How did it become "Jesus died for our sins" instead of "Jesus died because of our sins"?

[patrice]

[sinkingfeeling]

1. He was supposedly tortured and killed so that we wouldn't have to suffer the same for our sins. He's

supposed to be mortals' salvation.

[patrice]

22. Yeah, I just don't get what's "New", as in New Testament, about that; seems as old as humans to me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. Original sin is a lie and so is substitutionary atonement.

A false problem (Adam and Eve's disobedience) in a fairy story to explain why people are evil, and a false solution, substitutionary atonement through Jesus.

And it destroys people mentally and emotionally telling them they are a worthless POS sinner. And that they will suffer in Hell eternally if they don't accept him, but boy howdy, Gawd LOVES you!! (See George Carlin's rants for details--also read John Bradshaw's books on the unearned guilt and shame caused by the demand of adults for unquestioning obedience from their children, and their insistence that they BREAK the child's will).

And that they will never be good enough for god.

For this reason, I CANNOT stand the song "Amazing Grace". I certainly don't think of myself as a "wretch" or of any other person, who is deserving of the recognition of inherent worth and dignity (the FIRST of the Unitarian-Universalist seven principles) or of anyone else as a wretch. Not until they prove otherwise.

[zipplewrath]

2. Because it had a purpose

He didn't come to die and be resurrected "because" of our sins. He came to free us from our sins.

[patrice]

3. Who decided it is "for" rather than "because"? There is profound difference between the two concepts

[dmallind]

8. The people who wrote the Greek NT and used the words that mean "on behalf of" NT

[zipplewrath]

9. God

It was his son after all.

[patrice]

12. So God said it is "for" not "because" of our sins?

[zipplewrath]

14. yup

Well, that's what I've been told anyway.

[patrice]

16. Somebody's mind must, therefore, be equal to God's.

[patrice]

18. So, God said it is "died" and not "dies".

[dmallind]

29. Agin, scripture does. I think the question is how do you claim to know God's mind better?

It is possible, granting hypothetically of course that God exists, that you can speak on his intent with more clarity or insight than "Paul" could, but how do you establish that (rather grandiose I suspect to most Xians) claim? Again I am not assuming you can't, but the guy has a 2000 year head start on you, and canonized writings to his name that you lack, so you start in a pretty big hole. There really can be no disagreement on what scripture says (at least inasmuch as it definitely does not say "because of"). I can say that with confidence even though my Greek is undergrad level and rusty at that. So it boils down to you having the reposnibility to say why people should take your word about God's intent more seriously than a guy reagrded as the great evangelist of early Christianity writing in 1st century CE Judaea, and accepted as canonical for centuries?

[patrice]

35. You forget that I admit the possibility of my error. I admit it could be either, or, neither,

both, and something else entirely.

The position you are defending is the blasphemous one that says it is this and only this.

It is as I have said, we have mistaken a medium for both the actual and potential phenomenal totality of a "living God".

[dmallind]

38. It's not blasphemous. It;s Greek. It says what it says. Again I don't believe it either way. NT

[dmallind]

40. So in other words you want to claim gnosis is epistemologically valid? NT

[dmallind]

4. It's written that way in one of the oldest pieces of Scripture

According to some 1st Corinthians can be dated to about 55CE. Even if we get a bit more conservative and assign a date of about 70 instead as is typical for the epistles that's about as primary as the texts get. 15:3 states that Christ died for (Greek uper - on behalf of, for the sake of) our sins. My Greek is not perfect but it's good enough not to confuse that with a causal statement.

[patrice]

21. So, your mind is equal to God's on this matter and the evil that we do today has no part in

what "happened" to Jesus and that which is eternal is constrained by what some people say it is constrained by.

[dmallind]

23. I don't have any belief any gods exist - I am merely answering your query

How did it become "died for our sins"?

It was written that way by the first people who wrote it down. Pure and simple.

[patrice]

24. If there were something equal to that to which we refer with the word "god", do you think it would

be that to which we refer to with the word "blasphemy" to claim the ability to speak "God's" mind on any matter?

[dmallind]

25. Too many if's for me - but the blasphemy (and still the answer ) would be Paul's not mine

Maybe you meant the question in a broader context than you wrote it. If you're asking "assuming you are a believer is it possible the writers of scripture, who were human after all, misrepresented God's intent in the matter of salvation?" Then I suppose the answer from all but inerrantists would be "Yep it ios possible - but we have no standing to speak either way as we are also human". But as far as how/why it became "died for our sins" I still see my answer stands - the people who wrote it down first used those words.

