Are we worthy? Of what?

[blackbelt1961]

The "ransom theory", however, where God pays Satan off with the life of Jesus is a theology that seems ridiculous.

it seems ridiculous because it doesn't exist in any atonement theory

It was well known before that time that the blood of animal sacrifices was paid to God as forgiveness of our sins. The Church simply took that concept one step further with a human sacrifice.

the church did't simply take it , scripture teaches it, Jesus is the visible God in the tabernacle system of old , and it wasn't with just any Human sacrifice

 

[airclean33]

I personally do believe that stuff, that the sacrifice was worth paying attention to. The "ransom theory", however, where God pays Satan off with the life of Jesus is a theology that seems ridiculous. It was well known before that time that the blood of animal sacrifices was paid to God as forgiveness of our sins. The Church simply took that concept one step further with a human sacrifice. Maybe it was to accentuate the importance of Christ, I don't know, but it followed the idea of self renunciation from our eastern religions.

--Hi Neo once more you seem to post, that you understand more than GOD. Jesus said himself , For this reason have I come into the world. That is to be sacrificed , Him who is perfect , to die for the imperfect us. GOD already told Abraham this many years before. Man is under Laws. if he fails even one Law . He is guilty of failing all. Christ Jesus sett us free of the Laws.

 

[chansen]

So has inquiry, lack of evidence and common sense.

 

[GordW]

The "ransom theory", however, where God pays Satan off with the life of Jesus is a theology that seems ridiculous.

it seems ridiculous because it doesn't exist in any atonement theory

Well it is close actually:
The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. (http://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ)

It also resonates with :

• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.

 

[airclean33]

Well it is close actually:
The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. (http://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ)

It also resonates with :

• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.

Hi Gord--Perhaps it would be better to use GODS WORD more often.

 

[GordW]

Hi Gord--Perhaps it would be better to use GODS WORD more often.

All theologies of atonement on that page (except possibly the two listed as most often coming from outside mainstream Christianity) are grounded in an interpretation of Scripture. ANd if you follow the links to the pages dedicated to each theory one will find references to Scripture that undergirds the theory (at least it does for the Ransom theory, I assume it does for others)

When talking theology we use Scripture, but those are never the only words we use.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Well it is close actually:

i was close to winning the lottery once too

The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. (http://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ)

its just a theory, just like non Christians teachings on Christ , ransom is also translated as freed, it has never been taught that God paids satan , maybe in Neo's theology, never the church

It also resonates with :

• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.

there are a thousand authors who say so many things of what the bible actually teaches, nothing new here ,

 

[blackbelt1961]

All theologies of atonement on that page (except possibly the two listed as most often coming from outside mainstream Christianity)

kind like Neo's interpretation through the teachings of Materya , Blavatsky

or Crossans view of the Ressurection that it must be Jesus body was eaten by dogs because no way a man can come back to Life in 3 days


maybe we should seek the Spirit to guide us in the Truth of scripture rather then men

 

[GordW]

its just a theory, just like non Christians teachings on Christ , ransom is also translated as freed, it has never been taught that God paids satan , maybe in Neo's theology, never the church

For that matter, Penal-Substitution and Anselmian Satisfaction are just theories...

THe point is that the church has historically taught a variety of understandings of what the atoning work of Christ is. THere has never been only one understanding.

Which is a good thing, as different understandings speak to different people and different eras. If Christ brings us to GOd it is important to ask what separates us from God and how that can be bridged. And not everyone has the same gulf

 

[BetteTheRed]

Crossan does not think that the Resurrection was a physical resurrection of a dead body. A belief in an actual physical resurrection of a human body of flesh is not a necessary belief. Trying to strip this magical stuff away from the heart of the matter - the fact that something happened to those disciples after Jesus' death that made them believe that some essence of him lived on - is a mission of the progressive church. It would be nice to belong to a religion with a believable faith system.

 

[GordW]

[QUOTE="blackbelt1961, post: 155114, member: 78"
or Crossans view of the Ressurection that it must be Jesus body was eaten by dogs because no way a man can come back to Life in 3 days[/QUOTE]
AS I read Crossan, the eaten by dogs is more because of the likelihood that a crucified person would not be buried, not because of the implausibility of a bodily resurrection (because the dogs would be feeding long before the 3 days kick in). And I tend to agree with the lack of burial---from a political point of view it makes more sense to leave the body out in the open as a warning to others.

