![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaMel Gibson said in September, of his rendition of Jesus, "I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it."
So, what other one-eyed, spear-pierced deity hanged from a tree for the betterment of humankind comes to mind? :-O
Anselm, who changed Christianity forever by promoting the Christology of substitution atonement, was an 11th Century Archbishop of Canterbury. That he might have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon myths about Wodan is not far-fetched. The theory was first taken up after him by others (Abelard and Bernard) who also hail from northern Europe.
Human sacrifice appears to have been a widespread practice in northern Europe. Even if it was despised by northern-European theologians, they would have considered it thinkable that a human being would have to die to appease God.
This idea does not seem to have really entered Christianity prior to the northern influence. As noted in the essay I linked to, it was hinted at by thinkers like Origen who thought that perhaps Jesus was an atonement ransom to Satan (not God) based on the passage in Matthew about having to pay the jailor before one can be freed. This has Gnostic overtones; for example, in the Cosmic Ascension described in the Gnostic literature, due has to be paid to each ruling archon in the form of tokens before one can proceed to the next aionic sphere.
The net effect of the vicarious atonement doctrine is dehumanization; the separation from God is described as a fundamental nature of human existence, a deep chasm that separates the "sinner" from God and which can only be bridged by God. Nothing the human can do is sufficient. The net effect of this is not love but fear. "Oh, I am not worthy! What if my belief fails me, I will be destroyed!"
Writings to Jewish Christians dealing with "the blood of Jesus" appear to be theological legalism intended to end Jewish reliance on blood sacrifice in the Temple. They argue, for example, that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was superior to the yearly sacrifices that had to be conducted; that Jesus entered not a 'copy' of God's presence (an insult to the asserted holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem) but entered heaven itself. Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek (who preceeded Aaron!) conducted a sacrifice of himself in the "heavenly temple." This was not done for atonement of sin but in consecration of the heavenly temple (the cosmos), in consecration of the new, superior covenant. Not, in other words, as ransom, but instead to imbue the "heavenly temple" and the new covenant with the substance of life.
[Hebrews 9:19] When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.
[20] He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."
[21] In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies.
[22] In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
[23] It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.
[25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
[26] Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
[28] so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
crossposting to my journal and crossposting to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god
So, what other one-eyed, spear-pierced deity hanged from a tree for the betterment of humankind comes to mind? :-O
Anselm, who changed Christianity forever by promoting the Christology of substitution atonement, was an 11th Century Archbishop of Canterbury. That he might have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon myths about Wodan is not far-fetched. The theory was first taken up after him by others (Abelard and Bernard) who also hail from northern Europe.
Human sacrifice appears to have been a widespread practice in northern Europe. Even if it was despised by northern-European theologians, they would have considered it thinkable that a human being would have to die to appease God.
This idea does not seem to have really entered Christianity prior to the northern influence. As noted in the essay I linked to, it was hinted at by thinkers like Origen who thought that perhaps Jesus was an atonement ransom to Satan (not God) based on the passage in Matthew about having to pay the jailor before one can be freed. This has Gnostic overtones; for example, in the Cosmic Ascension described in the Gnostic literature, due has to be paid to each ruling archon in the form of tokens before one can proceed to the next aionic sphere.
The net effect of the vicarious atonement doctrine is dehumanization; the separation from God is described as a fundamental nature of human existence, a deep chasm that separates the "sinner" from God and which can only be bridged by God. Nothing the human can do is sufficient. The net effect of this is not love but fear. "Oh, I am not worthy! What if my belief fails me, I will be destroyed!"
Writings to Jewish Christians dealing with "the blood of Jesus" appear to be theological legalism intended to end Jewish reliance on blood sacrifice in the Temple. They argue, for example, that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was superior to the yearly sacrifices that had to be conducted; that Jesus entered not a 'copy' of God's presence (an insult to the asserted holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem) but entered heaven itself. Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek (who preceeded Aaron!) conducted a sacrifice of himself in the "heavenly temple." This was not done for atonement of sin but in consecration of the heavenly temple (the cosmos), in consecration of the new, superior covenant. Not, in other words, as ransom, but instead to imbue the "heavenly temple" and the new covenant with the substance of life.
[Hebrews 9:19] When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.
[20] He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."
[21] In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies.
[22] In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
[23] It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.
[25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
[26] Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
[28] so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
crossposting to my journal and crossposting to
challenging_god
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-09 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-09 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-09 09:19 am (UTC)Yesterday I was in a chatroom where someone announced to some pompous dork that he was a Christian-Wiccan-Satanist. It was quite amusing!
Anyways... I was raised with "atonement" being screamed at me from the pulpit, so I doubt that doctrine is in danger of going away.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-09 09:17 am (UTC)[Romans 5:6] You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
[7] Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
[8] But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Jesus was the leader of a movement concerned with social justice. He did spoke out publically, even though he knew it was personally dangerous for him. And while others in the movement hid from the authorities when they came rounding up the rabble-rousers, he did not. So he took the punishment that all of them deserved.
[9] Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from [God's] wrath through him!
The word "God" does not occur in the Greek here. So Paul could just have easily meant our own wrath. The word "God" is added by translators who buy into the atonement thinking.
Here's a different way to read this verse: by undertaking the path Jesus consecrated, one attains a state of being just instead of a state of being wrathful.
[10] For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Throughout the letter to the Romans I get a sense that Paul thought of Jesus' death as a kind of beacon, like something meant to grab our attention. But this verse suggests that he believed it is wrong to focus on the death of Jesus. IOW, what he seems to be saying here is, "Jesus' death was a wake-up call, but we share in his abundant vitality!"
Recall what I wrote last week about two different ideas of salvation, one having nothing to do with the afterlife but instead self-improvement in this life. I think that distinction applies here. What you think soteria means will affect what you think this verse means.
[11] Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
"Reconciliation" (katallasso) implies a kind of exchange, one's previous life for one's new life. I touched on this a bit in this entry:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/331557.html