True, the sacrifices in the OT were involved the sacrifice of something other than one’s own life. It was the sacrifice of a subsitute life - the life of a lamb or goat normally - as an offering for sins. These sacrifices prefigure the final one and only true sacrifice for sins - the death of not a physical lamb, but that of the lamb of God - who came to redeem us from our sins by offering his own body as a sacrifice for our sins.
The Bible never uses the word martyrdom for Jesus’ death. It uses the word murder, but Jesus did willingly allow his life to be taken. He did die for the sins of the world. His death does not save anyone automatically though. We need to believe and trust him as our Savior.
So the sacrifices of the OT are inextricably connected to Jesus and his sacrifice for sin as Hebrews 10 makes abundantly clear. This plan to send Jesus to redeem mankind from their sins pre-dated any idea of the Roman devotio or any other human copycat idea. God’s was the original plan and He was working to bring that plan to fruition from the very beginning.
His plan is not invalidated, negated, or destroyed simply because there were other humans that got a similar idea. Who cares? It’s a free world. Skeptics are quick to jump on things like this and claim that it proves the Bible is not real, but simply a copy of the surrounding cultures.
Well, if you think the Bible was not inspired, if you do not believe what is written in the Bible is true, then sure, for you that might be an easy way to explain it away.
God’s plan of salvation is in no way threatened by the fact that the Romans or Sumerians had some idea of martyrdom in their religions.
The point I was making is not the most important point. If it were, I would have been talking about it far more frequently. I really only posted on the topic of martyrdom to show that Jesus was not a unique self-sacrifice in the ancient world.
But it does raise the issue of what exactly is the metaphysical function of the death of Jesus?
Is it merely word magic - - what God says - - is what happens?
Is it the sacrifice of any life?
Is it the sacrifice of a human?
Is it the sacrifice of a god?
Is it the sacrifice of a god/human?
What I think is MORE important that my original post is a point I’ve made in a different thread: that this “innovation” of drinking human blood and eating human flesh is a distinctly PAGAN element … and one no faithful member of the Jerusalem Council would ever tolerate.
Which is neither here nor there. According to the Bible, He would have been the original one having been prophesied and planned by God from the beginning of time. So, whatever. Point understood. He was not the only one. I don’t know the details of these other ones, but perhaps He is unique in the sense that we have him dying for sinners to redeem them from the penalty of sin. We have God incarnating in human form and making that sacrifice for humans. And of course, we have resurrection all combined, so there are plenty of things to keep it unique. But even if it is not unique, it really doesn’t effect the truth of the story either way.
The Bible clearly indicates number 5. Jesus was both God and man. He became a man so that He would be able to die, because as God, that is impossible. As God it is impossible to redeem humans. He was made like his brothers in every way and died in their place, receiving in His body the penalty we all deserved for our sins, with the ultimate penalty being death. It is His sinless shed blood that cleanses us from sin, just as it was the blood of the substitute animal sacrifice in the OT that temporarily covered the sins of the people until the true Sacrifice appeared.
And neither would God! This is prohibited throughout the Old Testament. And, even the NT early Church leaders said of all Gentile new converts - who did not need to follow the OT law - that they should refrain from eating anything with blood in it.
Acts 15 " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." This is repeated 4 times in the book of Acts, so it is pretty clear that even the early Church did not understand Jesus’ words to refer to literal drinking of blood and eating of His flesh.
If you think it does, perhaps you can show support for this view somewhere in Scripture. Is there any place in Scripture where this actually takes place and is condoned?
Did Jesus mean this in a literal way? Did He ever demand that his disciples eat his flesh or drink his blood? - meaning did this ever happen that we know of? Is it recorded anywhere in the Bible? I know of no such instance.
What did He mean? Read Luke 22:14-23 to find out. It is pretty straight forward!..The bread represents His flesh and the wine represents His blood. It’s really not all that difficult.
Cheers!
We see that even the early Church prohibited new converts from eating any meat that still had blood in it so obviously the early Church did not take this literally.
