Gretta Vosper - Atheist Christian

[youkrst]

Lol Plato schmato

What about Bronson as Chato?

[Harry Marks]

Jesus could not have invented the Christ Myth because it is a work of community, with Jesus as its idealised perfect anointed saviour.

Well, my reading is that the Christ Myth did not emerge whole, but grew even during the time between early NT writings and later ones. One tenable hypothesis for its point of crystallization into a specific idea is that Jesus decided he was the Messiah, and confronted Rome to show, Canute-like, that Messiah does not mean military victor. This is a version of Crossan's reading.

I think it took a relatively complex civilization, one that could give rise to Stoicism, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero, to recognize the possibility that the "forces of good" were best seen in ordinary peasant society.

I disagree with the theory of Roman primacy.

Even aside from the issue of roots in civilizations further East, I did not mean to assign Rome in particular with any special catalytic role for the reversal I was claiming.

This is a specific case of the Axial Age transformation from community cult, often structured to keep control over populations and key institutions, to individualized systems of understanding and values. Buddhism is the ur-transformation, but even Buddhism did not identify with the marginalized and the untrained. Christianity, as seen in the Epistles of James, Galatians and First Corinthians, saw itself as essentially located in egalitarian community.

The overall theme of the Bible is the imagined world history of grace, fall and redemption.

That is a New Testament view of the Bible's "overall theme." Law and Prophets do not see the world in terms of Adam and Eve, but of covenant, violation and possible redemption. Think of Jezebel and Elijah, not serpents and apples.

How ironic that in a supposedly New Testament view you cite reference to Genesis.

Paul certainly referred to Jesus as the "New Adam" and saw the atonement as an overcoming of the Fall. I meant to point out that this was not found in the OT. IMO it leapt forth out of the effort by Paul to explain why the works of the Law required by the Jerusalem branch of Christianity did not actually apply to Gentile converts.
Paul, half-Jew, half-Roman and entirely Hellenized, saw a gap between the legalistic practice of Judaism in his day and the spiritual vision of Christianity. By forcing the issue for Gentiles, he created the need for a narrative of supernatural redemptive action, independent of human compliance. That is where his recognition of the principal of Grace comes from.

The prophets did see the world in the terms of grace, fall and redemption, for example with Isaiah’s vision of the suffering servant. The covenant of God is a covenant of grace, implicit in the Old Testament law, as Paul argues in his assertion that Christ was present in Moses. The prophetic call to return to a covenant is presented as a way to obtain redemption.

I think "unmerited favor" is present in prophetic literature, partly in the declarations that God is longsuffering and willing to forgive, partly in the passages stating that God will redeem God's people (the suffering servant passages are not generally interpreted as being of that genre, these days). But the covenant clearly spelled out expectations and even penalties by God for violation, which is why it was a covenant. Redemption appeared as a theme before the Fall had a serious role in the narrative, and Grace is only vaguely perceived (for that matter, Paul is quite vague about it but less so than the prophets).

Detachment, yes, embodied in a passion for questioning everything. But while Plato intuited that some ideal forms for ethics existed, he failed to provide either a program for uncovering them or an outline of their basic nature.

Plato’s four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, discipline and justice do contain an implicit program. Mind, heart, guts and spine form human character, and align well to these Platonic virtues. Many of the dialogues contain extended discussion of these ethical topics.

You are helping me clarify my thinking on this. I think what I sensed was a gap between ideal forms, as exemplified by geometry, and the actual shape of justice. I agree that Plato's cardinal virtues offer much guidance for progress toward enlightenment and moral elevation. What they do not do is spell out a way to see the forms in practice. It is, as you say, an implicit practice.
I am, myself, captivated by the process of seeking progress - it is the fitting goal of human existence, as far as I am concerned. But it leaves me highly skeptical about forms and the geometric key to enlightenment.

That is an interesting take, seeing Athens and Sparta as the respective sources of humanism and totalitarianism.

