atonement theory: the Lamb of God

[Non Sequitur]

Welcome to the atonement theory thread :D This question is by no means a settled issue in Christian theology.

Michael, you have a talent for asking very interesting, but very complicated theology questions...

I've never quite grasped this concept of Christ's [alleged] sacrifice freeing anybody from anything. It does seem like magic. If Christ was the 'son of God' then I'm not buying the flesh and blood sacrifice as being anything but symbolic theater, since he was in on the game by definition (by being the 'son of God'). So how can an act of 'symbolic theater' make souls free?

ok well, that's a fun question. There are an awful lot of answers to this question. Bascially what you are asking is "what does Christ's death on the cross actually do?" or "what does the death of Christ mean?" The answers to this question are called atonement theories. I'll give you a couple orthodox answers

1. Ransom theory: Because Adam and Eve sinned (or if you take a less literal view, all humanity sins) we are under the dominion of Satan. Christ's death free's us from dominion because the Christ was truly sinless. Satan's attempt to extend his dominion over Christ (the truly sinless human being) makes Satan Domion null and void freeing us by faith from our sins. On a side note, this view is really only held by the Orthodox Church. It is also the oldest theory.

2. Penal or satisfaction atonement theory: stemming from the ancient Hebrew worship practice of animal sacrifice and medieval concepts of honor and justice. When a person sins (and again, all people sin at some point) there is debt incurred to God. God's justice demands punishment punishment. God, as a perfect and holy being, cannot stand sin. Thus the reaction to sin is wrath. Humanity has built up such a debt of sin (and thus a deserving punishment of wrath) that it can only be satisfied by death (aka wrath). Fortunately for us, God is merciful and transfers his wrath to Christ. Christ's death is the only act that can fully satisfy this debt. Freeing us from the debt frees us at the most basic level. This theory, from the middle ages to today, has been the dominant theory of atonement. Calvin, Luther, and the other reformers all buy into this theory. Conservative protestants are a complete supporter of this theory in the form of Penal Substitution. The Catholic Church also buys into this theory in just the satisfaction atonement form.

3. Nonviolent atonement theory: Nonviolent atonement theory comes from a mix of history, philosophy, literary criticism, readings from the Church fathers, a new form of reading of the Bible, and liberation theology from South America. This theory criticizes the previous two theories by saying that they both put the demand of blood on God. This is Biblically untrue and has been historically used to justify oppression. In reality, it is not God that demanded blood, but we humans who actually demanded blood ("Crucify him!" they shouted Mark 15:13). Throughout human history human societies have demanded scapegoats when things go wrong. This cycle of violence is something humanity is continually stuck in because of sin and it gets worse and worse. Christ, as the perfect all obedient son of God, steps in and says that he will be the ultimate scape goat. Since he is actually blameless, God resurrects Christ. Christ's death breaks the cycle of scapegoat violence for all who believe thus freeing us from a destructive cycle wrapped in sin.

Now, to be honest with you it is hard to speak of "one" orthodox opinion because the Bible does not have "one" orthodox opinion. The Bible, having 66 books and being written in by as many if not more different authors, speaks in a multiplicity of voices on the issue. These are just three of the better answers and there are more theories.

However, if you still reject all these as "symbolic theater" then my simple answer is that God often works through symbolic theater in the Biblical record in order to accommodate himself to people. Baptism, Communion, and confession are all examples of things specifically commanded in the Biblical record which, in reality, are just symbolic theater that God endows with special meaning.

[Non Sequitur]

Something I forgot to add is that all the different theories of the atonement have a couple similar strands:

1. Christ's death is somehow representative or attached to all of creation. All creation is marked by sin (not just people) and Christ's death fundamentally works in relationship with all creation.