@tokyoguy111 And yet the Gospel of John quite plainly describes eating the flesh of Jesus and the blood of Jesus … - - a pagan unfolding of the Hebrew practice of Sacrifice … but with a pagan inspiration…and a pagan justification…
George, it is highly unlikely that John meant it as you seem to want to interpret it. The evidence I gave before is more than sufficient to support that, but if you want to disregard all that and just focus on this one passage, sure, you can’t prove either way just from this passage what he meant. So if you want to rip this one passage out of context and pretend you know what God is saying to us, feel free.
Funny, Mr. Tokyo… I was thinking the same when I read your apologia for why the text doesn’t really mean what we think it means - - despite the words and the context leaving us virtually no other alternative.
If it didn’t mean what we THINK it means, there wouldn’t have been such a scandal triggered as described in the text.
George, have you ever heard of a parable? Might be a new concept to you.
Although this is not a parable per se, the point is that Jesus did not always speak in concrete literal terms. Remember He said “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days.” I suppose you think that Jesus was speaking in reference to the literal Temple and promising to rebuild it in 3 days if the Jews were to destroy it? No? Why not? That’s what He said, right?
Ooohhh! The Bible clarifies what He meant. Got it. Same thing here, no?
Since drinking blood is prohibited all throughout the Bible, and since Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and since Jesus was sinless, it is safe to say that He was not commanding His followers to drink His literal blood or eat His literal flesh. There is no record of this ever happening. The early Church did not practice that - in fact, as I pointed out before, they actually prohibited it. To me, that is a huge clue as to what Jesus meant.
It is true that the Pharisees and some of his half-hearted followers were turned off by this and stopped following Jesus. But often times Jesus spoke in parables and then later explained the meaning to his disciples. He was often misunderstood by the crowds, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus actually was encouraging them to drink his blood like they thought.
Yes… it is safe to say! Jesus was not pouring his blood into a cup, and cutting slabs of his flesh off onto a plate.
But it is also safe to say that bread and wine would MIRACULOUSLY TURN into flesh and blood once consumed was literally believed by Christians for centuries … and in some sectors … STILL believed.
There is no changing the mind of the true believer… even when faced with the opposing mind of yet another species of true believer. Please carry on. Have a splendid day.
Al, I hope you will think seriously about these verses. Your eternity depends on it.
It is for all these reasons that I can confidently say that your experience and the message you saw was not from God. In light of all these verses and many others, how could He have made it any clearer?
[/quote]
Tokyo, it is obvious that our minds work very differently. No purpose would be served for any further conversation between us. I make no claim to be certain about what awaits me after death. But do I fear it? No. I have an unshakeable belief that my God is my Friend. I try to do what He wants, but I know I must disappoint Him sometimes. And I know that a good friend forgives.
So if I am to ‘make it to Heaven’, it won’t be on the terms as you interpret the N.T. And neither will any of the good people of China, India, Japan, and Native Americans. All the men of science from these countries that I have met, and discussed religion & philosophy, are turned off with the Christian message as you present it. I do hope that your audience is ‘the man in the street’ sort , and that they will be positively inspired by it.
Al Leo
I understand Al. Let me leave you with a few thoughts.
First of all, God is not your friend UNTIL He becomes your Savior. He may love you and desire a relationship with you, but He is first and foremost our Judge. And, because we are born as sinners, we are born enemies of God. Romans 5:10 speaks of God redeeming us when we were His enemies. This is why salvation is by grace through faith. Enemies/sinners do not deserve to be saved or forgiven. No one does. And until a person understands that they do not deserve God’s grace, that they are unworthy of salvation because of their sin, they will make it to heaven. Jesus said that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, we cannot be saved.
Through Jesus He offers a way for us to become His friend and child. But until that point, He is not our friend. It is why we are told to fear God. He is love and wants to save us, but as a righteous Judge, He cannot just overlook our sin and pretend it didn’t happen.
And, yes, He is happy to forgive if we come to Him in faith and repentance, but don’t expect Him to forgive you based on your good works and on the fact that you consider yourself to be a relatively good person. He forgives only on the basis of faith in the shed blood of Jesus. You can’t expect God to do it your way. You need to respect what He tells us in His Word and do it His way. That is part of what it means to repent of our sins.