Thanks, but I certainly did not invent it.

His elitist world view told him that the learned ones, guided by a genuine search for truth rather than a commercial search for a successful bit of oratory, as the Sophists practiced, would bring a kind of redemption. But he had no more clue how this would happen than Hegel had as to how the relentless generation of synthesis would eventually unite all understanding.

You are saying here that Socrates imagined redemptive truth in the way Hegel imagined synthesis of the understanding. This is why Socrates is compared to Christ, due to their shared focus on redemption through truth.

Yes, and all three of them face a problem of a big gap between their suggested method and the claimed result.

[Harry Marks]

Let all people learn as many skills as possible
They will see that the beauty they learn in geometry is connected to all things
No skill is an island

Okay, I can get behind that.

[youkrst]

would you limit yourself to just one kind of food?

you're missing out if you do.

would you limit yourself to only one kind of music?

you're missing out if you do.

would you limit yourself to one mythology?

you're missing out if you do.

consider language, they say you don't really begin to appreciate it until you can speak at least two.

i love my atheist heroes as much as my christian mystic heroes

i love Alvin Boyd Kuhn AND i love Douglas Adams

why the hell do people go through life like dried up prunes when there is life giving refreshment everywhere.

what madness has possessed people to say no to the good food, music and mythology, the good art and literature of all people.

takin' care of business, it's all mine!
takin' care of business and workin' overtime.... work out...

[Harry Marks]

And in related news

How can the meaning and purpose of life be bottled under one brand name? – John Yemma, Editor at Large, Christian Science Monitor (Nov 2014)

[youkrst]

Hail Xenu

but only if he has a blue collar (further BTO reference)

Oh Canada

[Flann 5]

Robert Tulip wrote:


Flann 5 wrote:
what is specifically Gnostic in Mark's gospel



Others in this thread have already drawn attention to Mark’s teaching that the parables are for the ignorant masses while the secret teachings of the Kingdom of God are for initiates only. This illustrates that just as the seed sown in fertile soil is allegory for teachings which encounter a receptive ear,



I agree that these are evidences of gnostic influence, or at least of the sort of spiritual elitism that gave gnosticism a bad odor among the bishops who relied on a popular base.

Thanks for you input into the discussion here Harry
Your position here is a milder version of Robert's which is that the parables were or became grounds for spiritual elitism, and for Robert not you,hidden coded gnostic truth and astrological meanings to do with a pagan solar deity,and ages such as Pisces and Aquarius.

It's Robert's position I want to address here in relation to the use of parables by Jesus. This is a central plank of the whole codes and hidden meanings thesis of Robert's along with the elite initiates and ignorant masses explanation.

Here's the quote in Mark 4:11 where Jesus says to his disciples; "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God
,but those who are outside get everything in parables,so that while seeing they may see and not perceive and while hearing they may hear and not understand,otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

And as a reference point here's the whole of chapter 4 of Mark.
http://www.biblehub.com/nasb/mark/4.htm

For context here Mark is adding a quote from Isaiah " that while seeing they may see and not perceive etc"

Isaiah is the messenger to a recalcitrant people in his time and is told to go and deliver the message but to understand in advance that it will be rejected anyway by them.

While the philosophical naturalist weeds out the supernatural in advance, nevertheless the context is of Jesus performing many miraculous signs and as John says in his gospel,despite this they largely did not believe in him. Then John also quotes this citation from Isaiah in explanation.

We never get the impression in the gospels that Jesus is arbitrarily rejecting people but it's rather of open invitation to all, for which many examples could be quoted.

So he had disciples and multitudes of others who followed him for various motives and a core of religious sects and leaders who were outright hostile.

What Jesus says those outside the disciples are excluded from is the mystery of the kingdom of God. What is this?
In Mark chapter 4 we are given 3 examples of what Jesus explains to his disciples the kingdom is like. Here it's different seeds working with varying effects and results.

So it seems more like explanation of how this kingdom takes root or not and spreads,at least in these examples.

