Crusifixion and Sacrifice.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I have always found this idea rather puzzling, that the death of Jesus is represented as a human sacrifice.

To me it never made much sense to me. The usual response from Xians is the stock phrase “he died to save our sins”, or something like that.
This seems in compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient god. Why would god have to act in this way. The other phrase in “explanation” is “God gave his only begotten son,”.

There are a few contradictions here. If a god is omnipotent, then he can beget as many sons as he wishes. But there are bigger issues. “Gave” in what way? Gave to whom? To fulfil what moral law? To whom is such an act appealing to? Surely this implies that God is acting to a standard beyond himself in some way; that he was imperfect.

So how does killing a rabbi, save our sins? To what universal Karma does God have to appeal to, what higher order of good?

Having studied sacrifice in the ancient world, this act is even more puzzling to the modern world. The Greeks were smart. The slaying of the fatted calf had many functions. It meant that everyone got to eat, before the meat rotted, that it was a massive carnival act of communion that brought the community together. God/s got to share in the feast. Greeks would select the 'special bits" (actually stuff like the spleen and pancreas that were unpalatable), the bits that only gods would favour. They would be burned and the smoke ascending to heaven would indicate god/s pleasure.
The bottom line is that giving to god meat and other libations would bring favour from the divine will.

This is the spirit in which Jesus’s death was seen 2000 years ago. But this is not the sort of God that Xity later insisted upon. The Crucifixion seems incompatible with a limitless god, but a petty one.

Any thing missed?

2

Many see this ‘silly thing’ as the foundational myth of European civilisation.
If you have nothing to say, get off my thread.

3

Your remarks are off Topic and Inflammatory
Either attend to the content of the thread or FUCK OFF.

4

I’ve never liked the whole died for your sins thing and it doesn’t seem like Jesus himself said this.
Even the Romans quote seems open to interpretation. LIke he died for our sins means he died because we are a violent, prejudiced species, not in some barter operation with other parts of God. IOW it need not be that his death was a metaphysical transaction that took care of our sins, but rather his death was an outcome of our sinful nature. From my non-Christian perspective there seems to be a good deal of this kind of post-event spin.
I don’t think one can logically prove anything based on this idea, but I find it unappealing and on a gut level it makes me wonder who is being worshipped in Christianity.

5

Thanks for the response. I agree that it was post-event spin, but then I think the whole thing is. There were probably some good motives back then. Given the complete lack of a movement to give individuals the sorts of freedoms they enjoyed in the per-Roman period; especially in so-called “Celtic” Europe where polities were that much smaller and some tribes, such as the Germanic ones were run with a rough and ready democracy.
So, a movement that objected to the legal murder of a holy-man, grew into a fully fledged new religion (sadly) rather than a political emancipatory movement, which it could have been.

I suppose what I am looking for here, is an understanding of how a 'Christian" might see this thing. And hope that they won’t resort to the usual ‘god works in mysterious ways’.
At least in the last 200 years Xity has been promoted as a religion of the people; a thing anyone can understand and believe in. But its coherence does not stand up to scrutiny. Before the Reformation, what the church said was not arguable. For most the content of Scripture was hidden under a veil of Latin or Greek, forbidden in the vernacular languages. It’s no surprise to me that since Luther, Xity has inevitably fractured into many versions.

6

With you. Totally reject the typical spin on this. i.e., not a human sacrifice, an atonement, etc.

I think we need to see this act in line with - and as an extension of - other acts in scripture. Where human beings demonstrate their fear of God, i.e., their willingness to stand out there, exposed, in full view of God, against God even, in the sense of upright and ready to wrestle (recall the meaning of Israel).

Consider:

Abraham, asked to leave his homeland and venture out into foreign lands. Exposed. Vulnerable. Naked (and presumably afraid).

Abraham again, asked to ascend the mountain Moria with his only son. Exposed. Vulnerable. Giving what is most important. Even more naked than before in terms of what he is putting out there.

Job, who beyond Abraham actually has his children taken away, stripped of everything but his barest life in a harsh denudation, and asked (or tested) to see whether he will continue to stand exposed, vulnerable, naked (in full fear of God), and not succumb to shame, or the fear, or anything else that might divert him from this path (the ‘consolations’ and ‘advice’ of the friends). (Look at God’s words to Job: “Gird your loins like a man!” which is not to say, “succumb!”, but genuinely, “let’s wrestle, and work this out!”)