Al, you will be happy to know that God promises that there will be people from every people, tribe, language, and nation in heaven. So we know that there will be some in each of the countries and people groups you mentioned that will come to faith in Jesus. That is why Jesus sent His disciples to preach the gospel all around the world.
I’m not sure what you mean by my audience being “the man on the street” sort. I guess that is a put down for ignorant and uneducated because only those types would believe such a message? We have some of all type in our church. In my last church we had a person in charge of design for Sony, so that idea doesn’t really fly. I have a responsibility before God to preach the gospel and there is only one gospel. Any other “gospel” even if preached by angels is a distortion according to Paul. I must do what I’ve been called to do and yes, a number of people have been both helped and inspired.
I recognize that this message is not politically correct or popular in today’s pluralistic world, but truth is narrow. That’s simply the nature of the beast. If we don’t preach the truth, we will give people false hope and that is even worse. Perhaps that is why Jesus said the way is narrow and few there be that find it. I don’t stand on the street corner preaching hell, fire, and brimstone. I preach God’s love balanced with His holiness.
You can’t separate the two. A God of love that is not holy is like a cake without flour.
It might be sweet because you put in a lot of sugar, but it won’t taste good. We need to present God just as He presents Himself to us in His Word.
There are “nice” things about Him (sweet ingredients of the cake) and strict things about Him ( bitter ingredients of the cake). Take any one of them out of context and you don’t have a good cake. God is good, but He is also the Giver and Taker of life. God is holy and hates sin, but He is also loving. God is a righteous Judge who must judge sin(wages is death), but He is gracious in that He sent His own Son to take that punishment for us. God reveals Himself through nature(Romans 1:19-20) and the heavens(Psalm 19:1-4) to people all over the world. Everyone has that clear witness. If people respond and seek Him, I believe He will reveal Himself to them or send someone to share with them. He promises to be found by those who seek Him with all their heart. Jeremiah 29:13.
I’ll close with two verses from Galations 2. - v. 17 and 21.
“yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”
“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”
I don’t believe that Jesus died for no purpose, Al, do you?
Thank you for interacting with me and for doing it in a kind and respectful way, Al!
@tokyoguy111
Tokyo, I respect your motives, and I understand how you came to your understanding of Christian scripture. But you will not be successful convincing the majority of scientifically-literate people that God created humans as enemies–or created them perfect, but, since Adam’s sin, each human now comes into the world as God’s enemy. I would rather believe that each of us comes into this world with evolved genes that are intrinsically ‘selfish’ and these must be overcome if we are to live up to our potential of being created ‘in God’s image’. Jesus was born with these genes (if He was truly human), and He showed us the potential each of us has if we could truly follow Him. God bless you, Tokyo. I guess we are both trying our best to do just that–to follow HIm. We are just taking different paths.
Al Leo
And where will the rest of these people be–the ones who have not acknowledged Jesus as Savior? So many of my good friends are among them. Eric was one, and God sent a message that he was loved anyway. Was he on the way to Hell?
Al Leo
Yes, Al, salvation is a miracle. God has to open our eyes to see the truth. It’s not really a matter of choosing what we want to believe, but submitting to God and believing what He has revealed to us. I don’t think we have the luxury of changing God’s Word to make it match what we might wish it said. I too, understand your concern. I am afraid that some people are turned off by the message. It’s interesting that God actually says in I Corinthians 1 that He has chosen the foolish to shame the wise:
“For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.””
Often times, our worldly wisdom, pride, money, power, position etc. gets in the way of our humbling ourselves before God and allowing Him to be our Lord and Teacher. And here we are told that not many of them were wise because God chose what is foolish to shame the wise.
And in John 6, many people turned from Jesus because his message was too hard for them to hear. Jesus did not then go and water down the message to make it more palatable to the masses. Truth cannot be changed or it ceases to be the truth.
