Why the crucifixion?

[thegospelkiss]

OK - haven't heard that exact construct before. But aren't you hinging an awful lot on semantics? What of the original Hebrew?

Words and meanings do matter. Admittedly, I have not read/studied the original Hebrew. I have learned Koine Greek and studied both the NT and the Septuagint, though. My understanding is that the Septuagint is translated from older Hebrew texts than the oldest extant copies from which our OT is compiled.

I have a moral revulsion to the entire idea of Substitutionary Atonement...

As you can tell by my post, I'm not actually suggesting such an atonement.

...but I am saying I cannot morally, intellectually, or on any other level stomach many of the core doctrines within mainstream Christianity.

Hey, I'm with you.

 

[bain-druie]

Words and meanings do matter. Admittedly, I have not read/studied the original Hebrew. I have learned Koine Greek and studied both the NT and the Septuagint, though. My understanding is that the Septuagint is translated from older Hebrew texts than the oldest extant copies from which our OT is compiled.

Very true, the Septuagint is as reliable as you'll get. Kudos for learning Koine! I did the bare minimum with it, and forgot even that, I think...

As you can tell by my post, I'm not actually suggesting such an atonement.

Cool! So what function, if any, do you see the crucifixion fulfilling theologically?

Hey, I'm with you.

Oh, good. The more, the merrier!

 

[thegospelkiss]

Cool! So what function, if any, do you see the crucifixion fulfilling theologically?

Well, as I said in my original post, to contrast actual faith in God and His sovereignty (the Kingdom of God) with the false religion of the world (good vs. evil). In other words, to show the acceptance inherent in Jesus understanding of God (the truth), and the murderousness inherent in the opposing view of God. This provided an alternative spiritual understanding to the world which has been growing and transforming the world ever since.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Why?

Very simply, because certain individuals throughout the Ages have always resisted and opposed the Divine Messengers God has sent, sometimes killing Them in the process!

This has happened more than once (Jesus isn't unique in this respect), and has always been tragic even though it's never led to that Messenger's religion being destsroyed.

Ideally we'll learn better and never do such a thing again!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[crocusj]

Essentially you are judging Christianity for the sins of Christendom. Most 'Christians' throughout history have been so in name only. Actual Christians - people who believed as Christ believed and followed in his footsteps, so to speak - have been a very small minority - but, I believe, an influential one in advancing the world's view of human dignity, freedom, forgiveness and compassion. Only now within the past few hundred years has this begun to be seen. I can offer no 'proof' for what I'm saying, only my perspective.

How else are we to judge? I have seen good men (ok - and women!) from all religions and from none. If they align themselves to a particular religion are we then to assume that theirs is the one to follow. If they are obviously evil are we to assume that theirs is the one to deny? As in all things, I detect the whiff of cherrypicking (particularly when good men are only defined by the times they lived in and not by the word of the god that they purport to follow). Who is following who here? Christians are becoming more enlightened and tolerant as the world becomes such? "Burn the witch" cried the Christians, "Don't burn the witch" cried the other Christians, is a confusing worldview and I would suggest that there might be other aspects to these differeing points of view than a better undertanding of the word of a supposedly explicit god

 

[thegospelkiss]

How else are we to judge? I have seen good men (ok - and women!) from all religions and from none. If they align themselves to a particular religion are we then to assume that theirs is the one to follow. If they are obviously evil are we to assume that theirs is the one to deny? As in all things, I detect the whiff of cherrypicking (particularly when good men are only defined by the times they lived in and not by the word of the god that they purport to follow). Who is following who here? Christians are becoming more enlightened and tolerant as the world becomes such? "Burn the witch" cried the Christians, "Don't burn the witch" cried the other Christians, is a confusing worldview and I would suggest that there might be other aspects to these differeing points of view than a better undertanding of the word of a supposedly explicit god

Christians are those who believe as Christ believed, and follow his example. Calling oneself Christian does not a Christian make. And I use the word 'christendom' to refer to whatever passes for mainstream Christianity at a given time; whereas Christianity would be the actual thing.

 

[sojourner]

Christians are those who believe as Christ believed, and follow his example. Calling oneself Christian does not a Christian make. And I use the word 'christendom' to refer to whatever passes for mainstream Christianity at a given time; whereas Christianity would be the actual thing.

If we believed as Christ believed, we'd all be Jewish. Your closed-door attitude toward Christians is extremely un-Christian of you. As is your judgmental attitude toward what is deemed "mainstream." Might I suggest you take a closer look at what Jesus taught before you stick a whole shoe store in your mouth?