[patrice]

26. Oh but, you do have "standing to speak either way as we are also human" if you admit the possibility

of error. That's not something that one of the positions in this matter admits.

[dmallind]

28. Of course I do. I'm not an inerrantist. But what else should we use as evidence when scripture

is clear on the subject? You have to argue a bit more objectively than based on personal dislike that it somehow means "because of" when it says, very clearly, "for".

[uberllama42]

71. I didn't even grasp the disctinction until I read this

I didn't really know what the OP was asking. Thanks.

[tom_paine]

5. The same way he became tall, blonde, and white: marketing, marketing, marketing

Just like it would be bad PR (to put it in modern terms) to try to get White Poeple to worship a short, swarthy Yiddish schlemiel, it is also bad marketing strategy to make people feel responsible.

Makes them feel bad, you see. People who feel bad (if it is not the subsconsciously generated, targeted, advertising-developed, "itch and scratch" bad feelings, which were not invented until the early to mid 20th Century) don't buy what you're selling.

Good marketing is about softening people up to buy what you're selling, even if they don't want it or it will be deleterious to them.

[daleanime]

6. Well...

which one is more marketable?:evilgrin:

[patrice]

19. b.i.n.g.o.

[patrice]

20. Not this one: All of the innocent dead, on both sides, in our wars, are in fact the Christ; . . .

George Bush/Karl Rove are Herod, Oil Royalty are Pilate and these http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2414.htm are the High Priests.

What point would there be in a holy book about stuff that transpired and ended 2000 years ago? That which is true/real does not stop being true/real, and if that's not true of The Bible, why should we respect it?

[frazzled]

7. It's always confused me

I am not a Christian. I was brought up as a Reform Jew, and the question of "sin" is altogether different in the Jewish religion. As I understood it, one had to actively atone for one's own sins by asking forgivenness from the person wronged (or, I guess, for sins against God, from God). You have to do this every year, whence Yom Kippur. This doesn't absolve you from past sins, it's only a way of moving forward, and trying to do better each year. And as far as general sins of humanity go, Jews are required to work for "Tikkun Olam"--repair of the world--on a regular basis.

So I never really understsood this thing of someone dying for your sins, and that providing salvation. Or of getting the slate wiped clean because of saying some penance novenas (in the case of some fundamentalist or evangelical groups, simply "finding Jesus" seeming to get you a get-out-of-jail-card in perpetuity).

I guess what I'm saying is, I was brought up in the "you break it, you fix it" school of religion, where humans are responsible for fixing their sins and working to achieve a better condition for themselves, those they know, and humanity in general. Perhaps I'll never truly understand some of the theological principles of other religions, though this is not to say I do not respect them in certain ways.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Yours is sure more logical than many of the 'christian' denominations.

[dmallind]

11. Yep - pretty much in this case I agree

It's certainly not consistent thet Judaism is more logical than Christianity to me as an outsider to both, but it surely is in the concept of sin. Whether believers like it or not, the conceept of salvation does and must boil down to "God sent himself down in human form so we could kill him as a sacrifice to himself to make up for the humans he created doing things he knew they would do when he made them"

[Igel]

17. And most Xians accept that.

Some are quite blunt about it.

You should have listened to the sermons one of my church's ministers would give just before Passover--it varied slightly from year to year, but the essential content was the same. He almost seemed to relish the gruesomeness of describing the kind of punishment that would be accorded to somebody about to be crucified, and then the crucifixion itself and be quite explicit saying that the reason was human sinfulness and weakness.

That the theology diverged a bit in the details from most isn't important. (The church's theology was also that Jesus was the one who gave the Law to Moses and set up the sacrificial system, i.e., Jesus = Yahweh.)

[Critters2]

43. So Jesus set up the sacrificial system, but later said, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice."?

Hmmm...hard to know who was more confused, Jesus or your preacher.

[darkstar3]

49. If you believe in the Trinity, then yes, Jesus DID setup the sacrificial system.

After all, Jesus and God are one. That's what the Creeeds make clear, isn't it?

true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

So, at one point in the past, thanks to all the descriptions we have in the OT, God/Jesus did in fact setup the sacrificial system, and then, according to every Christian and denomination I've ever known, decided to show more mercy to his fallen creations and fulfill that sacrificial system once and for all.