Add to this that many parables of Jesus' were readily understood without interpretation. Thus when the 'sinners' gather around Jesus and the Pharisees complain, both parties can very easily understand the meaning of the parables of the lost coin,lost sheep and prodigal son.
Likewise when he tells the parable of the vineyard and the wicked tenants to hearers including the Pharisees they "perceived that he spoke this parable against them."

So it seems Mark is speaking more narrowly of explanation of parables in relation to the process by which the kingdom grows and develops. That is to say that not all the parables he spoke pertain to the mystery of the kingdom e.g. it's source and development and culmination.

Also in the sermon on the mount he did not speak in parables to the multitude and there are many passages of personal encounters where he doesn't use parables but ordinary language.

So what was withheld from those who were not disciples were explanations in relation to the nature of the kingdom of God.

As in Mark 4 the gospel writers often provide the interpretation of the parables which are available to all who may read them.
Jesus' saying "the kingdom of God is within you" is often taken as a text supporting Gnostic notions of the divine spark within etc.
If we look at the parable of the sower here in Mark we see that the seed is the word of God preached by Jesus and the soil the hearts of the hearers.

Yet not all receive the word well and it could not reasonably be said for those who did not, that the kingdom was within them, so how can we understand this?

Here's how some commentators approach this. http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/17-21.htm

It's debatable here whether the best translation is the kingdom of God is"within you" or "is in your midst".I'm not an expert on N.T. Greek grammar but think that taking other related passages into account,that in your midst or among you, fits better.

It seems to me then that the best explanation is that as Jesus said in general terms of his hearers, that it was an evil generation unsympathetic to truth that was challenging morally, and obtuse in rejecting his claims despite witnessing stupendous miracles performed before their eyes.

The gospel writers provide the interpretations in their gospels showing it's not a universal device to exclude this knowledge from any interested in the meaning.

As far as elitism is concerned we are told that the common people heard him gladly whether they really believed or not, and it was the actual elites who were most hostile.

And the code advocates need to demonstrate how these interpretations of the parables which the gospel writers provide, match their gnostic self realization or astro-theological explanations.

Sometimes supernatural claims are symbolic of something far more prosaic than any secret system of interpretation will show. For example, Matthew is full of stories that are rather transparently just made up to show fulfillment of some scripture (he has Jesus on two donkeys just to match a language glitch in a passage in the prophets, for example) and some, like the feeding of the multitude, trace back to Old Testament precedents that pre-date any Hindu/Buddhist or Zoroastrian roots.

I obviously see no need to find explanations for the supernatural but accept the miraculous as it's presented. You may be interested in how this apparent glitch is addressed by supporters of the divine inspiration element in scripture.
Eric Lyons in his harmonization suggests some interesting thoughts about the donkey/s and entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
The colt foal had never been ridden and it's mother was brought as emotional support. Whether you accept this explanation or not it strikes me as being in keeping with Jesus character.

I remember reading an account by an English horse racing jockey of how he entered a church to find the speaker 'coincidentally' speaking on this account which greatly impressed him, as one dealing with unbroken horses and suchlike.

Here are Lyon's thoughts on this. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=773

Since,as you point out, the Exodus account of the feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness is arguably very ancient. it would probably need some research to determine who may be borrowing from whom, as well as trying to date these things to primary sources.
Even some Hindu writings post date Christianity and can be shown to be borrowing from it.
In the gospels it was this account in Exodus that immediately sprang to mind for Jesus' hearers.


I don't take you to be one looking for reasons to reject the accounts out of hand, and appreciate that you and Dwill are fair minded in investigating the origins of Christianity, with all views and explanations on the table.

Here's that post on the use of parables by Jesus.

[Harry Marks]

This illustrates that just as the seed sown in fertile soil is allegory for teachings which encounter a receptive ear,

I agree that these are evidences of gnostic influence, or at least of the sort of spiritual elitism that gave gnosticism a bad odor among the bishops who relied on a popular base.