 

[blackbelt1961]

For that matter, Penal-Substitution and Anselmian Satisfaction are just theories...

THe point is that the church has historically taught a variety of understandings of what the atoning work of Christ is. There has never been only one understanding.

which i never disagreed to , what i did disagreed to was Neo's assumptions that the church also taught that God pays satan, and that is just false

 

[BetteTheRed]

which i never disagreed to , what i did disagreed to was Neo's assumptions that the church also taught that God pays satan, and that is just false

BB, what Gord is trying to teach you here, from his experience of learning Church history, is that the Ransom Theory of Substitutionary Atonement is a valid, and indeed, quite early, theological position of the early Church.

 

[blackbelt1961]

[QUOTE="blackbelt1961, post: 155114, member: 78"
or Crossans view of the Ressurection that it must be Jesus body was eaten by dogs because no way a man can come back to Life in 3 days

AS I read Crossan, the eaten by dogs is more because of the likelihood that a crucified person would not be buried, not because of the implausibility of a bodily resurrection (because the dogs would be feeding long before the 3 days kick in). And I tend to agree with the lack of burial---from a political point of view it makes more sense to leave the body out in the open as a warning to others.[/QUOTE]

or as i read Crossan , the Resurrection along with other miracles is not possible because God to Him is a projection of man's mind on the cosmos,

 

[BetteTheRed]

Where do you get that from? He's a new testament scholar; he takes the words and actions of Jesus very seriously. He's just got a different viewpoint than yours, BB. He's absolutely serious and scholarly authentic about his work. He spends a fair bit of time in the Holy Land and environs, getting a feeling for the background to the political/socio-economic context of Jesus' life as described in a wide variety of canonical and non-canonical sources of the very early period of Christianity in which all of these traditions were gathered and recorded.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Where do you get that from? He's a new testament scholar; he takes the words and actions of Jesus very seriously. He's just got a different viewpoint than yours, BB. He's absolutely serious and scholarly authentic about his work. He spends a fair bit of time in the Holy Land and environs, getting a feeling for the background to the political/socio-economic context of Jesus' life as described in a wide variety of canonical and non-canonical sources of the very early period of Christianity in which all of these traditions were gathered and recorded.

you will hear/read Crossan use christian terminology , like in a debate Crossan says things like I believe in the Resurrection , but not in any historical Jewish sense , Crossan believes that when the first witnesses went around saying HE Has Risen that they felt that somehow Jesus spirit was among us , kind of like Elvis Lives in spirit , we still feel his presence through his life/music .

But what Crossan does not believe , is that the Resurrection is an actual physical true event because God is non existent and therefore miracles impossible .

I have always said, Crossan is a atheist I guess kind of like Vosper, but way more subtle of his position who uses Christian terminology, evacuates them and give new meanings to the words , believing that Christianity is a good moral traditional ground to live by but that God, a Creator objectively working in Creation does not exist but only in the minds of men .

 

[chansen]

And you've got nothing to show that he's wrong.

 

[paradox3]

I have always said, Crossan is a atheist I guess kind of like Vosper, but way more subtle of his position who uses Christian terminology, evacuates them and give new meanings to the words , believing that Christianity is a good moral traditional ground to live by but that God, a Creator objectively working in Creation does not exist but only in the minds of men .

I have never equated Crossan with Vosper. His theology is much closer to Marcus Borg's.

 

[airclean33]

All theologies of atonement on that page (except possibly the two listed as most often coming from outside mainstream Christianity) are grounded in an interpretation of Scripture. ANd if you follow the links to the pages dedicated to each theory one will find references to Scripture that undergirds the theory (at least it does for the Ransom theory, I assume it does for others)

When talking theology we use Scripture, but those are never the only words we use.

Hi again Gord. To me only GODS Holy Spirit can interpret GODS Word I believe . So when others tell me the meaning they have , I have to run it through my Holy Spirit. Every one has a theory or belief that is why we are to check all thing. Don't believe what I just told you . Go to GODS Word and look it up Gord . If I am wrong come on back an explain please.

 

[blackbelt1961]

And you've got nothing to show that he's wrong.

or that hes right