Which kind of puts the lie to "yesterday, today, forever"...

[Critters2]

52. Jesus is in mimetic relationship with the Father,

has the mind of the Father.

In the OT, nearly everytime the sacrificial system is endorsed by "god", the Hebrew is "El", "Elohim", or "El Shaddai". These are not the same as "YHWH", the God of Jesus. Don't let the plethora of bad translations available fool you. YHWH didn't create the sacrifical system. The Elohim did. And the Elohim are figments of people's imaginations, reflecting the human drive to violence.

[darkstar3]

55. Oh come on,

what theology did you get that from? Rectal Extraction?

The Nicene Creed is recited by literally tens of millions of Christians worldwide on a frequent basis, and is even found in your pet Orthodox Church. Many Christian scholars, when confronted with the different names for God in the OT, will tell you flatly and clearly that those are just different ways of referring to the same being, and thus the Nicene Creed is still true.* Furthermore, you are now claiming that the Jews themselves worshipped more than one God, so you are revising the theology of two different faiths to fit your own ideas of Mimetic Theory. This means you have a whole lot of people to contradict in order to make this argument.

In short, where do you get this support for Mimetic Theory in theology?

[Critters2]

57. Learned this from Sandor Goodhardt, professor English literature

and Jewish Studies at Purdue University, and an Orthodox Jew. He's also an expert in mimetic theory, and a Girardian. I think I'll take his interpretation over yours, thanks!

[darkstar3]

58. So he, like you, became a zealous convert of Mimeticism, and then retroactively applied it

to his faith, also like you?

Color me unimpressed. Mimetic Theory is a joke and a gross oversimplification of human behavior. Girard's writings may be interesting in the realm of literature or philosophy, but in the realm of psychology they make Freud look like a genius.

[Critters2]

61. My goodness! Why so defensive?

I thought we were just having a conversation.

[darkstar3]

63. Not defensive, merely tired of hearing about Girard's theories as if they were some sort of panacea.

nt.

[Critters2]

66. I tend to think they are a panacea. I find them remarkable.

So, I remark on them. You're welcome, even encouraged to disagree. The nice thing about being a Girardian is that I'm called to not participate in mimetic rivalries, as I did in my post above. Sorry about that. I grew up in a violent culture just like everybody else, and it takes a lot of discipline not to fall into old habits. Sorry. Really.

I think Girard gets it right. So shoot me.

[Critters2]

42. It MUST boil down to that?

Funny, that's not what I believe or preach at all.

Thanks for letting me know what I MUST believe. That's always helpful.

[darkstar3]

45. Disregarding the plain fact that dmallind has made about the original Greek,

let's inspect the faith and theology of Christianity WITHOUT substitutionary attonement. If Jesus didn't die for the sins of the people, if his life and death were not a fulfillment of sacrificial laws and practices of the time, then what exactly about Christianity makes it special?

If there is no hell, and Jesus' death had nothing to do with salvation (meaning salvation isn't even necessary), then what makes Christianity different from simple Deism? Why not just make the Christian creed "There is only one God, and Jesus is his prophet."

[Critters2]

48. Jesus' death overturned the sacrificial system,

Jesus' death followed the typical model of scapegoating violence, with one major exception...Jesus did not engage in mimetic relationships with those doing violence to him. He neither actively participated in his death, as was the practice in some sacrificial cults, nor did he try to defend himself against the sacrificial violence. Either of these would have shown that Jesus had entered into mimetic violence himself. Take for instance, the fact that Muhammad and his followers engaged in armed conflict with the tribes of Mecca. Armed confict is always mimetic, that is one side engages in violence because the other side has (or, as children put it "he started it!"). Jesus does not defend himself, or engage in any behavior which moves him into a mimetic relationship.

What Jesus' death does is open our eyes to the violence of our systems, and encourage us to find peace in ways which do not involved violence. That Jesus neither endorses nor engages in violence is what makes Christianity different from other worldviews. The sacrificial system was a violent system. Jesus does not fulfill it, he demonstrates its failings.

I'm not concerned with hell, and I don't understand "salvation" as something which pertains to life after death. I understand my need to be saved from my own violent thinking, and from the violence which undergirds human culture. That's the salvation I find in Jesus.

