Page 2 of 14

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:37 am
by Harry Marks
Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see more than one Jesus in scriptures. One moral, the other not so much.

I also have some problem with it, especially his no divorce stance and his substitutionary punishment endorsement.
The stance of Jesus against divorce, whether or not he really took it (Matthew should always be considered suspect on legalism) is usually seen today to have been a rejection of husbands abandoning their dependent wives. Accepting divorce in such an economically imbalanced society could be seen as putting all the pressure on wives to please their husbands (there were no alimony arrangements, at least for peasants without powerful clans behind the wife).

It is a problem for many topics, including divorce, if we take it as a "once for all time" pronouncement. We have to make allowances for cultural differences, and different meanings in different times.

The current scholarly view is that Jesus did not endorse substitutiary punishment. "My body, broken for you" and "my blood, shed for you" or even "for the remission of sins" has many possible interpretations besides the substitutiary version in Hebrews (and even there atonement is not presented as "taking the place of someone deserving to die" as we tend to hear it today). Up until Augustine the most common view of atonement was that it healed the relationship between God and humans by demonstrating divine love and sanctifying a new covenant.

It helps to understand that the Jewish view of atonement, informing the Day of Atonement in the high holy days, was that a sacrifice is a way of sanctifying the encounter of repentance, rather than a payment for a debt owed on account of sin. Sacrifice to seal a pact (or covenant - same thing) was very common in that part of the world going back more than a millennium. The common meal eaten from the sacrificed animal was as important as the death of the animal.

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:53 am
by Gnostic Bishop
Harry Marks wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see more than one Jesus in scriptures. One moral, the other not so much.

I also have some problem with it, especially his no divorce stance and his substitutionary punishment endorsement.
The stance of Jesus against divorce, whether or not he really took it (Matthew should always be considered suspect on legalism) is usually seen today to have been a rejection of husbands abandoning their dependent wives. Accepting divorce in such an economically imbalanced society could be seen as putting all the pressure on wives to please their husbands (there were no alimony arrangements, at least for peasants without powerful clans behind the wife).

It is a problem for many topics, including divorce, if we take it as a "once for all time" pronouncement. We have to make allowances for cultural differences, and different meanings in different times.

The current scholarly view is that Jesus did not endorse substitutiary punishment. "My body, broken for you" and "my blood, shed for you" or even "for the remission of sins" has many possible interpretations besides the substitutiary version in Hebrews (and even there atonement is not presented as "taking the place of someone deserving to die" as we tend to hear it today). Up until Augustine the most common view of atonement was that it healed the relationship between God and humans by demonstrating divine love and sanctifying a new covenant.

It helps to understand that the Jewish view of atonement, informing the Day of Atonement in the high holy days, was that a sacrifice is a way of sanctifying the encounter of repentance, rather than a payment for a debt owed on account of sin. Sacrifice to seal a pact (or covenant - same thing) was very common in that part of the world going back more than a millennium. The common meal eaten from the sacrificed animal was as important as the death of the animal.
It is hard to speak of what Jesus taught if you reject what scriptures say he taught before even entering the discussion.

Let's go with straight logic and common sense then. Not a bad idea.

It is immoral to prevent anyone who wants a divorce from having it as that would prevente people, male and female, from seeking a loving partner to live life with. This would be regardless of what one is seeking a divorce for, from abuse to just the realization that they are living in a loveless relationship.

To deny someone love, for any reason, be it religious or cultural is immoral.

As to substitutionary atonement, regardless of what we might think the Jews thought, we have to recognize that Yahweh/Jesus initiated that policy even before the world was created and is an immoral policy. We have to assume that the Jews who wrote the O.T. were supporting that injustice or they would not have put it in the O.T.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility is immoral.

Regards
DL

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:48 pm
by Harry Marks
Gnostic Bishop wrote:
Harry Marks wrote: The current scholarly view is that Jesus did not endorse substitutiary punishment. "My body, broken for you" and "my blood, shed for you" or even "for the remission of sins" has many possible interpretations besides the substitutiary version in Hebrews (and even there atonement is not presented as "taking the place of someone deserving to die" as we tend to hear it today). Up until Augustine the most common view of atonement was that it healed the relationship between God and humans by demonstrating divine love and sanctifying a new covenant.