Thanks for you input into the discussion here Harry
Your position here is a milder version of Robert's
[with] elite initiates and ignorant masses.

Here's the quote in Mark 4:11 where Jesus says to his disciples; "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God
,but those who are outside get everything in parables,so that while seeing they may see and not perceive and while hearing they may hear and not understand,otherwise they might return and be forgiven."
For context here Mark is adding a quote from Isaiah " that while seeing they may see and not perceive etc"

We never get the impression in the gospels that Jesus is arbitrarily rejecting people but it's rather of open invitation to all, for which many examples could be quoted.

What Jesus says those outside the disciples are excluded from is the mystery of the kingdom of God. What is this?

As far as elitism is concerned we are told that the common people heard him gladly whether they really believed or not, and it was the actual elites who were most hostile.

I think the Gospels want to have it both ways. Both acclamation and rejection appear in all four Gospels. And Luke in particular wants to emphasize the response among common people, but Mark and John are much more likely to emphasize the lack of understanding by the crowds.

Furthermore they put forward conflicting pictures concerning the insider status of the disciples. Mark's portrayal of the dense disciples is well known, some of which makes it into the other Synoptics, and John has his share of that as well.

Since, as you know, I feel no need to harmonize it all, it appears to me that there were conflicting narratives within their intellectual antecedents: both insiders with elite spiritual status, and challenging spiritual truths about which the insiders were sometimes clueless. These reflect both complexities of spiritual understanding and complexities of trying to put things together into a narrative with power to convey spiritual understanding. The same sort of things appear in Buddhist literature, such as the famous "flower sermon" or the finger pointing at the moon.

I rather suspect that Jesus had more than one source of insight about how such things work, and more than one reaction to it (as Gethsemane suggests). In theory, once a person is able to see the oneness of all, and the dense interrelation between his neighbor's welfare and his own, there ought to be no great problem with him taking up his cross and doing things for everyone instead of for himself.

In practice we find our fulfillments in separated, non-integrated ideals, and the focus on one can easily cause problems for others. For example, as a teacher I want my students to sense their own ability to pose important questions and move toward answers, but I also want them to have a lot of trust that I can show them the way, and it is very difficult to weave those two together.

Those who want to see spiritual understanding as a matter of truth, as if one could demonstrate with experiments how the mechanisms work, often get carried away and proclaim that their vision of unified truth means there is a certain right way and that the Masters understand it but it is just hard to explain. I think the truth is that there are many (potentially conflicting) right answers to difficult questions about living out our values, and the spiritual Masters were people who were willing to live with provisional answers because they understood that the inner source of generous spirit is what matters, not the performance of any particular requirement.

And the code advocates need to demonstrate how these interpretations of the parables which the gospel writers provide, match their gnostic self realization or astro-theological explanations.

I think if you cannot see the self-realization material in the Gospel of John you are willfully wearing blinders. I don't buy the astro-theological explanations, but I do appreciate the motivation to seek a different knowledge base for spirituality. I simply do not think there is a single systematic explanation which unifies all the material we have.

The modern fundamentalist notion (perhaps, Protestant notion going back to Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) is that Atonement is the secret to the working of the Kingdom. Mark may have believed that - it is one of many possible explanations of the Markan secret, in which Jesus repeatedly commands people (and demons) who recognize his spiritual power to keep it hush-hush.

But it is an astonishing notion that the overall key to understanding the Kingdom would be kept as secret as it is, throughout the Gospels, rather than proclaimed incessantly in the way modern fundamentalist preachers do, if that was in fact the unifying truth.

My reading of the early literature is that Atonement as mechanism was Paul's stalking horse (and the author of Hebrews misunderstood its spiritual nature) and that most of Christianity still wasn't on board with it by the time Romans was written. I think some version was accepted from the beginning - probably using the "ransom" language from Isaiah and the other major prophets. But a "ransom" interpretation is quite consistent with ransom being a secondary implication, and the key being that the"Kingdom of God is within you" (or "among you" - both work equally well) with martyrdom as the "crowning" demonstration and Resurrection as the astonishing aftermath.