2. Christ's death frees us. how we are freed and what we are freed from may very, but the common point is that Christ's death frees us from eternal death to eternal life

[Michael]

I appreciate the care and effort of your responses to my tricky questions. :)

1. Ransom theory: Because Adam and Eve sinned (or if you take a less literal view, all humanity sins) we are under the dominion of Satan. Christ's death free's us from dominion because the Christ was truly sinless. Satan's attempt to extend his dominion over Christ (the truly sinless human being) makes Satan Domion null and void freeing us by faith from our sins. On a side note, this view is really only held by the Orthodox Church. It is also the oldest theory.
This answer seems problematic (even for a believer).

Christ wasn't sinless. He was sentenced to death by an earthly court of law. Jesus of Nazareth committed a legal crime and was punished with the full force of the law. That's a historical fact.

And death of Christ was an escape for Christ from the clutches of Satan (or the temptations of sin) was it not? That doesn't look very noble or admirable. And God provided an 'immortal escape hatch' for Jesus three days later. :shrug:

Not to mention the fact that Satan sure seems mighty weak to be banished so easily. And if Satan was ultimately defeated/denied with the death of Christ, and all sins washed away, why is it that Satan is still around pestering good Christians to this day? And why didn't original sin get washed away in the deal? Why do Christians still speak of everyone being sinners if the death of Christ washed that all away?

Very problematic answer - raises more troublesome questions than it began with!

2. Penal or satisfaction atonement theory: stemming from the ancient Hebrew worship practice of animal sacrifice and medieval concepts of honor and justice. When a person sins (and again, all people sin at some point) there is debt incurred to God. God's justice demands punishment punishment. God, as a perfect and holy being, cannot stand sin. Thus the reaction to sin is wrath. Humanity has built up such a debt of sin (and thus a deserving punishment of wrath) that it can only be satisfied by death (aka wrath). Fortunately for us, God is merciful and transfers his wrath to Christ. Christ's death is the only act that can fully satisfy this debt. Freeing us from the debt frees us at the most basic level. This theory, from the middle ages to today, has been the dominant theory of atonement. Calvin, Luther, and the other reformers all buy into this theory. Conservative protestants are a complete supporter of this theory in the form of Penal Substitution. The Catholic Church also buys into this theory in just the satisfaction atonement form.
Wow. This 'answer' seems extremely odd given that Christ only has to die just once. Now if Christ was crucified, rose again and then got crucified again (repeat, repeat), then this explanation would make a whole lot more sense. Christ's sacrifice might reasonably atone for all the sins ever committed, but its hard to believe that one singular human sacrifice some two thousand years ago would cover all the sins that had not yet been committed for all eternity.

And why is it that Christ's death is the only way to satisfy God's wrath? And if God has the power/ability to raise Christ anyway, doesn't that 'death of Christ' seem rather hollow and meaningless? Now if Christ got buried in the ground and left there and God had to mourn the loss of his only son, then that might seem like a God-like sacrifice. But doing a 'fake' death scene and proving how 'fake' that death was by bringing Jesus back to life doesn't look like God is suffering or mourning at all - keeping in mind that God's wrath is being atoned here in the one and only unique way that is possible - but God makes a point of parading around the raised and bloody Christ, as if to prove a point (but only to a tiny number of 'witnesses').

Indeed, the 'raising of the dead' thing just doesn't make sense in this context. God is proving/demonstrating that God has the power to do this, so why the heck would God's wrath only be satisfied by the 'death' of his son, whom he could raise again any time God wanted it to happen? :ummm:

And following that line of thought (God wanting/needing to kill his own son), that's not a very pretty picture of God. And more importantly, that doesn't bode well for humanity's future given that humans (theoretically speaking) are 'children of God' and God has a 'proven' record of wanting/needing to kill his own children. :eek:

3. Nonviolent atonement theory: Nonviolent atonement theory comes from a mix of history, philosophy, literary criticism, readings from the Church fathers, a new form of reading of the Bible, and liberation theology from South America. This theory criticizes the previous two theories by saying that they both put the demand of blood on God. This is Biblically untrue and has been historically used to justify oppression. In reality, it is not God that demanded blood, but we humans who actually demanded blood ("Crucify him!" they shouted Mark 15:13). Throughout human history human societies have demanded scapegoats when things go wrong. This cycle of violence is something humanity is continually stuck in because of sin and it gets worse and worse. Christ, as the perfect all obedient son of God, steps in and says that he will be the ultimate scape goat. Since he is actually blameless, God resurrects Christ. Christ's death breaks the cycle of scapegoat violence for all who believe thus freeing us from a destructive cycle wrapped in sin.
This explanation seems much better than the first two.