 

[thegospelkiss]

If we believed as Christ believed, we'd all be Jewish. Your closed-door attitude toward Christians is extremely un-Christian of you. As is your judgmental attitude toward what is deemed "mainstream." Might I suggest you take a closer look at what Jesus taught before you stick a whole shoe store in your mouth?

Are you judging me? I'm certainly not judging you.

 

[sojourner]

Are you judging me? I'm certainly not judging you.

And I use the word 'christendom' to refer to whatever passes for mainstream Christianity at a given time; whereas Christianity would be the actual thing.

I'm a mainstream Christian. Are you saying that I'm not the "real thing?"

 

[thegospelkiss]

I'm a mainstream Christian. Are you saying that I'm not the "real thing?"

I don't even know you. It seems to me there's always been some space between Christianity and the accepted understanding of Christianity at any given time throughout history. The likelihood that that is still the case is pretty high, I would think. But in the end I believe our 'professions' matter less than our intentions.

 

[sojourner]

I don't even know you. It seems to me there's always been some space between Christianity and the accepted understanding of Christianity at any given time throughout history. The likelihood that that is still the case is pretty high, I would think. But in the end I believe our 'professions' matter less than our intentions.

Christianity is the assembly -- the people -- not intentions, not doctrine, not belief, not identifiers.

 

[thegospelkiss]

Christianity is the assembly -- the people -- not intentions, not doctrine, not belief, not identifiers.

Actually the assembly is the 'church', the body of Christ. Christianity is the beliefs and practices of Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually the assembly is the 'church', the body of Christ. Christianity is the beliefs and practices of Christ.

The beliefs and practices according to who? There a thousands if not millions of interpretations and ideas on the beliefs and practices of Christ. If that is what Christianity is, then it is an extremely vague religion.

 

[sojourner]

Actually the assembly is the 'church', the body of Christ. Christianity is the beliefs and practices of Christ.

Christ believed and practiced as a Jew. Are you saying that Christianity is really Judaism?

 

[thegospelkiss]

Christ believed and practiced as a Jew. Are you saying that Christianity is really Judaism?

Are you saying Christianity should be based on someone else?

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying Christianity should be based on someone else?

"Based upon" and "is" are two different things. The automobile was "based upon" the concept of a horse and carriage. But it is plain to all but the Gumpiest folk that an automobile is not a horse and carriage.

(We need an Amish smiley here...)

 

[thegospelkiss]

"Based upon" and "is" are two different things. The automobile was "based upon" the concept of a horse and carriage. But it is plain to all but the Gumpiest folk that an automobile is not a horse and carriage.

(We need an Amish smiley here...)

Maybe I'm just tired (long day), but I don't get your point.

 

[sojourner]

**Sigh**
You said:

Christianity is the beliefs and practices of Christ.

I replied:

Christ believed and practiced as a Jew. Are you saying that Christianity is really Judaism?

(If Xy is "the beliefs and practices of X, and X was a believing, practicing Jew, then it follows that Xy is Judaism. Capiche?)
Then you said:

Are you saying Christianity should be based on someone else?

**Note the emphasized word: based. It's not the same as is. I didn't claim you said that Xy was based on Judaism. I claimed you said that Xy is Judaism, based upon this statement of yours: "Christianity is the beliefs and practices of Christ."

Notice also the emphasized word "someone." You've transposed "based on beliefs and practices" to "based upon Jesus" here.

Therefore:

"Based upon" and "is" are two different things.

Xy is not Jesus. Neither is it Judaism. Which is what it appears you are trying to say here.

Xy is the community of people -- the believers -- the church -- the assembly, and not the dogma, beliefs, or perspectives of this group of people.

Clear now?

So

 

[thegospelkiss]

Originally Posted by sojourner
"Christ believed and practiced as a Jew. Are you saying that Christianity is really Judaism?"

It's not my intention to say that; though you are free, of course, to interpret it that way. It seems to me that the Jewish leaders in his day had significant issues with Jesus' beliefs and practices, and did not recognize them as the Judaism they taught.

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by sojourner
"Christ believed and practiced as a Jew. Are you saying that Christianity is really Judaism?"

It's not my intention to say that; though you are free, of course, to interpret it that way. It seems to me that the Jewish leaders in his day had significant issues with Jesus' beliefs and practices, and did not recognize them as the Judaism they taught.

It seems to the gospel writers that the religious authorities had significant issues with Jesus flouting their authority.