, then why would Jesus who was God, say it? As I and a number of others on Gaia throughout the years have actually posted, there were at least two other people there on crosses. If God had this big spectacle laid out, then why have two common criminals die at the same time? The cross was really nothing special as far as executions go. I think the other way was impalement, which would be a very interesting symbol if that was the method of execution. I do not think that the execution is the important part and no matter how many times people try to shout me down for it, I will never agree that it was a sacrifice or a bridge builder or anything. The important part of Jesus, I think, is the lessons that he taught. Those are hugely more important than being tortured and killed like many criminals of that day and age. As RMCdra commented on, the resurrection was very important, but I think that even without it, one could gain invaluable information from the teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:35 am
jaden kendam As RMCdra commented on, the resurrection was very important, but I think that even without it, one could gain invaluable information from the teachings. True but to me the resurrection is the penultimate lesson. Even if the world says you are wrong and wants to shame the s**t out of you, if you are with what is true, the shaming has no bearing on that truth. It's still there, it can't be killed. It will resurrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:13 am
Romans 8 seems to elaborate on this more:
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
It's known that Romans was written later in Paul's life and it was supposed to be a "summary" of his other letters. Assuming no interpolations, the OP's argument is still consistent with this passage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