It helps to understand that the Jewish view of atonement, informing the Day of Atonement in the high holy days, was that a sacrifice is a way of sanctifying the encounter of repentance, rather than a payment for a debt owed on account of sin. Sacrifice to seal a pact (or covenant - same thing) was very common in that part of the world going back more than a millennium. The common meal eaten from the sacrificed animal was as important as the death of the animal.
It is hard to speak of what Jesus taught if you reject what scriptures say he taught before even entering the discussion.
Well, whether or not it makes things "difficult" the evidence says we have texts which are not straight journalistic history, if only based on the internal differences. They are efforts to present a religion through a story of a life, and we can guess which sayings actually reflect Jesus' words, but we cannot be sure.

You may be familiar with non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. If we go with those Gnostic texts as having the same authority as the canonical Gospels, the result is a rather different picture of Jesus. Likewise you may know that John 8 features a story not present in the most ancient texts, namely the woman caught in adultery ("He who is without sin may cast the first stone.") Unfortunately there is no reason to think it is an authentic saying. We just have to guess the best we can.
Gnostic Bishop wrote: It is immoral to prevent anyone who wants a divorce from having it as that would prevente people, male and female, from seeking a loving partner to live life with. This would be regardless of what one is seeking a divorce for, from abuse to just the realization that they are living in a loveless relationship.
Well, I might tend to agree in a country with a social safety net and pretty good wages for women. And even in the context of Jesus' day, I suspect it would have made more sense to say a man had to continue supporting his wife even if he didn't want to live with her. (Of course, given the times, when women were expected to please their husbands as a matter of his rights, that might have seemed wildly impractical).

But I also think it might be a good idea to consider the relative frequencies of people thinking they have found a new love when all they have really found is the novelty of a new relationship. Christianity tends to emphasize the rewards to making things work with the old relationship, and nowadays we try to offer coaching in the skills needed to keep love alive. But if divorce is what is called for, and sometimes it is, then it ought to be an option.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:As to substitutionary atonement, regardless of what we might think the Jews thought, we have to recognize that Yahweh/Jesus initiated that policy even before the world was created and is an immoral policy.
Umm, why do we need to recognize something which has not been established? Sure, some people have believed it, but Christianity includes an enormous breadth of different beliefs.

What I was saying is that the early Christians probably did not believe in a substitutiary penalty. That is a later theory read into the texts, and probably not the best interpretation of the texts. The closest any of them come is the book of Hebrews with its "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Now try how that sounds through our understanding of ancient practice, in which the "shedding of blood" was to consecrate a pact, rather than to pay a penalty for a crime.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:We have to assume that the Jews who wrote the O.T. were supporting that injustice or they would not have put it in the O.T.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility is immoral.
As far as I know, there is no text in the OT that even seems to say sacrifice is in place of a penalty. Perhaps I am missing something.

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:19 pm
by Gnostic Bishop
Harry Marks wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:
Harry Marks wrote: The current scholarly view is that Jesus did not endorse substitutiary punishment. "My body, broken for you" and "my blood, shed for you" or even "for the remission of sins" has many possible interpretations besides the substitutiary version in Hebrews (and even there atonement is not presented as "taking the place of someone deserving to die" as we tend to hear it today). Up until Augustine the most common view of atonement was that it healed the relationship between God and humans by demonstrating divine love and sanctifying a new covenant.

It helps to understand that the Jewish view of atonement, informing the Day of Atonement in the high holy days, was that a sacrifice is a way of sanctifying the encounter of repentance, rather than a payment for a debt owed on account of sin. Sacrifice to seal a pact (or covenant - same thing) was very common in that part of the world going back more than a millennium. The common meal eaten from the sacrificed animal was as important as the death of the animal.
It is hard to speak of what Jesus taught if you reject what scriptures say he taught before even entering the discussion.
Well, whether or not it makes things "difficult" the evidence says we have texts which are not straight journalistic history, if only based on the internal differences. They are efforts to present a religion through a story of a life, and we can guess which sayings actually reflect Jesus' words, but we cannot be sure.

You may be familiar with non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. If we go with those Gnostic texts as having the same authority as the canonical Gospels, the result is a rather different picture of Jesus. Likewise you may know that John 8 features a story not present in the most ancient texts, namely the woman caught in adultery ("He who is without sin may cast the first stone.") Unfortunately there is no reason to think it is an authentic saying. We just have to guess the best we can.
Gnostic Bishop wrote: It is immoral to prevent anyone who wants a divorce from having it as that would prevente people, male and female, from seeking a loving partner to live life with. This would be regardless of what one is seeking a divorce for, from abuse to just the realization that they are living in a loveless relationship.
Well, I might tend to agree in a country with a social safety net and pretty good wages for women. And even in the context of Jesus' day, I suspect it would have made more sense to say a man had to continue supporting his wife even if he didn't want to live with her. (Of course, given the times, when women were expected to please their husbands as a matter of his rights, that might have seemed wildly impractical).