Though, if Jesus really was the Son of God (and knew it so) then his offer to allow himself to be killed as a 'sacrifice' seems hollow since Jesus, as the 'son of God' would have known that he was immortal (thus negating the value of his sacrifice).

Sacrifice means giving up something meaningful, desired or important. Christ didn't really do that did he since he just shipped off to the clouds to hang out with dad - after doing the 'raise-again' trick just to either showoff or to confuse every one. :shrug:

Keeping in mind that according to Christian doctrine, heaven is held to be the perfect place, and mortal life is a place of suffering. How is going from the suffering world of earthly life to the perfection of heaven supposed to be a sacrifice for the son of God?

Now, to be honest with you it is hard to speak of "one" orthodox opinion because the Bible does not have "one" orthodox opinion. The Bible, having 66 books and being written in by as many if not more different authors, speaks in a multiplicity of voices on the issue. These are just three of the better answers and there are more theories.

However, if you still reject all these as "symbolic theater" then my simple answer is that God often works through symbolic theater in the Biblical record in order to accommodate himself to people. Baptism, Communion, and confession are all examples of things specifically commanded in the Biblical record which, in reality, are just symbolic theater that God endows with special meaning.
I understand the challenge of giving 'one' answer when Christian theology is 'several' by definition (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant to begin with) and I appreciate your multiple answers because of this.

And yes, I don't find any of these three answers satisfying, though that isn't particularly surprising since I'm coming at the question as a skeptical atheist! :D

I'm a hard sell. I'm just curious about the logic-patterns (if any). Christian theology just seems to defy reason with a remarkably consistent inconsistency! :lol:

But I must admit, your last answer (God does symbolic theater) seems to be the 'best' answer of all. I can accept that kind of reasoning. It is far less 'problematic' of the type of logical reasoning that makes it appear that God has some kind of weird obsession with killing his own (and raising them again).
;)

[Non Sequitur]

Is there a record for longest average post. We might set it :lol:

I appreciate the care and effort of your responses to my tricky questions. :)

Quite honestly, you ask hard questions from perspectives I usually don't encounter so it's nice to talk about it. I usually don't get into atonement discussions period, much less ones with atheists :D

Christ wasn't sinless. He was sentenced to death by an earthly court of law. Jesus of Nazareth committed a legal crime and was punished with the full force of the law. That's a historical fact.
Well ok this is where your idea about the law being an expression of moral authority breaks down for me. Violating the “law” does not always mean you did something immoral. Also, just because he was executed does not mean that he was guilty. If you read the story, all four Gospels spell out that the people demanded his cruxifiction even though he was innocent (read Pilate's plea not to execute him). In modern life, plenty of people have been executed that were innocent (look at the history of US Death penalty discussion).

More importantly, the whole point of Christ is that he is the representative of humanity. In the book of Romans Paul writes how Christ is the new Adam who makes the right decision. To paraphrase, where as Adam chose to disobey God, Christ obeyed. Perfect obedience to God is perfect morality

And death of Christ was an escape for Christ from the clutches of Satan (or the temptations of sin) was it not? That doesn't look very noble or admirable. And God provided an 'immortal escape hatch' for Jesus three days later. :shrug:
But remember the order of events. He died then was resurrected. According to every theory, Christ is resurrected because he decides to obey God completely (meaning he decided to die willingly). God doesn't say, “I'm going to resurrect you no matter what” but “I will resurrect you if you follow my will.” To put this in Biblical terms, Jesus says in Luke 22:42: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” To look at this in terms of physics, just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so does obeying God unto death result in new life.

