Paul's definition of atonement?

[Dubio]

I recently read The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Many Christian believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. According to the authors, atonement and sacrifice for Paul did not mean substitutionary sacrifice. For Paul, the cross is a means of reconciliation. It presupposes a situation of separation. The crucifixion 1) Reveals the character of the (Roman)Empire 2) Is a path of personal transformation 3) Reveals the character of God(show how much He loves us).

What do you think? Is the concept of substitutionary sacrifice foreign to Paul? I read that the concept of substitutionary sacrifice started with St. Anselm around 1,000CE.

 

[sojourner]

I trust Borg's and Crossan's scholarship.

 

[nash8]

Does anybody know what the Council of Nicea's views wer on the meaning of the crucifixion. Specifically did it support substitutionary sacrifice or otherwise.

I don't know what time period Paul wroted his gospels, but if there were records of people promoting Jesus crucifixion as substituionary sacrifice before Paul wrote then I would say no. But if there were no records of this until after Paul wrote, then yes I would consider it a plausible theory.

 

[danieldemol]

That's interesting Nash, does the truth become false dependent on who wrote it in your view?

 

[danieldemol]

The crucifixion 1) Reveals the character of the (Roman)Empire 2) Is a path of personal transformation 3) Reveals the character of God(show how much He loves us)

1) Wouldn't it technically reveal the character of a certain portion of the leaders of Judaism at the time since the Romans weren't personally pushing for the crucifixion of Jesus (according to the Gospel), they simply allowed subjugated nations a degree of autonomy in certain affairs, therefore to an extent they were perhaps at most executors or overseeing the execution of a verdict of Jewish origin?

 

[Sleeppy]

Why can't we read what Paul and the prophets wrote and decide amongst ourselves?

 

[Shiranui117]

I recently read The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Many Christian believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. According to the authors, atonement and sacrifice for Paul did not mean substitutionary sacrifice. For Paul, the cross is a means of reconciliation. It presupposes a situation of separation. The crucifixion 1) Reveals the character of the (Roman)Empire 2) Is a path of personal transformation 3) Reveals the character of God(show how much He loves us).

What do you think? Is the concept of substitutionary sacrifice foreign to Paul? I read that the concept of substitutionary sacrifice started with St. Anselm around 1,000CE.

Everything you wrote is exactly correct. You should read more about the following to see how the early Christians view Christ's atonement:

Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Jesus died to show the love of God for us, and to inspire us to have the same love for God and for man)
Christus Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Christ trampled down Death by His death)
Ransom theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Jesus died to rescue us from captivity to sin and death)
Since the Ransom theory's page has a VERY bad formatting error, I'll copypaste the text that's messed up:

and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 (NIV):"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time". The ransom theory was the main view of atonement through the first thousand years of Christian history, though it was never made a required belief.[2] There were some who held different positions, however. The commentary on Romans attributed to Pelagius (who was declared a heretic, though for his view of grace, not his view of atonement) gives a description of the atonement which states that a person's sins have "sold them to death," and not to the devil, and that these sins alienate them from God, until Jesus, dying, ransomed people from death.[4] Athanasius of Alexandria proposed a theory of the atonement which similarly states that sin leads to death and God warned Adam about this, and so, to remain consistent with Himself must have Jesus die for sins, or have humankind die. This has some similarity to the Satisfaction view, although Athanasius emphasized the fact that this death is effective because of our unity with Christ, rather than emphasizing a legal substitution and that when Jesus descended into Hades (variously, the underworld or Hell) he eliminated death with His own death (since no power can hold Jesus's soul in Hades).[5]​

Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Jesus died to reconcile all of mankind to God; since He is fully God and fully man, His death means that He shares fully in our human experience, that He might enable us to share fully in His divine Life; His death bridges the divide between man and God that had been caused at the Fall)

^These four views are the most ancient views of Jesus' atonement. The idea that Jesus died in our place or to take our punishment are very recent innovations, being no older than five hundred years in the cases where John Calvin's inventions are concerned (and these are the ideas held to by most if not all Protestants, and these ideas have even crept into the Catholic Church). Anselm's exact theory is only a thousand years old, which places it squarely outside the Apostolic Tradition, and thus has absolutely no place in Christianity.

 

[nash8]

That's interesting Nash, does the truth become false dependent on who wrote it in your view?

No, the OP asked if the atonement theory might have been foreign to the apostle Paul. By foreign, I assumed he means that Paul didn't know about this theory when he was writing his scripture.