I obviously see no need to find explanations for the supernatural but accept the miraculous as it's presented.

I feel no need to take a position on miracles and the supernatural. As far as I am concerned, "the Greeks seek wisdom and the Jews seek for signs" is sufficient commentary on the subject. What matters to my transformation and joy is my inner response to the love of God, in which we live, and move and have our being. Wisdom may help with that, but in the end I have to accept that sometimes the right is defeated, and belief in signs will not change that realization.

I do try to remind people that the ancient mindset was one which focused on the meaning of "signs", including dreams, comets and stormy weather. It is a modern twist to be primarily concerned with whether they really happened, as if "signs" would change our heart better than love does.

I don't take you to be one looking for reasons to reject the accounts out of hand, and appreciate that you and Dwill are fair minded in investigating the origins of Christianity, with all views and explanations on the table.

Thanks. I value fair-mindedness very highly. I am not too worried about whether I "reject" traditional accounts.

[Flann 5]

I think the Gospels want to have it both ways. Both acclamation and rejection appear in all four Gospels. And Luke in particular wants to emphasize the response among common people, but Mark and John are much more likely to emphasize the lack of understanding by the crowds.

Furthermore they put forward conflicting pictures concerning the insider status of the disciples. Mark's portrayal of the dense disciples is well known, some of which makes it into the other Synoptics, and John has his share of that as well.

Since, as you know, I feel no need to harmonize it all, it appears to me that there were conflicting narratives within their intellectual antecedents: both insiders with elite spiritual status, and challenging spiritual truths about which the insiders were sometimes clueless. These reflect both complexities of spiritual understanding and complexities of trying to put things together into a narrative with power to convey spiritual understanding. The same sort of things appear in Buddhist literature, such as the famous "flower sermon" or the finger pointing at the moon.

Hi Harry. You raise some interesting questions. I think it's recognized by scholars that there are differences of emphasis and purpose between the writers of the four gospels.

Sometimes these are exaggerated by critics. Mark stresses the humanity of Jesus and John his divinity. D.B. tried to assert that Jesus was not the pre-existent son of God in Mark and yet that's a superficial reading of the text as I think I demonstrated, and I don't think it would be difficult to find the humanity of Jesus in John's word made flesh either.

I think there is psychological depth and things true to human nature and life in these depictions that can appear superficially contradictory. In the parable Jesus talks of those who receive the word with joy who wilt when difficulties accompany this.
We often see in politics people swept to power on a wave of charismatic popularity who get dumped next time next out. Even Churchill for all his admirable tenacity and motivational role in the world war suffered this fate.
I don't say that's a perfect example but it's not a necessary contradiction that people can change or be manipulated.

The chief priests and Pharisees feared the people and didn't arrest Jesus in the temple when he pointed to their rejection of John the baptist's testimony because the ordinary people considered John a prophet.
And yet they stirred up a section of the people against Jesus before Pilate after having effected his arrest under cover of darkness.
We are not told the entire populace agreed with this and we have the sympathetic women on the way to Golgotha.
Can people be stirred up irrationally by demagogues? Of course, history is full of it.
So I certainly agree there are differences of emphasis at times between the gospels but I think this can be exaggerated to an extreme degree.

Those who want to see spiritual understanding as a matter of truth, as if one could demonstrate with experiments how the mechanisms work, often get carried away and proclaim that their vision of unified truth means there is a certain right way and that the Masters understand it but it is just hard to explain.

In a way I'm agreeing with you here and what we see are not cardboard cut out characters performing to a contrived script and not even all the Sanhedrin agreed with the chief priests for example.

The modern fundamentalist notion (perhaps, Protestant notion going back to Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) is that Atonement is the secret to the working of the Kingdom. Mark may have believed that - it is one of many possible explanations of the Markan secret, in which Jesus repeatedly commands people (and demons) who recognize his spiritual power to keep it hush-hush.