Not to mention the fact that Satan sure seems mighty weak to be banished so easily. And if Satan was ultimately defeated/denied with the death of Christ, and all sins washed away, why is it that Satan is still around pestering good Christians to this day? And why didn't original sin get washed away in the deal? Why do Christians still speak of everyone being sinners if the death of Christ washed that all away?

Well I could answer your first sentence (“Satan sure seems mighty weak to be banished so easily”) in two different ways:

1) Philosophy answer (you might like this one as the philosophy person): Augustine writes that Evil is nothing more than the absence of good. This is because God, as the almighty creator is good and just. For him to be creator and good he can't have created evil because then he wouldn't be good anymore. Thus, evil does not actually exist as a real substance of some kind. Given this understanding, evil is actually nothing and can be defeated easily. This also follows Augustine's thought of Original Sin (Augustine came up with the doctrine after all) because evil is actually easily defeated for a being like God, it shows us how immersed in sin we are.

2) My answer: I don't actually think anything about this was easy at all. God himself had to suffer a very painful death, go to Hell, and then come back. Except for Jesus, Death is a constant. Overcoming that Constant seems like big work.

As for your other questions, those can be answered by either option similarly. The Biblical answer is that while Christ's death and resurrection is the first victory, the final victory has not happened yet (what is religion without hope!). To say because Christ is resurrected that means Satan no longer has power, people no longer do bad things, and that evil is totally conquered is an entire falsehood and blatantly ignores the facts of history. If we want to go back to your “symbolic theater” point, a good theater production doesn't just abruptly end at the climax. If we are talking about the actual theology on the books the answer is that a person is released from "bondage" (Luther's word) to the full effect of Satan and Original Sin by Baptism. Also, Original Sin is only fully cleansed after death (a process called sanctification).

Wow. This 'answer' seems extremely odd given that Christ only has to die just once. Now if Christ was crucified, rose again and then got crucified again (repeat, repeat), then this explanation would make a whole lot more sense. Christ's sacrifice might reasonably atone for all the sins ever committed, but its hard to believe that one singular human sacrifice some two thousand years ago would cover all the sins that had not yet been committed for all eternity
Well remember two things: 1) Christ is not just human, but also divine (fully both). The Death of the Divine does cover all sins. 2) Christ's death is considered not just an event in time, but an event that effects all times and all places.

And why is it that Christ's death is the only way to satisfy God's wrath?
According to this theory, the debt created by human sin is so huge that only God himself can satisfy that debt.


And if God has the power/ability to raise Christ anyway, doesn't that 'death of Christ' seem rather hollow and meaningless? Now if Christ got buried in the ground and left there and God had to mourn the loss of his only son, then that might seem like a God-like sacrifice. But doing a 'fake' death scene and proving how 'fake' that death was by bringing Jesus back to life doesn't look like God is suffering or mourning at all - keeping in mind that God's wrath is being atoned here in the one and only unique way that is possible - but God makes a point of parading around the raised and bloody Christ, as if to prove a point (but only to a tiny number of 'witnesses').

Indeed, the 'raising of the dead' thing just doesn't make sense in this context. God is proving/demonstrating that God has the power to do this, so why the heck would God's wrath only be satisfied by the 'death' of his son, whom he could raise again any time God wanted it to happen? :ummm:
As I said earlier, we have to remember the order of events. God raises Christ from the dead because of his obedience (in this case, the obedience is that God desires the honor/justice debt to be canceled and Christ obeys). The death was real (that's why Christ is in the ground for 3 days) and God raised Christ from the dead because he chose a real death.

Now I know you are not going to enjoy a Trinity discussion, but we need it here. Remember that Christ is “one with the Father” Christ doesn't just die on the cross, but God in some form or another dies on the cross (in what way God dies on the cross is a debatable topic). Therefore, I don't really buy fake death argument because God actually dies.

And following that line of thought (God wanting/needing to kill his own son), that's not a very pretty picture of God. And more importantly, that doesn't bode well for humanity's future given that humans (theoretically speaking) are 'children of God' and God has a 'proven' record of wanting/needing to kill his own children. :eek:
Well, it only happened once and then the debt is cleared so that we can become “children of God” and not worry.