I simply said if there is a physical record of other people saying that atonement was the reason for the crucifixion, than no it is not likely that it was foreign to him, as he would have most likely heard of this theory before. But if there was no physical record of anyone saying that Jesus died for our sins until after Paul's death, then yes I would agree that it makes it more plausible that he did non intented to mean Jesus' sacrifice was for atonement when he wrote his scripture.

 

[Pegg]

I recently read The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Many Christian believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. According to the authors, atonement and sacrifice for Paul did not mean substitutionary sacrifice. For Paul, the cross is a means of reconciliation. It presupposes a situation of separation. The crucifixion 1) Reveals the character of the (Roman)Empire 2) Is a path of personal transformation 3) Reveals the character of God(show how much He loves us).

What do you think? Is the concept of substitutionary sacrifice foreign to Paul? I read that the concept of substitutionary sacrifice started with St. Anselm around 1,000CE.

why not examine Pauls writings to find out....


Hebrews 2:17*Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation,

Romans 3:25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance;

Hebrews 9:".... But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27*And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28*so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many
..."


I would say that Paul seems to be very aware of the substitutionary sacrifice of the Christ.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I started a thread on the same subject a few days ago

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...3-christians-did-jesus-die-sacrifice-our.html

The whole question of Christian substitutionary theology seems to have become of interest lately.

 

[rusra02]

I recently read The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Many Christian believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. According to the authors, atonement and sacrifice for Paul did not mean substitutionary sacrifice. For Paul, the cross is a means of reconciliation. It presupposes a situation of separation. The crucifixion 1) Reveals the character of the (Roman)Empire 2) Is a path of personal transformation 3) Reveals the character of God(show how much He loves us).

What do you think? Is the concept of substitutionary sacrifice foreign to Paul? I read that the concept of substitutionary sacrifice started with St. Anselm around 1,000CE.

Ephesians 1:7 says "By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness." See also Hebrews 10:10 and many other scriptures Paul wrote.

 

[Dubio]

I started a thread on the same subject a few days ago

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...3-christians-did-jesus-die-sacrifice-our.html

The whole question of Christian substitutionary theology seems to have become of interest lately.

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would suggest that those first Christians were very confused as to why Jesus chose to die as he did.

And went in to something of a tail spin of worry trying to make sense of it.
They would have looked first at what Jesus had taught, and secondly to the various Jewish writings that were familiar to them. Others who never had the opportunity to study at Jesus feet, like Paul, only had the Jewish texts and the thoughts of his new Christian friends to guide him.

However they were resourceful people and soon came up with “Reasonable” compromises. But it is clear that no one came up with the “Substitutional atonement” concept, as we know it today, for another one thousand years.

Since then we have been stuck with the myth of Adams fall, original sin, and substitutional atonement as a Justification for the need for the forgiveness of sin.... Just because people could not understand why Jesus had to die on the cross.
Christians just love to make things complicated.....
Just look at the example of the Trinity doctrine..............

 

[Dubio]

why not examine Pauls writings to find out....


Hebrews 2:17*Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation,

Romans 3:25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance;

Hebrews 9:".... But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27*And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28*so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many
..."


I would say that Paul seems to be very aware of the substitutionary sacrifice of the Christ.

I understood that the author of Hebrews was not Paul but I could be wrong. The Hebrews quotes are interesting.

 

[nash8]

why not examine Pauls writings to find out....


Hebrews 2:17*Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation,

Romans 3:25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance;

Hebrews 9:".... But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27*And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28*so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many
..."


I would say that Paul seems to be very aware of the substitutionary sacrifice of the Christ.

I find the last line of Romans 5:10 interesting. Saved by his life rather than his death.

My own personal belief is that Jesus wanted people to follow his life, as in daily practices of meditation, eating habits, etc, in order to experience more joy in life, rather than relying on his proposed sacrifice and nothing else.

 

[Pegg]

I understood that the author of Hebrews was not Paul but I could be wrong. The Hebrews quotes are interesting.

the internal evidence points to Paul as the writer and the fact that the letter is placed right after Romans in the the Chester Beatty manuscript holds historical significance as to writership.

Some claim the change in style from other writers of Paul is evidence that he didnt write it, but that is not a good argument... i mean we can all write in different styles depending on the subject and context. On this note, Clarke’s Commentary, Volume*6, page*681, says “That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes.”


Paul does a really good job of finding correlation between the sacrifices offered by the high priest and Jesus own sacrifice. Non hebrews who are not familiar with the sacrificial system would have difficulty comprehending it, but i guess thats why it was addressed to Hebrew christians and not gentiles.