They will not be in heaven Leo. The Bible is clear about that.Some of my good friends are among them as well and you and I have a responsibility to share the good news of the gospel with them. “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” - regardless of our skin color, sinfulness, mental abilities, health, importance in this world, etc. The ground before the cross is level. All have to come, kneel, and confess their sin. I can go along with the message that he is loved, but God’s love does not mean that He can ignore our sin. If it did, there was no need for the cross. Sin must be paid for. A person remains dead in their sins until they trust in Jesus as their Savior. So, yes, he, and all of us, were/are on the way to hell. It’s the default destination for all mankind because we are all sinners. That alone is enough to keep us from heaven. The fact that God actually saves some is grace. He would not need to save anyone because the wages of sin is death. We are all sinners and therefore, we all have earned the wages of not only physical death, but spiritual death.
Our different understanding of God’s Word is what causes this difference. For you, you simply cannot bring yourself to believe certain things so what is written in the Bible really is of no importance because it is your wisdom/your desires that trump the words of the Scripture.
It reminds me of II Tim 4:3. “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,”
I don’t mean that to sound harsh, but I say it because I am concerned for you. I’m sure you are a great guy, but no one is good enough to get to heaven. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous.
Al, keep on reading God’s Word and asking God to teach you. I will do the same.
Al, you might benefit from reading a book by Philip Yancey: 'What’s So Amazing About Grace?". I’ve read it at least a couple times and recall that he speaks with considerable conviction and clarity about the offensive scandal that serious and real grace always has associated with it (especially in the nostrils of “the righteous” such as the older brother in the prodigal story). And Yancey writes as one who is very personally aware of the shortcomings of the established church such as it is today. Though I haven’t kept up with his most recent writings, Yancey packed a lot of keen insight into those works which connects well with those who want to delve deeper into the meat of Christianity than the milk we were able to digest in Sunday school days.
Tokyo guy is right that truth must remain truth despite our preferences or disapproval. What I add to that is that truth (I can only suppose, but with some conviction) is bound to be much greater than our minds --even Biblically informed minds-- can allow. As Christians though, we trust that whatever that whole incomprehensible truth includes, it will not render false or contradict what God has revealed to us through the Spirit and in the words of scripture. It may well, however, render false some of our cherished interpretations and understandings that we attach ourselves to, confusing those things for the truth itself. In the end though, as a matter of faith, God must be (and I will personally add: “is”) worthy of our trust. Where else would you turn?
I realize these are brazen words from somebody like me, to a more experienced person like yourself who has seen hard times and even war itself. Yet as Tokyoguy says, all ground is level as we approach the cross. So I offer this only as a possible pointer toward encouragement or insight, not as somebody who has been seasoned through as much hardship as you have probably seen, but as a fellow traveler along the way.
Thanks, Mervin. I will order Yancey’s book. You, and most of the scriptural experts who have responded to BioLogos Forum, present an interpretation of Chtistian scripture that does not insult the intelligence of a person drawn to a career in science. On the other hand, and in my humble opinion, Tokyoguy and the missionaries in Taiwan that I referred to in my Miracle Truck story present a Christian message that totally contradicts the concept that God is Love. Who stands behind the message that “anyone who does not profess Jesus Christ as their savior cannot be saved.” And the further message that “not being saved”, means you are damned to Hell and will suffer for eternity". Tokyoguy seems to say that the message came directly from God 2,000 years ago and is Truth not warped or misinterpreted in transmission. He states that the message on the truck seems to contradict this, and therefore must have come from Satan.
I believe that God currently reveals Truth to us through the Spirit; i.e., He did not cease doing this 2,000 yrs. ago. And if you judge the source of the message (Satan or God) by the fruits of each message, which would you choose? Remember 2 Corinthians 11:14
Al Leo
That is a great book, Al, and I think you’ll get something out of it because it is an audience of just such sensibilities (which Yancey himself shares in) to whom Yancey writes. And he keeps it focused on Jesus. Christy put me on to a newer companion book to the one I referenced for you: “Vanishing Grace” available for $10 on Kindle. It covers a lot of the same territory but with some updates (being written in 2014 instead of the late 90s). But the original work still stands as worth the investment if you still want to get that one. I’ve only just begun reading this recent one and already encountered this “gem” of a quote that has gone up for discussion on my board in school:
From Soho Machida (a Zen Buddhist monk): “No other religion has ever produced figures like Albert Schweitzer or Mother Teresa, whose lives have become monuments to humankind’s goodwill. … Christianity has contributed immeasurably to a wider recognition of human rights around the world…” “[but] If they have the slightest consciousness of themselves as the superior helping the inferior, or the faithful saving the unfaithful, they immediately lose their Christian dignity.”