It might be easier to look at this another way. I have been using the medieval language because that is where the theory first comes from, but another way to look at this is this: In the movies, when there is airplane accident there is always a scene where the hole in the plane sucks out a person. This theory looks a sin much the same way as that hole in the plane. The sin that humanity chooses has created a hole in the plane that sucks humanity off into oblivion. God wants to fill the void and Christ volunteers to do that. In the process of filling the hole though, Christ gets sucked out himself.

However, a lot of people agree with you and that's why Non-violent atonement theory is catching on like wildfire at the moment.

Though, if Jesus really was the Son of God (and knew it so) then his offer to allow himself to be killed as a 'sacrifice' seems hollow since Jesus, as the 'son of God' would have known that he was immortal (thus negating the value of his sacrifice).

Sacrifice means giving up something meaningful, desired or important. Christ didn't really do that did he since he just shipped off to the clouds to hang out with dad - after doing the 'raise-again' trick just to either showoff or to confuse every one. :shrug:

Keeping in mind that according to Christian doctrine, heaven is held to be the perfect place, and mortal life is a place of suffering. How is going from the suffering world of earthly life to the perfection of heaven supposed to be a sacrifice for the son of God?

I know that I am repeating this point an awful lot, but we must remember that Christ is raised from the dead because he obeys. God the Father raises God the Son from the dead because of his obedience, not just because he has to or was always going to.

As for the sacrifice point, Paul writes in Philippians that Christ did sacrifice an awful lot. He willingly gave up being equal to God the Father in order to become human, then die, then suffer Hell. That seems like a pretty big sacrifice.

I understand the challenge of giving 'one' answer when Christian theology is 'several' by definition (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant to begin with) and I appreciate your multiple answers because of this.

Well it's not even that the theology doesn't agree, but the Bible itself doesn't fully agree on what exactly happened. You can find Biblical support for all three versions. I just don't quote them all because that would be a big hassle.

I'm a hard sell. I'm just curious about the logic-patterns (if any). Christian theology just seems to defy reason with a remarkably consistent inconsistency! :lol:
If we are talking about methodology then there are four sources for all theology that are usually ranked in some way: Bible, tradition, reason, experience. If you are Catholic, the order goes like this: 1) Bible and Tradition 2) reason, 3) Experience. The typical Protestant ranking is: 1) Bible, 2) reason 3) experience 4) tradition. The typical Charismatic Christian rank is: 1) Bible 2) experience 3) reason 4) tradition if you have to. My ranking is: 1) Bible 2) tradition 3) experience 4) reason. Appealing to all four usually makes for solid theology.

The other major methodology point is that there are two large paradigms for Christian theology: A theology of Glory and a Theology of the Cross. It's too complicated to go completely into, but very briefly a theology of Glory emphasizes human action and reason and a theology of the Cross emphasizes God's action and a border line fideism. Catholics are usually a theology of Glory, Lutherans a Theology of the Cross.

Another major unifying theme is the creeds. The Apostles and Nicene Creed (both created by the united Church) contain stuff that no orthodox Christian will disagree with. It may deal with broad stuff, but all the stuff is generally dogma. The creeds set the limits of Christian orthodoxy. The creeds function as fences if you will for Christian theology.

Last, at the very bedrock is Christ's resurrection. “If Christ has not been raised from the dead your faith is in vain and you still are in your sins” 1 Corinthians 15:17. It's a starting point. I will probably come up with more later as I think about this question more.


But I must admit, your last answer (God does symbolic theater) seems to be the 'best' answer of all. I can accept that kind of reasoning. It is far less 'problematic' of the type of logical reasoning that makes it appear that God has some kind of weird obsession with killing his own (and raising them again).
;)
As long as we emphasize that it's theater with meaning I'm probably ok with this understanding.

[SMadsen]

Just want to thank Non Sequitur for a good and very informative piece on atonement theories. Thanks.