 

[Pegg]

I find the last line of Romans 5:10 interesting. Saved by his life rather than his death.

My own personal belief is that Jesus wanted people to follow his life, as in daily practices of meditation, eating habits, etc, in order to experience more joy in life, rather than relying on his proposed sacrifice and nothing else.

Yes thats right, Peter stated this too:
“Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely.” 1*Peter 2:21

As Christians, we are supposed to be following the life course of Christ...even if that means being put to death.... we are to follow his life course as best we can.

 

[sojourner]

the internal evidence points to Paul as the writer and the fact that the letter is placed right after Romans in the the Chester Beatty manuscript holds historical significance as to writership.

Some claim the change in style from other writers of Paul is evidence that he didnt write it, but that is not a good argument... i mean we can all write in different styles depending on the subject and context. On this note, Clarke’s Commentary, Volume*6, page*681, says “That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes.”


Paul does a really good job of finding correlation between the sacrifices offered by the high priest and Jesus own sacrifice. Non hebrews who are not familiar with the sacrificial system would have difficulty comprehending it, but i guess thats why it was addressed to Hebrew christians and not gentiles.

"Most scholars believe that this entire section of the NT [Hebrews and the catholic epistles -- James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude] is pseudonymous. We do not know when or where these documents originated, or, in most cases, to whom they were sent." -- Stephen Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, fourth edition, McGraw Hill, 2002

 

[sojourner]

[FONT=&quot]The early Jewish Christians refused to believe Jesus was divine and were defiant of Paul's Church to accept the divinity of Christ, who never claimed to be God.

The early Christians opposed the tendency to regard Jesus as divine. They laid great stress on the Unity of God as expressed in the original teachings of Jesus and asserted that although he was a prophet, he was essentially a man like other men, even if highly favored by his Lord. The same faith was held by the Churches which had sprung up in North Africa and West Asia.

The Nazarenes first Jewish Christian church never considered Jesus to be divine or the son of God. He was given the messiah ship after his baptism by John.
Messiah ship meaning anointed one.
Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîa&#7717.

The Nazarenes never accepted the teachings and writings of Paul. In fact, they looked upon Paul as an apostate who was not of pure Jewish blood.

THE RISE OF CONSTANTINE & THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA…THE LOSS OF THE FAITH OF JESUS

The Council of Nicaea 325 AD, summoned by the Emperor Constantine, the Great, was the first ecumenical council to be assembled.
It was the foundation for the creation of a “New Religion” never intended by God nor taught by Jesus.

By 312 AD, Constantine had been at war for six years, and was eager for something to lend his cause extra support. A Christian observer who produced accounts of the event a few years later claimed that Constantine saw a Chi-Rho monogram in a vision on the eve of the battle of the Milvian bridge, accompanied by the words: 'Hoc signo victor eris! By this sign, you shall be the victor.

Whether this vision was actual or dictated by anxiety remains questionable. In any case, he had crosses painted on his army's shields and won the battle, becoming the Emperor of Rome.
This inspired his conversion to Christianity (though not baptized then).
In Milan 313 AD, he issued an Edict of Toleration to all religions. But believing his battleground success to be won with divine providence, he sympathized more with the Christians, who hitherto had suffered sporadic persecution.
The Emperor lavished huge sums of money to build Basilicas and other Churches for them, coupled with preferential treatments of Christian candidates for administrative posts.
In this way, Constantine closed one era and opened another.
CONSTANTINE...CONVERTED YET STILL PAGAN????

Emperor Constantine was happy with the collection of heavenly patrons. He believed reverence for deity to be indispensable for the tranquility of the commonwealth and regarded the Christian God as just another heavenly patron, not incompatible with others although perhaps more powerful. He maintained ties with the Sol Invictus cult (Sun Worship) even after his conversion.

The Council Of Nicaea in 325 AD on the orders of Constantine was there in Nicaea so that he could personally control the proceedings. The Synod took place between June l9th and August 25th. The Emperor summoned all Church leaders with the aim of reaching a consensus over the status of Jesus.

The number of bishops who attended was around 318.

Constantine regarded the religious question exclusively from the angle of political expedience.
His interest was to secure peace rather than any theological verdict.
He had already adopted the Sol Invictus as the state deity, so if Jesus could somehow be deified he would be more easily compatible with Sol Invictus.
As the parties were in conflict, the task of deciding the fate of Jesus was deferred unto Constantine who was theologically incompetent and was inclined to making decisions on inadequate grounds. To him the deification of a man would not have seemed important.
He had his father Constantius deified on his death and expected to be granted the same honor on his demise.

