There’s also seems to be another Catholic theological view that salvation was accomplished by the Incarnation without any substantive reference to the cross. I’m not sure if that perception has a long history or if it is more of a modern avoidance of distasteful atonement theologies. Does that ring a bell?
Yes, that sounds like, what I learned as, the mystical redemption theory of atonement. The incarnation itself is the cause of salvation; the very fact that God took on human nature sanctifies our nature.
You can find this still in Mass: by the mingling of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
And it’s old; it’s all over the place in the fathers; consider such dicta as, what was not assumed was not healed.
The problem is that it leaves the crucifixion with no particular importance in achieving redemption.
>If you mean “experienced” in a psychological way–what he feels in his humanity is felt also by the divine nature–then no.
So the divine person is being sacrificed while the divine nature which is unsacrificable is communicating to the divine person that it is unable to be sacrificed while the human nature gives the experience of the possibility of being sacrificed.
two contradictions are being communicated to the same divine person ?
>If you just mean, whatever is done to him in his human nature is done to him (and so he is said to experience it), then yes.
The “him” being the divine person with divine nature, two things according to trinitarians which are inseparable.
The result was to, pretty facilely, take linguistic terms and make them metaphysical.
But not too facetiously I ask, isn’t that the very definition of theology? Perhaps in some cases not so facile? When I’m asked by evangelistic types if Jesus saved my soul, I reply, “No, but Wittgenstein did!”
The truth is, Jesus was a human sacrifice. The shedding of blood satisfies the craving of God. We’re fortunate in the West that it only had to happen once. Imagine if the early Christians had taken a more Aztecan approach?
“For the blood is the life!”
– Renfield, in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
>Jesus was a human sacrifice. The shedding of blood
If jesus is identical to the pre-incarnate logos, then logos lost control of human life while he was being offered. the human life and the life of the logos were united and one. I dont see how it could be atonement for sins considering that sinners without a blood sacrifice must do hell time for eternity.
If jesus is identical to the pre-incarnate logos, then logos lost control of human life while he was being offered. the human life and the life of the logos were united and one. I dont see how it could be atonement for sins considering that sinners without a blood sacrifice must do hell time for eternity.
Well universalists follow your logic and posit that it was merely the act that was necessary. Everyone is saved.
So the divine person is being sacrificed while the divine nature which is unsacrificable is communicating to the divine person that it is unable to be sacrificed while the human nature gives the experience of the possibility of being sacrificed.
two contradictions are being communicated to the same divine person ?
Basically. They love that sort of paradox, e.g., the impassible died.
They wouldn’t call it a paradox because you can just add a qualification about which nature: “the impassible died (in his human nature)”.
But I take your point: is the predication really of the individual or of the nature? If it really and properly is of the individual, not the nature, then it seems to welcome genuine contradictions. You can’t have your cake and eat it: the predication is either proper to the individual or to the nature. If it’s proper to the nature, you can’t say “God died” without qualification. If predication is proper to the person, then you get a genuine contradictions in saying “the impassible one suffered.”
But not too facetiously I ask, isn’t that the very definition of theology? Perhaps in some cases not so facile? When I’m asked by evangelistic types if Jesus saved my soul, I reply, “No, but Wittgenstein did!”
I love that response; it is uncannily appropriate to the conversation.
Greetings Joao,
I am also very new to this this blog, and Dr. Ehrman has also convinced me (or almost) that the existence of Jesus is not completely mythical. I accept that he has seen good evidence, he has the knowledge to evaluate such evidence, and has reached a reasonable conclusion based on evidence.
But old beliefs (or dis-beliefs) die hard! I still feel, thought I do not rationally believe, that Jesus was completely a mythical creation. I was raised Catholic, and had the usual childhood indoctrination. I memorized prayers and the catechism, was baptized and confirmed, all without understanding any of it.
It didn’t seem any different from the fairy tales I knew by heart. Later I decided that it was no different!
The Catholic belief system seems to me to based mostly on lies-some beautiful, some ugly- but I will have to concede that there was (at least very probably) an actual man behind the legends.
My trajectory from Catholicism to atheism went in pretty straight line from childish incomprephension to adolescent disgust. I don’t recall any mental struggle over this-it just happened. Like waking from a bad dream and realizing it was only a dream and the monsters are not real.
I think it was the stories about Mary that did it. At around age twelve I began to understand what “virgin birth” and “perpetual virginity” of Mary (after multiple childbirths) was supposed to mean. I thought “that sounds ridiculous” From there it was an easy step to “hold on – it all sounds ridiculous. I don’t think any of this is real.”
read your book
either you or dominic crossan stated Pilate was actually Sejanus’ “boy” which makes sense
since it seems one of the only mentions of him was buried under some roman ruin, cesarea? with his named carved in marble…or maybe the marble was reused
since most know Sejanus (Patrick Stewart) from Graves as a very evil man…it would seem to appear that Pilate was not much admired after Tiberius had Sejanus dispatched and surely his nephew or great nephew Caligula had no use for either…
keep up the good work or keep digging as the case may be!