But it is an astonishing notion that the overall key to understanding the Kingdom would be kept as secret as it is, throughout the Gospels, rather than proclaimed incessantly in the way modern fundamentalist preachers do, if that was in fact the unifying truth.

My reading of the early literature is that Atonement as mechanism was Paul's stalking horse (and the author of Hebrews misunderstood its spiritual nature) and that most of Christianity still wasn't on board with it by the time Romans was written. I think some version was accepted from the beginning - probably using the "ransom" language from Isaiah and the other major prophets. But a "ransom" interpretation is quite consistent with ransom being a secondary implication, and the key being that the"Kingdom of God is within you" (or "among you" - both work equally well) with martyrdom as the "crowning" demonstration and Resurrection as the astonishing aftermath.

I think it is the unifying principle of the messianic character of Christ, as he said to the couple on the road to Emmaus; "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things?" Pointing to the entirety of the O.T.

I just don't think it's something Paul invented out of thin air,and of course he too appeals the the O.T. on justification with Abraham and David as his examples.

Undoubtedly there were varied expectations of the messiah at the time and this was true even of the disciples of Jesus.

I find it hard to fathom the crucifixion of Christ as being without redemptive purpose that addresses the core issues of humanity in relation to human nature the moral law and the nature of God as just yet merciful.

Can God simply overlook rebellion and transgression and remain just? We see the picture of the prodigal son which I believe is a true one of the Father but it would be a mistake I think to isolate this from God as the impartial judge of all.
That's the genius of the gospel,that God can be both.

If there was no such purpose why would he be willing to be crucified? As a moral example, but of what?
So I guess we disagree in our understanding of these things.
It seems to me that those who divest Christ of real atoning redemptive action create problems for themselves and seem to fly in the face of the biblical texts themselves.
Robert wants to see the entire gospel account as parable and so does John Dominic Crossan. The problem is that those who want to retain an ethical Jesus or a human but not divine one, seem to superimpose their own view of what Christ should be in the likeness of their own views,rather than what the texts actually say.

In a rather lengthy debate between J.D.Crossan and James White this difference is exemplified. It probably is of little interest to most, but here it is for anyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIX7eqTllEc

[Harry Marks]

I think the Gospels want to have it both ways. Both acclamation and rejection appear in all four Gospels.
both insiders with elite spiritual status, and challenging spiritual truths about which the insiders were sometimes clueless. These reflect both complexities of spiritual understanding and complexities of trying to put things together into a narrative with power to convey spiritual understanding.

I think there is psychological depth and things true to human nature and life in these depictions that can appear superficially contradictory. In the parable Jesus talks of those who receive the word with joy who wilt when difficulties accompany this.

No disagreement here, although I don't think the contrast between insider status and figurative language for the masses is entirely captured by the shallow roots of the common people's spiritual enthusiasm. I am not even sure I mind "superficially contradictory", especially in this case where it is essentially the idea I was arguing for.

So I certainly agree there are differences of emphasis at times between the gospels but I think this can be exaggerated to an extreme degree.

Well, I hope I don't take an extreme view of the contrasts, but as you know I view them as much more difficult to harmonize than you maintain. Still, that wasn't my point. Originally I was arguing that elitism is present in the Gospels, as it is in stronger form in the gnostic literature, and then later I was arguing that this is explained in large part by the difficulties of understanding spiritual matters, which I think both you and the local gnostics agreed with.

Those who want to see spiritual understanding as a matter of truth, as if one could demonstrate with experiments how the mechanisms work, often get carried away and proclaim that their vision of unified truth means there is a certain right way and that the Masters understand it but it is just hard to explain.

In a way I'm agreeing with you here and what we see are not cardboard cut out characters performing to a contrived script and not even all the Sanhedrin agreed with the chief priests for example.

a "ransom" interpretation is quite consistent with ransom being a secondary implication, and the key being that the"Kingdom of God is within you" (or "among you" - both work equally well) with martyrdom as the "crowning" demonstration and Resurrection as the astonishing aftermath.