But I also think it might be a good idea to consider the relative frequencies of people thinking they have found a new love when all they have really found is the novelty of a new relationship. Christianity tends to emphasize the rewards to making things work with the old relationship, and nowadays we try to offer coaching in the skills needed to keep love alive. But if divorce is what is called for, and sometimes it is, then it ought to be an option.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:As to substitutionary atonement, regardless of what we might think the Jews thought, we have to recognize that Yahweh/Jesus initiated that policy even before the world was created and is an immoral policy.
Umm, why do we need to recognize something which has not been established? Sure, some people have believed it, but Christianity includes an enormous breadth of different beliefs.

What I was saying is that the early Christians probably did not believe in a substitutiary penalty. That is a later theory read into the texts, and probably not the best interpretation of the texts. The closest any of them come is the book of Hebrews with its "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Now try how that sounds through our understanding of ancient practice, in which the "shedding of blood" was to consecrate a pact, rather than to pay a penalty for a crime.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:We have to assume that the Jews who wrote the O.T. were supporting that injustice or they would not have put it in the O.T.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility is immoral.
As far as I know, there is no text in the OT that even seems to say sacrifice is in place of a penalty. Perhaps I am missing something.
I know of none either. Even if there were, it would likely not be for a person to be sacrificed but an animal to be consumes at the party given to celebrate the Jews forgiving each other.

They used two lambs in their sacrifice. One to release and carry the sins away and the other to eat.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

That quote is the only one I know of that hints at human/Jesus being chosen as sacrifice.

It is also God saying that he is subject to asking for and accepting a bribe to change his usual desire to punish the guilty and accept the punishment of the innocent.

I wonder how many would vote for such a vile criminal judge.

Regards
DL

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:04 pm
by Chris OConnor
How would an abbreviated bible work as a BookTalk.org discussion? Also, I have to wonder where we'd put such a discussion forum. Non-Fiction, Fiction or in our "Special Forums" section?

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:32 am
by geo
Harry Marks wrote:. . . As far as I know, there is no text in the OT that even seems to say sacrifice is in place of a penalty. Perhaps I am missing something.
I'm not following too closely, and there may be something I'm missing, but the very term "scapegoat" has its etymological roots in the book of Leviticus.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel.

— Leviticus 16:8
The idea—and practice—of scapegoat goes back thousands of years. The Greeks sacrificed animals to the gods and there are many (mostly unconfirmed) reports of sacrificing a king (or stand-in), allowing him to don the robes of whatever king or god for a period of time, and then kill him in a ritual sacrifice to keep the good times going. Even if human sacrifice was rare, the idea of it pervades many of our myths.
"They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and seat him upon the king's throne, and give him the king's raiment, and let him lord it and drink and run riot and use the king's concubines during these days, and no man prevents him from doing just what he likes. But afterwards they strip and scourge and crucify him."
- Dio Chrysostom, a Greek orator, philosopher, historian
The resemblance of Jesus's crucifixion to the earlier ritual sacrifices is glaringly obvious. The idea that Jesus died for our sins is strangely compelling to us, even today, many centuries later.

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:32 am
by Gnostic Bishop
Chris OConnor wrote:How would an abbreviated bible work as a BookTalk.org discussion? Also, I have to wonder where we'd put such a discussion forum. Non-Fiction, Fiction or in our "Special Forums" section?
Non-fiction for sure, otherwise, follow your bliss.

Regards
DL

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:36 am
by Gnostic Bishop
geo wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:. . . As far as I know, there is no text in the OT that even seems to say sacrifice is in place of a penalty. Perhaps I am missing something.
I'm not following too closely, and there may be something I'm missing, but the very term "scapegoat" has its etymological roots in the book of Leviticus.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel.

— Leviticus 16:8
The idea—and practice—of scapegoat goes back thousands of years. The Greeks sacrificed animals to the gods and there are many (mostly unconfirmed) reports of sacrificing a king (or stand-in), allowing him to don the robes of whatever king or god for a period of time, and then kill him in a ritual sacrifice to keep the good times going. Even if human sacrifice was rare, the idea of it pervades many of our myths.
"They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and seat him upon the king's throne, and give him the king's raiment, and let him lord it and drink and run riot and use the king's concubines during these days, and no man prevents him from doing just what he likes. But afterwards they strip and scourge and crucify him."
- Dio Chrysostom, a Greek orator, philosopher, historian
The resemblance of Jesus's crucifixion to the earlier ritual sacrifices is glaringly obvious. The idea that Jesus died for our sins is strangely compelling to us, even today, many centuries later.
True, but it is quite an ego trip to think that a God would die just to reverse his unjust condemnation instead of his just forgiving us outright without that farcical situation that ignores that God cannot die in the first place.