Now; the doctrinally correct will be blinded by all the red flags in those few sentences (monuments to humankind? unfaithful being ‘saved’ by the faithful? and didn’t Schweitzer challenge some accepted doctrines?) But Yancey’s point was that these people were noteworthy to outsiders more for how they lived than for what they believed (although regarding their beliefs, the outsiders do have them identified with Christ --should we be asking why?). If we are to spend time building doctrinaire walls to keep out the unorthodox instead of (as they did) taking the good news of the present Kingdom of God here and now to those desperately needing that good news, then we must regrettably ignore boatloads of Scripture --much of it straight from the words and actions of Jesus himself. That is what should be a burr in the saddle of each and every affluent Christian today. If we ignore this, then any/all our shouting over doctrine, no matter how true it may be, is just so much clanging symbols – or worse yet, spiritually deadly inoculation.
I can’t resist one more parting quote (from Yancey’s newer work here)
Bishop Desmond Tutu: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said “Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
Now … I do not offer that as an indictment of the missionaries themselves (most of whom really were following God’s call into the most difficult of circumstances), and I trust Yancey wouldn’t mean it that way either. But it is an indictment of our entire colonialist-minded west that unfortunately followed those missionaries in. So now with all this rotten baggage we now more than ever need to show with our lives that we believe what we claim.
Hey everyone,
Although the whole discussion seems to have gone off-topic, the thoughts you all expressed are an interesting reflection of the meta-doctrinal nature of my original question. Countering the slippery slope only makes sense after you have settled om some kind of position that you deem a truthful reflection of reality. If I may be so free, I will try to highlight what I view as the most notable points of the theological/exegetical positions of the different participants. I will also write a small reaction on these positions:
It seems to me that for @aleo (correct me if I’m wrong), individual passages of the Bible need to be “reasonable” to be acceptable as inspired part of the Scriptures. In my view this could lead to problems in the sense that one could start “cherry-picking” those verses that suit one’s liking, instead of facing the message head on. I do believe there are answers to your questions that are both rational and also consistent with God’s character. However, reality is often not easy to accept so cherry-picking should be avoided. Also, God is greater than us, so we can’t expect to grasp everything…
Concerning Salvation through Jesus, I would say that a helpful way of thinking about receiving Salvation is as becoming part of a new Kingdom. To do this, one needs to understand who is holding the kingship of that Kingdom. The Bible is crystal clear about it: Jesus Christ has been crowned King. It seems impossible for someone to become part of the Kingdom of Heaven if that person is purposefully unwilling to accept its King.
But what about those people who never got the chance to hear the good news about Him? I personally like to think that all people who would be instantly delighted in the being of Jesus upon meeting Him personally would also be able to enter the Kingdom of God, joyfully praising this wonderful King. I hope this is a fair answer. But ultimately, we just don’t know.
For @tokyoguy111, the Bible is absolutely inerrant in every respect. This also implies that, somehow, our exegesis should be an inerrant process because it gives shape to the Bible. In my view, this is not a position that is demanded by the Scriptures and it results in unnecessary tensions. I would say that it is enough to say that the Scriptures are sufficiently inerrant in the sense that they are completely accurate regarding God’s character and matters relevant for salvation.
In the view of @gbrooks9 (correct me if I am wrong), the Bible is a myth. But it is a myth in the academical sense of the word, which means that it can still reflect truth in some way. I would say this position leads away from a central part of the message of the Bible: everything in heaven and on earth revolves around the person of Jesus Christ. This means that theism without Jesus contradicts the message of the Bible on a fundamental level… So if the Bible has “truth value”, an all-inclusive form of theism cannot be true. I would say the Bible is sufficiently clear in its message to draw that conclusion.