[darkstar3]

51. So the resurrection matters how, in that system?

If it's all about how his DEATH was carried out, then wouldn't his martyrdom be more powerful if he had stayed dead? That system is used to mourn the fact that we killed a perfect being, and that martyrdom and that guilt trip could be very powerful in proving to people how violent they can become. But doesn't it seem to take away some of the power of that martyrdom message if he just flies away afterward and no one hears from him for 2000 years?

ETA: My point is that it still doesn't seem substantially different in any way from Deism with a hint of somber thrown in. It wouldn't have broken away so cleanly and thoroughly from Judaism if that were the case.

[Critters2]

54. The resurrection is God's rejection of the sacrificial system.

Part of the peace gained in the sacrificial system is the silence of the victim afterwards. The example I use to explain this to Illinoisans is the Springfield Race Riot of 1908, an outbreak of sacrificial violence which destroyed a huge portion of the city, caused at least 2 deaths (probably many more which weren't recorded)...but then wasn't talked about to the degree that many lifelong Springfield residents didn't know it ever happened. The resurrection makes it impossible to ignore the violent death of Jesus. It also demonstrates the forgiveness God grants us for our violent tendencies. Rather than being angry with those who had abandoned him to the violence, and may even have participated, Jesus greets his disciples with the words "Peace be with you". This is not a God who returns violence for violence. That's the point of the resurrection.

[darkstar3]

60. An interesting interpretation, I must admit,

though you do realize it's nigh impossible to find agreement with your theory among those who call themselves Christians worldwide?

[Critters2]

64. We're a growing movement.

But faith is not a matter of majority vote. At least, mine isn't.

[Critters2]

68. Thanks, btw, for keeping an open mind and reading my responses.

I do appreciate it, and strengthen my own thinking through such exchanges. I've got to head to the hospital, now, though. Have a great day!

[patrice]

13. That's pretty much where I'm coming from. How does it value something that someone did if we

use it as a blanket justification for anything, because "you're forgiven, since Jesus died for our sins." It seems the opposite to me, disrespect for that act.

It also seems a rather deliberate mistake to say "on behalf of" means "for" and only "for". This whole attempt to make language and, by extension, translations formulate absolute equations (something that is not inherent to the nature of language itself), to me, seems an error similar to mistaking the constructed (past-tense, i.e. dead) medium for the phenomenological (present-tense, i.e. living) "message"/ongoing event, so I appreciate your "'you break it, you fix it' school of religion."

If the story of Jesus is linear, the words are limited; they "mean" only literally what they "mean" and nothing else, so it's over and has no ongoing relevance to here and now, except as an historical artifact.

I have always had difficulty about how ineffable omnipotent omniscience can so easily be contained in our human formulations, "for means for and not because and died means died and not dies". All of that sort of thing really looks like blasphemy to me.

[dmallind]

27. Quick question (honest one though) Are you at the heart of it questioning the salvific act in itself

So in your mind (remember I'm merely an interested nonbeliever with some knowledge of Greek and theology, no guru on either and not personally involved either way) was the death of Christ an instrument of salvation?

The language is as clear as you state. Soryy but I can speak to that. The Anglicized version is "hyper" which as you doubtless know means above or beyond. This caused a very common secondary usage, in scripture and elsewhere, as "on behalf of" or "for the sake of"in the sense that the subject of the phrase would be wrapped around and above the object - protecting him and taking the brunt of an attack or blame for the object's sake. Iranaeus uses it extensively as did Paul and secular writers too. Now does that mean God himmself meant it that way (from a theist's POV)? Who the hell can say? We only know about God's intentions even second hand however from either scripture or from other devotional and exegetic texts. We have no direct evidence for what God intended beyond that, so we either give up and claim ineffability, which inevitably leads to an inability to say anything at all about God, or we use the evidence in scripture to make our best guess. If we choose the former we have no knowledge at all. If we choose the latter I find it inescapable that the clear meaning is "for our sins" not "because of our sins". No Greek writer would use hyper for that meaning, and Greek writers are pretty much all we have to go on for this (some Aramaic here and there notwithstanding and irrelevant here).

[patrice]

33. I believe in the "salvific act" I just don't think it was magic.

I think durable truths are encoded into who and what we are and manifested throughout generations in our experiences. The life of the man named Jesus is one such example of truth from which we can learn a thing referred to as salvation or refuse to learn and continue to damn ourselves.