He ruled in favor of Jesus' deification, and demanded that the delegates should sign acceptance to what became known as the Nicene Creed.

This Creed is the first dogmatic definition of the Church and has served as a backbone of Christian orthodoxy through the ages.
It defined the relations of Jesus to the Father within the Godhead as homoousion tot patri (of one substance with the Father) designed specifically to exclude Arianism.
Eusebius of Caesarea writings makes it explicit that the Emperor himself proposed this term.

The delegates that gave assent to the Creed statement were to be invited to stay on at Nicaea as Constantine's guests for his 2Oth Anniversary celebrations, while those who rejected the Creed would be banished.

This is how Jesus got deified.
.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Freedom is where it's at[/FONT]

Then riddle me this, Batman: why was the issue of Jesus' divinity being kicked around in a major way prior to Nicea?

 

[Shiranui117]

[FONT=&quot]The early Jewish Christians refused to believe Jesus was divine and were defiant of Paul's Church to accept the divinity of Christ, who never claimed to be God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I know you have the Ebionites, but what makes you think that all of the Jewish Christians denied the Divinity of Christ?
[/FONT]

The early Christians opposed the tendency to regard Jesus as divine. They laid great stress on the Unity of God as expressed in the original teachings of Jesus and asserted that although he was a prophet, he was essentially a man like other men, even if highly favored by his Lord. The same faith was held by the Churches which had sprung up in North Africa and West Asia.

[FONT=&quot]
Prove it. Give me primary sources. Give me the writings of the early Christians. Give me writings of the early Church that support your claim.
[/FONT]

The Nazarenes never accepted the teachings and writings of Paul. In fact, they looked upon Paul as an apostate who was not of pure Jewish blood.

[FONT=&quot]
And what does this prove? What about the rest of the Church? What about the Christians at Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonika, Corinth, Smyrnaea, Philadelphia, Persia, Caesarea and elsewhere?
[/FONT]

It was the foundation for the creation of a “New Religion” never intended by God nor taught by Jesus.

[FONT=&quot]
Oh really? Prove it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Emperor Constantine was happy with the collection of heavenly patrons. He believed reverence for deity to be indispensable for the tranquility of the commonwealth and regarded the Christian God as just another heavenly patron, not incompatible with others although perhaps more powerful. He maintained ties with the Sol Invictus cult (Sun Worship) even after his conversion.

[FONT=&quot]
What sorts of ties? Where do you get this information?
[/FONT]

He had already adopted the Sol Invictus as the state deity,

[FONT=&quot]
Did he?

[/FONT]

As the parties were in conflict, the task of deciding the fate of Jesus was deferred unto Constantine who was theologically incompetent and was inclined to making decisions on inadequate grounds.

What grounds do you have for this? Constantine didn't care what decision the Church made, nor (as you yourself said) was he educated enough. Why would 318 bishops who were educated and informed by the Apostolic Tradition hand over the decision to someone who didn't even know what he was talking about? Your story makes no sense.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

He ruled in favor of Jesus' deification, and demanded that the delegates should sign acceptance to what became known as the Nicene Creed.

[FONT=&quot]
He only ruled in favor of Jesus' Divinity because that was the unanimous opinion of the Council.

This Creed is the first dogmatic definition of the Church and has served as a backbone of Christian orthodoxy through the ages.
It defined the relations of Jesus to the Father within the Godhead as homoousion tot patri (of one substance with the Father) designed specifically to exclude Arianism.
[/FONT]

Eusebius of Caesarea writings makes it explicit that the Emperor himself proposed this term.

Where did he say this?

[FONT=&quot]And even if it was (and I see no evidence from the Acts of the Council of Nicaea indicating this), it was not a term that originated with Constantine; it had been used prior in the Church by Sts. Irenaeus and Pamphilus the Martyr, as well as by Tertullian and Origen. So the term homoousion was by no means a new thing.
[/FONT]

The delegates that gave assent to the Creed statement were to be invited to stay on at Nicaea as Constantine's guests for his 2Oth Anniversary celebrations, while those who rejected the Creed would be banished.

So you're implying that the Fathers accepted the Creed just so they could stay in town and go to a stupid party? WOW.

This is how Jesus got deified.

[FONT=&quot] .[/FONT]
Jesus was and is always deified.