New here. Recovering Catholic, now Methodist. I think that Jesus was historical, and I accept the standard set of Christian beliefs (Trinity, Atonement, etc) with one exception.
The Bible is certainly not inerrant, and might be “inspired” but only in the broadest sense of the term. It is a set of documents written by human beings about the divide-human interaction. Within its pages one finds the word of God (for example, Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount) but also some errors of fact, as well as some human “spin” as the authors try to advance their narratives. I don’t see any reason to assume that the NT authors would have had any motivation to fabricate Jesus: they weren’t making any money on this, they weren’t seeking power & control. On the contrary, belief in the risen Christ was making life difficult for them. They were motivated however trying to convince potential converts, and weren’t above using exaggeration, hyperbole, or even an occasional fib to advance their agenda.
Pushing Biblical inerrancy, when it is obviously not inerrant, is counterproductive to spreading the Gospel. The Roman Catholic Church adds to the fallacy by adding layers of self-serving (power & control) regulations & dodgy doctrines.
But then again, I could be all wrong!
Zena, can I ask a direct question?
If you believe the authors of the NT weren’t above using exaggeration or even the occasional fib to advance their agenda, why do you believe them at all? Why think Matthew faithfully recorded divine communication in the Sermon the the Mount, if we think he fabricated the bit about Herod killing all the baby boys in Bethlehem and the bit about zombies roaming Jerusalem?
If someone, who I know has a history of telling tall tales, tells me something incredible–like that a person rose from the dead, or that a virgin gave birth to a son–why would I believe him, given that I know he is unreliable?
I’m not trying to change what you believe, by the way; I’m just interested.
A fair question certainly. I think about human nature and what motivates people to do things. (I’m a retired psychiatrist BTW). I can’t think of any plausible reason that Christ’s disciples would have made this stuff up. It got them harassed, persecuted & probably more impoverished than they were in the first place. Yet they stuck with it. The most plausible reason I can think of is that they actually believed this to be true.
Now what? They’re an oddball minority, they are confident in what they have seen, and they have been told to “make disciples of all nations”. They want more people to buy in to something they are convinced is the real deal. It’s very human to put on a positive spin when you’re recruiting for something in which you believe passionately.
I think that “fish story” would be a better descriptor than “tall tale”. Suppose I told you about the 18″ bass I hooked, fought valiantly, and spit the hook out at the last minute. Would you suspect that I never hooked a thing, maybe never got into a boat, and perhaps never even went fishing at all? Probably not. More likely, you’d think that the fish wasn’t really quite that big and that the drama was a bit overstated.
That’s how I think it through. But I could be way off base.
Zena
I think that Jesus was historical, and
I accept the standard set of Christian beliefs (Trinity, Atonement, etc) with one exception.
Within its pages one finds the word of God (for example, Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount) but also some errors of fact, as well as some human “spin” as the authors try to advance their narratives.
I don’t see any reason to assume that the NT authors would have had any motivation to fabricate Jesus.
They weren’t making any money on this, they weren’t seeking power & control.
Belief in the risen Christ was making life difficult for them. They were motivated however trying to convince potential converts.
They weren’t above using exaggeration, hyperbole, or even an occasional fib to advance their agenda.
Steefen
I think Rhett Butler was historical.
Trinity: Jesus does not rise to the status of a manifestation of God. A local tribal god does not rise to the status of a manifestation of God.
Atonement: Tell us how Jesus’ death atones for the current victimizers of Palestinians. How did it atone for the death of 9 million or more put to death by the Nazis. How about for the Armenian genocide. How did Jesus’s death atone for the sins of sicarii. How did it atone for the sins of those who rebelled against Rome and who rebelled against the ruling class of Judaea who supported the Roman Empire. How did it atone for the sins of the Roman governors who committed the sins of not ruling Jewish people well. How did Jesus’ death atone for a vaccine that has not been recalled even with many instances of negative side effects including death. How did it atone for the sins confessed by an economic hit man. How does it atone for the Gulf of Tonkin incident–sin of lying?
Steefen,
You are right about the many atrocities that have gone unpunished in this world. As I read the Gospels, the forgiveness of sins is a gift to those who believe in Christ and are repentant, and so would not apply to persons such as those who perpetuated such atrocities. Perhaps among them are a handful who realized the error of their ways and repented, but I doubt it.
Jesus paid the price of our sins
For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
gave the life of his only begotten son
gave the life of his only begotten son as a sacrifice
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Not only do I think
1) Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction
2) he was a failed and false prophet partly because Jewish Apocalypticism is a failed and false theology
3) the debt of sin is not paid by God sacrificing his son (filicide: the deliberate act of a parent killing their own child)
>On the contrary, belief in the risen Christ was making life difficult for them.
is it belief in ressurection or the belief that a recently executed jesus would come back soon and replace judaism of that time with johns version , marks version, lukes version or matthews version of what is true belief ?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)