Jesus, who beyond Job is stripped of his life even, demonstrating his fear as he is taken, sentenced and ascends to the cross, exposed, vulnerable, pinned up in a brutal mockery of this fundamental religious act…

In short, the cross is Jesus showing how far we need to go in our fear of God. Unto death even, if that’s what the world inflicts on us as we stand out there and reveal who and what we are.

(The ‘why’ of this is the mantra that fear of God, or this posture, is the beginning of wisdom. All creatures exposing themselves, upright and ready to wrestle, to work out the way forward to the land of promise, or the very vision of the end I’ve spoken of elsewhere.)

7

Thanks for your response but I don’t think you have addressed my question.

Let me ask you do the phrases; 'died to save our souls"; " Died to redeem our sins"; “Gave his only begotten son to…(what)”, have any meaning to you.
Why did God kill Jesus?

8

More like why did people say god sent his own first son to die.

If it was to die, why so painful?
Can’t ya die and not have pain at the same time?

Lots of people meddled with original christianity and destroyed it.

9

Go away could replace FUCK OFF.

I deleted his 2 replies.

10

There is an interesting effect in scripture whereby a single sin can cast the whole lot in doubt, or where a single righteous act can redeem or save it… (Paul has a brilliant passage saying precisely this somewhere, I think in Romans…)

That’s what we see with Jesus. He’s like the one good man in Sodom that would have saved the rest… The one good apple in the batch of rotten ones that makes all the rotten ones worth preserving. Why? Not just to preserve that one, but because through a singular example of righteousness, the potential of the whole would be shown. (It’s not just that the rest are worth keeping in order to keep Jesus, but that Jesus proves the potential of us all through his act, and it is this human potential that is redeemed, and that was before in doubt due to our sins…)

Again, it’s part of a pattern. We also see it with Job. There you have the satan, the doubter and accuser of humankind, coming to God to express its doubts and accusations. God responds: “Have you considered Job?” Job being the one good man in the batch that could redeem the sins of the rest and change the satan’s mind…

God’s word alone is not enough though, and so to convince the satan Job has to be tested, first taking his children and wealth. Then his health but sparing his life. This test is (presumably) enough to resolve the satan’s doubt.

But let’s now fast-forward a thousand or so years of ‘history’ where things only get worse, or at least not much better, to Jesus, which as I said in my original response has to take this test further. We could almost picture another heavenly scene as in the prologue to the book of Job (a prologue to the gospels…). In it, the satan would return again to God, although in the time between Job and Jesus we’d have to recognize that its doubts and accusations have only deepened. The satan is no longer just the satan but is now Satan: the intensification and personification of this accuser spirit, in full revolt against God… For God to convince this creature, and bring it back into the fold, proof beyond the proof of Job is required…

We could almost hear Satan say to God in this prologue: “Job was no proof! If you had let me take his life he would have shown his rotten core in order to save it…” Thus Jesus needs to be tested further. His test (like Job’s) is to prove, to all those who doubt and accuse, that humankind is worth keeping, that there is potential in us all… He must die in order to redeem us of our sins, the very sins that cast us in doubt in the first place.

(God does this, giving his one and only son, the one good apple in the batch, because God so loved the world, and had faith and hope in our potential as humankind…)

11

The notion of the Trinity resolves this problem.

Next problem.

12

Okay why. Why does this make sense? How does this make sense. Who is counting? To what authority does god, job, and jesus have to appeal?

13

Who is counting? We all are! We all are the satan. We all have doubts and accusations against humankind (do we not?), some more than others, that need to be dispelled if we’re to move forward. Not just us though, but every single creature. Plants, animals, the earth itself. These too can revolt against humankind when we fail in our mission and fall into sin. (Do we not see an earth on the brink of revolt right now? Ready to “vomit us out” as the bible so eloquently puts it? Do we not see, perhaps, a need, or a reason/‘why’, to convince the world of our potential? To prove that we might be worth abiding?)

On what authority? Or for the sake of what? Try and piece together my other post on eschatology with what I’m saying here… It’s all about driving toward a collective vision of the end. That vision, where every creature can authentically be itself, and express itself, and be listened to, and be at peace, naked and unashamed in the world/collective, is the authority. And what we need to do right here and now to get there. No matter how drastic that action may be. (A global flood. A harsh test. The healing of broken limbs.)