I didn't read the following discussion, though (I came to Michael's "That's historical fact" said about a figure who's existence is not even historically verifiable and so I suddenly got an urge to do other things instead :) ). But I'm sure I'll read it one of these days.

[dilettante]

Indeed. Thanks to Non Sequitur for a great OP. :thumbsup:

If anything, I'd only like to add some thoughts from C.S. Lewis (which I think you'll appreciate).

In Mere Christianity, Lewis describes "repentance" (a crucial part of the Christian message) as abandoning self-conceit and self-will, as a sort of surrender and submission to God, a sort of death of the self. But, as he points out, this sort of repentance is something God, as supreme-being, never does: it isn't in the nature of God to submit or to surrender His will or to die. For everything else God asks of us, He has Himself as an example ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48). But repentence, though necessary for human redemption, is a road God, by his very nature, has never walked.

So God becomes man, one who can surrender His will to God's (and apparently the incarnation, on some level, separated Christ's will from God's: Luke 22:42), even to the point of suffering and death on a cross. In the death of Christ God offers a perfect example of the surrender of self necessary in repentance. We can immitate and respond to (some would say participate in) that perfect repentance only because Christ died for us.

Anyway, that's another way of looking at it. I think the most important thing Lewis offers, however, is some perspective on the true significance of such theories:

"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself." (Mere Christianity, 58-59)

[Michael]

I didn't read the following discussion, though (I came to Michael's "That's historical fact" said about a figure who's existence is not even historically verifiable and so I suddenly got an urge to do other things instead :) ). But I'm sure I'll read it one of these days.

I find that when I want to discuss Christian theology with a Christian theologist, one has to adopt some of their frames of reference. Using atheist frames of reference tends to just kill the discussion before it begins.

Indeed, if I tossed around such anti-Christian rhetoric all the time, I doubt think people like Non Sequitur would bother replying thoughtfully to my questions - and I wouldn't blame him at all.

[Non Sequitur]

Just want to thank Non Sequitur for a good and very informative piece on atonement theories. Thanks.

I didn't read the following discussion, though (I came to Michael's "That's historical fact" said about a figure who's existence is not even historically verifiable and so I suddenly got an urge to do other things instead :) ). But I'm sure I'll read it one of these days.


Thank you sir.

Indeed. Thanks to Non Sequitur for a great OP. :thumbsup:

If anything, I'd only like to add some thoughts from C.S. Lewis (which I think you'll appreciate).

In Mere Christianity, Lewis describes "repentance" (a crucial part of the Christian message) as abandoning self-conceit and self-will, as a sort of surrender and submission to God, a sort of death of the self. But, as he points out, this sort of repentance is something God, as supreme-being, never does: it isn't in the nature of God to submit or to surrender His will or to die. For everything else God asks of us, He has Himself as an example ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48). But repentence, though necessary for human redemption, is a road God, by his very nature, has never walked.

So God becomes man, one who can surrender His will to God's (and apparently the incarnation, on some level, separated Christ's will from God's: Luke 22:42), even to the point of suffering and death on a cross. In the death of Christ God offers a perfect example of the surrender of self necessary in repentance. We can immitate and respond to (some would say participate in) that perfect repentance only because Christ died for us.

Anyway, that's another way of looking at it. I think the most important thing Lewis offers, however, is some perspective on the true significance of such theories:

That's a really good point. Emphasizing why this matters makes a difference because if you don't this just seems like esoteric rambling.

I find that when I want to discuss Christian theology with a Christian theologist, one has to adopt some of their frames of reference. Using atheist frames of reference tends to just kill the discussion before it begins.

Indeed, if I tossed around such anti-Christian rhetoric all the time, I doubt think people like Non Sequitur would bother replying thoughtfully to my questions - and I wouldn't blame him at all.

I actually think the discussion historical question of Christ's existence is a short discussion. It basically comes down to how much you trust the Gospel account historically, Christian tradition, and the various side references some historical chroniclers make (Tacitus and Josephus are the usual two). If you trust those accounts, then a person named Jesus existed. If you don't trust those accounts, then the discussion is kind of moot.