I also know that if language worked the way that people seem to think it does, it wouldn't work at all. Language ONLY refers; it is not identical with the phenomenal world to which it refers. For example, there is no essential II-ness in the word "two". If there were direct equivalence, we'd need different words, different constructions, for each and everything. Instead, the semantic references for the letters b, l, a, c, and k are numerous and diverse and there are many semantic contexts in which the letters f, o, and r mean "because".

[JerseygirlCT]

31. God in a box

That's what it does. Limits God to a size and shape we feel comfortable about, and then wraps God up with a bow.

I suppose it's a natural human tendency, but I think we ought to fight it a bit more.

[Igel]

15. Because asking forgiveness also involved atonement.

If I steal $100 from you and ask your forgiveness, it's not enough. I should atone for my "sin"; the OT is clear that the punishment, which is an atonement, requires repaying the money I stole twofold.

However, some of the sins against God required death as the punishment. You'd atone for your sins by your life. Some just were forgiven fairly easily.

Mostly atonement in the OT both for sins against God and against man was usually a financial burden. Against man, money. In the case of sins against God you'd sacrifice, and the expense was to buy or yield up an animal to die. Perhaps a dove. Perhaps a goat. Perhaps an ox. They all involved death. You were to be there when the animal was killed because of something that you did. It died because of your sin; it also died for your sin, to make propriation. At that moment, you get to look in two directions--the first, backwards, to the cause, and the second forward, to the effect that having your sin covered will have. "Because" and "for". Saying it's only "for" and not "because" doesn't make any sense most of the time. I paid the bill for a plane ticket. I paid the bill because I incurred a debt and it was due. If somebody intervenes and pays on my behalf, he pays the bill for the plane ticket. He pays the bill because I incurred the debt.

Yom kippur had another component: The scapegoat, on whose head all the "other" since and responsibility was transferred before being exiled into the countryside. Passover had yet another: A lamb had to die to memorialize swap of a lamb as a symbol, the lamb's blood providing a "covering" to spare a family. (Note this was a regressive kind of "tax"; later, you could get by with a dove if you were poor.)

Now, some branches of Xianity have decided that less bloody kinds of atonement were appropriate. The NT isn't really into animal sacrifice, that system eventually being called a "schoolmaster" that supposedly ended with the Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice. Instead they set up other kinds of atonement, posthumous and "pre-humous"; people still wanted somehow to suffer to show their repentance and the church was more than happy to take their money and labor. Indulgences, confessionals and penances, vows of silence or poverty, novenas (in which it's actually the living asking for intercession for the dead). There's no NT justification for it, that I can think of; then again, the same is true of Xmas, Easter, church on Sunday, or numerous other things called "Xian." But Xianity theologies have largely kept the OT theology in their God-kit, since the entire motivation for Jesus' sacrifice is rooted in the system that Jesus, if you listen to John or presumably the Nicene Creed, set up; Paul made the theology clear, but pretty much all the evangelists use the term "lamb" for Christ, with the Passover analogy fairly evident.

Pauline theology actually explicated the OT system to say that animals were a poor substitute--something probably not a dominant intellectual theme at the time in Jewish belief--whereas Jesus' sacrifice could be a true substitute (something that would be revolting to most Jewish belief, I suspect). In that sense, Xians consider themselves absolved; their debt is not just sort of paid, but is indeed paid. You can quibble about whether that at the present already covers all future sins--the "always under grace" crowd. Regardless, at least in some Xian theologies, Xians are to work not to make things better out of obligation, not to earn salvation or grace, but out of gratitude. More of a focus on process than on achievements, with purity of process and purpose being more interesting than actual outcome. In some ways there's a similarity in outcome, but not in motivation, with Tikkun.

Tikkun olam is a fairly recent kind of theology, although people look for its roots in antiquity often more thoroughly than they look for leavening in preparation for the days of unleavened bread. It was far easier centuries ago when antiquity was, in many ways, more malleable. You can't project it back to the days of blood sacrifice any more than you could project the idea of human rights back onto Hammurabi's code. The latter's done as well, but if you actually ever read what Hammurabi wrote you'd have a hard time making the assertion with a straight face.

[Withywindle]

73. But that idea of death (of another being, not YOU) as atonement

the idea that you could offer up a dove or a goat or a cow to pay for your own sin, well, that's very primitive, isn't it? Even in Santeria and other religions where animal sacrifice is still practiced, it's well understood that the animal's life does NOT redeem any human's sins, it's just given up because blood is a powerful source (and the meat is always eaten by the worshippers afterwards and it's often understood that the poor are there and this may be the best meal they've had in weeks.)