Nobody holds a privileged place in deciding the way forward though. Again, it’s the collective. There is a ‘heavenly council’ where the doubts of one can be presented and cast the whole lot in doubt (this is precisely what we see in the prologue of Job). In order to get to this end, these doubts and accusations need to be surfaced, acted on, and dispelled. We need to bring the satan, this doubting and accusing spirit that can arise in us all, back on board (so to speak), restoring its faith and hope in the vision, and the potential of humankind to bring it about.

14

I am not sure it is presented as a thing anyone can understand. That anyone can come to believe in the set or a set of Christian beliefs, that seems to be the message, but understanding, at least in the usual sense, is not meant to be reached in regard to all the ideas in Christianity. Hence the whole faith thing, which is not quite belief. Of course, in practice many Christians will speak as if they understand things like the Crucifiction. IOW there is often a contradiction between the meta-position - which may be expressed in the mysterious ways idea, or with a focus on faith or paradox, etc - and the way members speak most of the time as if we can discuss such issues like we can the process of making compost.

To me the whole Jesus sacrifice smacks of paganism. Not that this is bad or good, but it is an odd fit with the kinds of near mathematical rationality the theologians bring to Christianity. In paganism you have all sorts of interactions between deities - and this is also true even in Hinduism where there may be an underlying monotheism. INtercessions and struggles between divine beings in various dramas. In Christianity you have this perfect oneness, ultimate transcendent god PLUS a few instances where there seems to be a kind of pluralism. The Devil/Satan stories all raise these issues.

15

Yes, I think you have the nail firmly on the head. (or through the wrist to the cross ha)
What I find particularly disturbing is when I point out some basic flaw in the thinking, and the Christian response is “that’s why they call it FAITH!”, as if it some kind of triumph of stupidity over reason were a great thing.
The implication is that they know their belief is ridiculous, but think overcoming reason to embrace stupidity were a thing to be cherished.

I still think there are some intelligent Xians out there, there has to be statistically, that at least have managed to find a logic way through the maze of incoherence.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for one to appear on this thread though.

I really think the cultural logic of 2000 years ago made the whole thing make sense, based on now long lost endemic assumptions, but are forever obscure for modern man.

16

Let me sum it up for you, to help you out:

The crucifixion is a test to demonstrate to all nay-sayers the potential goodness of humankind as a whole (through the example of one), that we are not just in it for ourselves, or out to save our own skins.

Use the prologue of Job to help you understand this simple context… The crucifixion simply takes that story further (which gives a perfectly coherent answer and has nothing to do with any kind of sacrifice in the sense of a blood debt to pay for our sins).

If you want to understand why faith in the potential goodness of humankind is important, then check out Genesis 1, where we were given the task of ruling creation. How are we going to succeed in this if the rest of creation has no faith in us? That we can care beyond our selfish interests? And we’ve done a lot in our time to make the rest of creation lose faith in us… Hence the need for such tests…

Again, perfectly coherent, so far as I can tell. So how about you inform me otherwise or else revoke what you said above, and recognize that the lack of intelligence is somewhere else.

17

Incoherent.

18

Even if I accept a basic notion of omniscience (that God knows all things with a western concept of knowledge), I don’t see how this in any way makes my view incoherent. Just because God is omniscient (which I doubt) doesn’t mean that other participants in creation are, and that these other participants might doubt the potential or ability of humankind to direct history. And that they might require tests of us to restore their faith and hope.

I NEVER said that GOD doubts us, and requires tests of us. What I said is that OTHERS (the satan) doubt us, and that God tests us to dismantle THEIR doubts.

As to whether such tests deny ‘omnibenevolence’, what does ‘omnibenevolent’ even mean? Does it mean that God is always soft, loving, and careful? Or does it mean that God is willing to take some bold actions to get creation back on track? Actions that might seem cruel and hard from certain points of view but that might nevertheless be for the good of us? I think we all know that God is of the latter quality. Does this mean that God isn’t wise or benevolent? I hardly think so.

So again, where is the incoherence?

19

Whooo a bit shouty aren’t you?

I love you way you know the mind of God. You must be a very special person. Pity it is nonsense.

20

Just trying to keep it as simple as possible for you, and emphasize the key parts. You clearly have nothing to offer though, or substance to your claim. So maybe you shouldn’t ask questions such as the OP or make baseless remarks about the coherence or intelligence of Christians. Not until you can or are ready to back them up.

Also never said I know the mind of God. All I’m doing here is giving a coherent reading of biblical scripture, which is the primary source for any Christian view (which you enquired about, but don’t really seem to care to talk about, which is the only real nonsense here).