I think it is the unifying principle of the messianic character of Christ, as he said to the couple on the road to Emmaus; "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things?" Pointing to the entirety of the O.T.

Yet much of the OT would most naturally be read as quite contradictory to the notion of a suffering Christ (i.e. Messiah). No one suggests that David, clearly God's Anointed, ought to suffer, or Cyrus either.

I think there was a process of reflection after the crucifixion, a process guided partly by things Jesus had told them, and partly by their own experience that they had somehow become the body of Christ, and that they reached the conclusion that suffering is what God's Anointed should do. There is plenty of prophetic pronouncement to support that.

But it seems to me the context to make it sensible requires a confrontation between power and the Good. If it was all about, say, the political freedom of Israel, then just the opposite would be called for: a military victor. As often happens, the hard part of understanding was getting the nature of the question, less so than the answer.

I just don't think it's something Paul invented out of thin air,and of course he too appeals the the O.T. on justification with Abraham and David as his examples.

Nor do I. But I think the problem worked on his mind for a while, giving rise to his ruminations about "the foolishness of the Gospel" for example. Eventually he decided, or it was revealed to him (I suspect they look about the same in real life) that the Crucifixion of Christ was God's answer to sin. But that still leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and misinterpretation.

I find it hard to fathom the crucifixion of Christ as being without redemptive purpose that addresses the core issues of humanity in relation to human nature the moral law and the nature of God as just yet merciful.

And yet if such a fundamental matter was at stake, at the heart of all meaning in the universe, it is difficult to understand why the Gospels have only the barest hints of it. Jesus did not lay it all out, Paul did.

For Jesus, God is simply merciful. That is who God is. When Jesus condemns someone, it is for hard-heartedness or self-aggrandizement and making life difficult for others. Thinking oneself better than others and more pure than others evidently makes it difficult for the Kingdom of God to be within us (or among us). No mechanism for forgiveness. No requirement for forgiveness (except that we forgive others).

So I would argue that the purpose Paul saw for the crucifixion was instructive, not transactive.

Can God simply overlook rebellion and transgression and remain just? We see the picture of the prodigal son which I believe is a true one of the Father but it would be a mistake I think to isolate this from God as the impartial judge of all.
That's the genius of the gospel,that God can be both.

Why is it overlooking transgression to take Mary Magdalene back, or to forgive Zacchaeus, as the Pharisees claimed? I just don't get it. If the argument is that God needed the crucifixion to instruct us in the seriousness of sin, we are back to an instructive purpose. And it does that, in the sense that it lays out how commitment to power requires the authorities to kill an innocent man for even the whiff of being the "King of the Jews" or standing for the Kingdom of God. That is the road we go down when we choose self over others.

If there was no such purpose why would he be willing to be crucified? As a moral example, but of what?

Well, some argue that he was not willing, notably Reza Aslan recently. I guess it all comes together more reasonably for me to suppose that Jesus intended it, but not because otherwise sins could not be forgiven. The moral example, it seems to me, is teaching that meaning transcends effectiveness. Might does not make right, no matter how many people it kills to claim otherwise. Moral truth is true whether or not it is on the throne politically. Such is the law and the prophets. Is it not fitting that the one who claims to establish justice in our hearts would be willing to die rather than accept a notion that the Messiah must be a military victor?

Robert wants to see the entire gospel account as parable and so does John Dominic Crossan. The problem is that those who want to retain an ethical Jesus or a human but not divine one, seem to superimpose their own view of what Christ should be in the likeness of their own views,rather than what the texts actually say.

In a rather lengthy debate between J.D.Crossan and James White this difference is exemplified. It probably is of little interest to most, but here it is for anyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIX7eqTllEc

I will watch the video tomorrow or the next day (tomorrow is a big day at our place) and give you a reaction if I have one.