How can anyone die for someone else's sin? OH, OK, maybe in a world where violent death was rare--but what value does an animal sacrifice have in a world where millions of animals are slaughtered every day? What value does a human sacrifice have in a world where criminal execution and street murder and deaths in war happen every day?

If God was truly omnipotent, he could have prevented "original sin" and could also step in to wipe out sin at any time. If He were truly omniscient, he would have known long before time it was going to happen anyway, and still created Adam and Eve, full knowing.

If He still chooses to damn his more stubborn and wilfull children to eternal torment anyway, considering He could upend the chessboard at any point, then fuck Him, He's a monster.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Well

the ideas that have become the sort of perverse get out of jail variety are just that. The Christian idea of substitutional atonement, while fairly common, is not universal. I think it's wrong, for instance.

Beyond that, the ideas that you put forth are exactly what forgiveness is supposed to be about. And it requires true remorse and an honest attempt to do better. You'd think perhaps that Christianity as a whole would have learned from the indulgences that sparked the Reformation, but I guess there's a streak in humanity that's reflected in the continual return to the idea of saying the magic words, and all is forgiven... without any sort of consequence, without any sort of remorse, and without any sort of intention not to hurt someone again.

[patrice]

34. My point exactly: magic and not only magic, but magic that we define, "If God does a thing, s/he doe

s it magically, without phenomenal relationships, it MUST just spontaneously happen".

People say there is an omnipotent omniscient entity and then, as you said upthread, they set about putting all kinds of HUMAN limitations on it: "God in a box" does things magically, or magic is of God AND you can make quid-pro-quo deals with him. He doesn't in - form his creation with potentialities that manifest in repeated patterns which reveal what truth we are capable of apprehending and learning from/changing because of, that's something called "Nature" and its cohesion is limited to that which we say we have identified. Therefore, Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago. He is not living and dying now, but we expect him to return under conditions we have defined and characterized by such and such specific terms.

I really agree with Nietzsche's Zarathustra on this: God is dead and we killed/are killing him.

[rug]

32. Because sin did not cause his death.

[Critters2]

70. Now I'm curious. What did? nt

[rug]

74. His love. Even then it was voluntary.

[darkstar3]

36. Debating the finer points of Jesus' purpose seems moot until we know he lived to begin with. n/t

[laconicsax]

37. Shhhhh!

Assuming that Jesus was an actual historical figure and then debating the finer points of his purpose is a respectable pursuit. It can also be a lucrative pursuit if the debate is with yourself and the results are preached as definitive to a congregation.

[darkstar3]

39. Stiff white collars and the automatic respect they get will tell you that...

[Critters2]

41. The early church held to the concept of "Christus Victor"

which said that Jesus died at the hands of humans but overcame death, until the late Middle Ages. Anselm came up with the doctrine of Penal or Substitutionary Atonement, set forth in his essay "Cur Deus Homo" ("Why God Became Human"). The Western Church has pretty much accepted this as its default position ever since. The Eastern Church has never held to Penal Atonement, the idea that Jesus died for our sins.

A growing movement in Europe and North America, Mimetic Theory, no longer holds to Penal Atonement, but believes Jesus' death was the result of typical scapegoating violence, no different from a Southern lynching or a pogrom. The only difference was that Jesus spent 3 years preparing his disciples, thus making them aware of the communal violence which would ultimately take his life.

Probably the best books on Mimetic Atonement Theory are _The Scapegoat_ by Rene' Girard; or _Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross_ by S. Mark Heim.

[darkstar3]

44. Tell me,

are you somehow related to Mr. Girard? Do you receive some sort of compensation from the plugging or sale of his book? Is it possible that you have read nothing else since you finished The Scapegoat?

I only ask because, just once, I'd like to see your sig line below a post that wasn't pimping Mimetic Theory as if it were the entire explanation of human behavior.

[Critters2]

69. Actually, Girard and most Girardian scholars refer to Mimetic Theory

as a unversal theory of human behavior. So, there you are.

No relation. Haven't met him, though I have several friends who know him quite well. I've read all of Girard's published works, and those of a good many other Girardian scholars, and am a member of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion, which brings scholars together to study and discuss Girard's work. But I rarely discuss it in other DU forums, because it wouldn't be relevant. It's plenty relevant to R/T, though.

I happen to think Rene is right. That's all.

Gotta go! Enjoy the afternoon, and stay cool!