Regards
DL

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:53 pm
by Harry Marks
geo wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:. . . As far as I know, there is no text in the OT that even seems to say sacrifice is in place of a penalty. Perhaps I am missing something.
I'm not following too closely, and there may be something I'm missing, but the very term "scapegoat" has its etymological roots in the book of Leviticus.
It is a constant problem to go back to the original social setting and try to make sense of writings which have been given particular interpretations later. For example, we use "scapegoat" to refer to someone who is abused in place of the truly guilty party, with everyone pretending it is the scapegoat's fault. Clearly that is not exactly what is going on in Leviticus 16, but it colors how we hear the passage.

Perhaps it is meant to say that killing the scapegoat takes punishment meant for the community? Well, no, that is not what is said. The scapegoat is clearly stated to "carry the sins" of the community away from them. It is a transport mechanism for cleansing (also clearly stated) the community of impurity.

Note that there is no implication that the sacrifice is in proportion to the sin, or otherwise corresponds to the penalty. The focus seems to be on impurity. With a little imagination that makes sense - sins build up a nasty atmosphere of injury, resentment and defensiveness in the community. "He got drunk and vomited on my garden!" "That man has been eyeing my wife! I saw it!" So the community has a ceremony to repent, ask forgiveness and "send away" all the sins.
geo wrote:The idea—and practice—of scapegoat goes back thousands of years. The Greeks sacrificed animals to the gods and there are many (mostly unconfirmed) reports of sacrificing a king (or stand-in),
Yes, sacrifice was a pervasive practice. At least some were human sacrifices - Moloch seems to have preferred the child of the one sacrificing, the Celts seem to have preferred burning criminals, and the Minoans probably expected the bulls to do a number on the young people from tributary cities that they put into the arena with them, although eventually bull-dancing turned the confrontation into an art form.

I am not well-enough read on the subject to categorically state that the Hebrews did not consider the sacrifice to be a substitute payment. However, I do know that we read that into early church NT texts based mainly on theologizing by later readers. If it is in the NT texts (with the possible exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews) it is implicit, being understood by everyone but not actually stated.

And I know that sacrifice to sanctify an agreement was pervasive in the Bronze Age, with many references to attest it. The equally prevalent idea that a sacrifice would "please the gods" and influence them to act favorably is surely embedded in much of the Hebrew practice, but it is surprisingly absent from the "theory" presented there. Perhaps it was edited out by the one who pulled the material together in the histories, often thought to be Ezra or his followers. Perhaps the two views of sacrifice were closely intertwined, with some sense that gods enforce oaths and so a sacrifice at a ceremony of mutual commitment made perfect sense.
geo wrote:
" no man prevents him from doing just what he likes. But afterwards they strip and scourge and crucify him."
- Dio Chrysostom
The resemblance of Jesus's crucifixion to the earlier ritual sacrifices is glaringly obvious.
Not to me. I think it is much more like the case of Spartacus, whose followers were crucified in their hundreds along the roads of Italy, bodies left as a warning to slaves not to rebel. Crucifixion is mainly just a cruel death with its cruelty on display.
geo wrote:The idea that Jesus died for our sins is strangely compelling to us, even today, many centuries later.
Substitutiary death is compelling in whichever story it is found. Damon and Pythias, Horatio at the bridge, Leonidas at Thermopylae, Tale of Two Cities, the Ghanaian-American who recently died trying to rescue a fifth person from a fire after having rescued four already from the fire, well, you get the idea.

What bothers me about it is that the pathos of this compelling notion took over, in part due to the influence of the church which created a system of supernatural mechanism under its control. If you just read the early part of Acts you will see that to the early church, resurrection was the meaningful phenomenon, and the crucifixion is mainly meaningful in its light: Jesus died a horrible and humiliating death at the hands of authority, and then love won after all. Once you have seen that, the gospels never read the same again.

Re: Have you read the whole Bible?

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:07 pm
by Gnostic Bishop
Harry Marks wrote: Jesus died a horrible and humiliating death at the hands of authority, and then love won after all. Once you have seen that, the gospels never read the same again.
Love won?

Perhaps, but moral action certainly lost when people are told to shed their responsibility for their own sins and let an innocent man suffer for them.

No moral person would teach that to their children today.

They would be taught that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility is immoral.

That is more like what you would teach your children. No?

Regards
DL