Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
It does seem that this thread went off topic a while back as we were swept away by the theme of human sacrifice. I suppose we can tie it to the OP question by asking whether the crucifixion was legitimately interpreted as a human sacrifice for the remission of sins or not.
If Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for something it seems like his crucifixion would have been in vain or, in other words, meaningless.Even though the gospel accounts say that Jesus informed his disciples that he would be killed and rise again Mark 8:31, they were amazed and astonished when it happened. The[y] needed some rationale in order to understand it. Some scholars think that Jesus expected to be an earthly messianic king and therefore did not anticipate his crucifixion and therefore wouldn't have taught the disciples about it in advance.
The idea of substitutionary sacrifice was alive and well in 1st century Judaic Temple practice. So it isn't a stretch to suppose his followers sought meaning in Jesus's crucifixion by viewing it as analogous to sacrifices that gave them access to God.
The elaboration the theme of divine sacrifice by Paul in the epistles would have been a further development of a theme that was near the beginning of the post crucifixion understanding of Jesus by his followers. If we consider that any doctrinal development outside of Jesus's own explicit teachings can be part of the original faith, then the theme of sacrifice could be. On that basis, sacrifice as a theme escapes the category of a deviant version of Christianity even if Jesus didn't teach about it himself.
|
Certainly a case can be made that the authors of the gospels found themselves stuck trying to defend why Jesus failed to setup his promised kingdom.
So they used what would readily be accepted by those that believed things like, their sins could be forgiven by putting them on a scapegoat. Only according to them Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for their sins ; no more need of the scapegoat, or the sacrifices at the temple, that they say Jesus scoffed at.
And the later the gospel the more highfalutin their rationals became. However, their stories are all we've got. We don't hear from Jesus himself.He didn't write a book. Thus we can't be sure if the historical Jesus actually taught the ultimate sacrifice of the cross.
It may just be wishful thinking. Why wishful? Cuz, just like the scapegoat, there's no way to prove sins are actually forgiven without knowing what God thinks.
I accepted Jesus at a young age. So I grew up thinking my sins were forgiven, even the ones that came along over the years. Are they? How should I know? Supposedly I'll know at the judgement seat. But then I'm told all I have to say is, I accepted Jesus as my ransom, and I get a free pass. So there's no way I can know that now. And the authors of the gospels, and Paul, aren't writing back to tell us if it is so.