I remember watching a video of the Jesus Seminar ( a meeting where a bunch of people tried to decide what the historical Jesus actually said) and one guy stood up every time and said something like "this discussion is pointless because we all know Jesus didn't exist." :lol:

[Greendruid]

But remember the order of events. He died then was resurrected. According to every theory, Christ is resurrected because he decides to obey God completely (meaning he decided to die willingly). God doesn't say, “I'm going to resurrect you no matter what” but “I will resurrect you if you follow my will.” To put this in Biblical terms, Jesus says in Luke 22:42: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” To look at this in terms of physics, just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so does obeying God unto death result in new life.

I prefer Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" which means "My Lord, My Lord, why have You foresaken me" or the King James early modern English "why hast Thou". These are Jesus' dying words on the cross and only Mark and Matthew indicate this. Mark is, by the way, the earliest gospel writer. This tells us something about Jesus and his relationship to God and perhaps reveals a little bit about Jesus (the man) and his seemingly imperfect knowledge of God's plans. Just a point of insight here. And now a pagan has entered the discussion and started a sentence with "And" :)

[Non Sequitur]

I prefer Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" which means "My Lord, My Lord, why have You foresaken me" or the King James early modern English "why hast Thou". These are Jesus' dying words on the cross and only Mark and Matthew indicate this. Mark is, by the way, the earliest gospel writer. This tells us something about Jesus and his relationship to God and perhaps reveals a little bit about Jesus (the man) and his seemingly imperfect knowledge of God's plans. Just a point of insight here. And now a pagan has entered the discussion and started a sentence with "And" :)

that's a good one too. I chose the luke passage to illustrate the obedience aspect, but those work too.

[Michael]

I prefer Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" which means "My Lord, My Lord, why have You foresaken me" or the King James early modern English "why hast Thou". These are Jesus' dying words on the cross and only Mark and Matthew indicate this. Mark is, by the way, the earliest gospel writer. This tells us something about Jesus and his relationship to God and perhaps reveals a little bit about Jesus (the man) and his seemingly imperfect knowledge of God's plans. Just a point of insight here. And now a pagan has entered the discussion and started a sentence with "And" :)

So now we have evidence that Jesus didn't know that he was the son of God - that was only (yet another) statement of faith.

That doesn't help the Christian theology argument here at all. ;)

[Non Sequitur]

So now we have evidence that Jesus didn't know that he was the son of God - that was only (yet another) statement of faith.

That doesn't help the Christian theology argument here at all. ;)

that theology comes from a combination reading of all four gospels. More than any place it's all over the Gospel of John. I could quote all the verses for you, but it would take too much time. The fourteenth chapter of John is a good place to start though.

[Non Sequitur]

Wow. This 'answer' seems extremely odd given that Christ only has to die just once. Now if Christ was crucified, rose again and then got crucified again (repeat, repeat), then this explanation would make a whole lot more sense. Christ's sacrifice might reasonably atone for all the sins ever committed, but its hard to believe that one singular human sacrifice some two thousand years ago would cover all the sins that had not yet been committed for all eternity.


You said this in response to the Penal/satisfaction theory and I have another answer for you. I delved into my Catholic theology a little bit more and realized that Catholic theology states that this actually happened every time the mass is preformed. Christ actually does continually die and resurrect again every time the mass is preformed.

Just thought I'd give you that answer since you say you like to wear the Jesuit hat :)

[Greendruid]

You said this in response to the Penal/satisfaction theory and I have another answer for you. I delved into my Catholic theology a little bit more and realized that Catholic theology states that this actually happened every time the mass is preformed. Christ actually does continually die and resurrect again every time the mass is preformed.

Just thought I'd give you that answer since you say you like to wear the Jesuit hat :)

That is a good point and more theologically correct. Through the mystery of transubstantiation the priest turns bread wafers and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Both are then ritualistically consumed by the priest and the congregation, thus Christ dies again through this act. It is more logically consistent as you were pointing out Michael. Funny, I forgot about this point until Non Sequitur brought it up. I guess I made the right choice in not becoming a priest.