[Critters2]

46. The shift happened with Anselm.

The Eastern Church still teaches that Jesus died because of our sins. The Western Church abandoned that with Anselm, but was strongly encouraged to do so by the image of a violent God it had begun to accept after the conversion of Constantine. The post-Constantinian church had a much more violent image of God than the pre-Constantinian Church did. Anselm's essay was the logial result of thinking that began with Constantine.

[darkstar3]

47. Don't confuse that word because with the idea that the EOC doesn't believe in SA.

I present to you a quote from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church, an institution of the larger "Eastern Church" that you refer to. It is clear from these paragraphs, and especially from the part I bolded, that the Eastern Orthodox church ALSO believes in Substitionary Attonement.

Another fundamental belief of the Orthodox Church is the faith in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, Who became "incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and became man" (Nicene Creed) for our salvation. The Virgin Mary Theotokos gave birth to Jesus, Who is the only begotten Son of God. In the Orthodox Church, the Theotokos is highly honored, as expressed in praises recorded in the Scriptures with qualities mirrored in the Magnificat (cf. Luke 1:46 ff.). Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens. The Church venerates the Theotokos as "holder of Him Who is illimitable...and infinite Creator."

God's love caused Him to send His Son Jesus Christ to save man. For the Christian, the Incarnation of Christ is a mystery. Apostle Paul, the most keen interpreter of the life of Christ, in his epistle to the Colossians writes that it was "the mystery hidden for ages and generations, but now made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26; cf. Rom. 16:25-26). Jesus Christ was sent for this divine mission "when the fullness of time was come" (Gal. 4:4), when man was prepared to accept Him as his Savior. Christ was born with two perfect natures, the divine and human, as God-man. When a Christian refers to Christ in the Old and New Testaments, he should presuppose the fact of the two natures of Jesus Christ which are made manifest in His Gospel and deeds.

Another essential in the life of Christ, which is indispensable for the Church faith, is the Crucifixion of Christ, which is considered the end of His humiliation and emptiness on earth. The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ nails to the Cross the sins of mankind. The Church considers this divine event the "sorrowful Easter," for it is linked with His Resurrection.

The Orthodox Church considers the highest event in the life of Christ to be His Resurrection. It is pronounced as the glorification of Christ, touching upon the scope and the nature of Christ's Mission, which has been a part of the everlasting Christ. Christ presented Himself, as "the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). Without this belief in the Resurrection, the preaching and the faith of the Church is in vain, as Apostle Paul proclaims (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14). The belief of the Church is that, on the third day, Jesus Christ rose again. The Resurrection of Christ is considered by the Church to be the supreme declaration of faith. The Lord's Day, Sunday, is dedicated to His Resurrection. For this reason, the celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church is called the "Feast of Feasts."

The Church believes that "He shall come again with glory to judge" the world and everyone on earth, to "render to every man according to his works" (Romans 2:6) of faith in Christ and His Gospel, his love expressed in good works, and in helping others, described as the "least," as explicit witnesses to the steadfastness of his faith in Him. In the Orthodox Church, the justification and salvation of man depends on the standard of "faith which worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6).

source: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063

[Critters2]

50. That's not a statement of Penal Atonement, but thanks.

Violence is a sin of humanity which Jesus' death exposes and works to end. That's what your highlighted sentence means. You're thinking in Western terms.

[darkstar3]

53. Oh, I see.

YOUR interpretation is completely correct while mine is flawed.

And you base this on what exactly? That armchair quarterback known as Girard? What authority does he have on the subject of interpreting the beleifs of the Greek Orthodox?

[Critters2]

56. Well, that and my 3 very close Greek Orthodox priest friends

who tell me that Orthodoxy has never held to Penal Atonement theory, and are in fact perplexed by it.

[darkstar3]

59. Yeah, well I have a black friend who votes Republican.

That doesn't mean the Republicans ever gave a damn about black people.

[Critters2]

62. But, if your Black friend said "most Balck people think...",

I'd be more inclined to listen to him than you...assuming you're not Black.

[darkstar3]

65. You completely missed the sarcastic point there, but more importantly,

if what you say about trusting said black friend about "most black people think" statements is true, that would make you a fool, falling for false authorities on a subject.

[Critters2]

67. If my choice is him or you, he has the strongest claim to authority.

If my choice is him or some PhD sociologist, I'd go with the sociologist. But that wasn't the point I was making.