Can you help a Fascinated heathen understand?

[AlwaysExcited]

 

 

well, in the ot, israelites made blood sacrifices to help atone for their sins. but they had to keep doing it in order to be considered right with god. in that way, jesus was considered the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and the shedding of his divine blood would cover all sins for all eternity with no need to continue the old traditions.

 

why blood is considered a necessary sacrifice, i'm not totally certain. it was just laid out that way in the ot, so in that way that's how jesus' death connects with covering sin.

 

at least, that's what this former ifb pastor's daughter remembers.

 

The Israelites believed that God is in everyone that is alive, and blood symbolized life.

(Also, that's why people are not allowed to eat blood, according to kosher.)

[formergothardite]

Bringing up the concept of grace, I always, even in my fundie days, struggled with the idea that grace was God/Jesus forgiving horrible, horrible people who decided to believe in Him and condemning to hell people who devoting their lives to helping others but didn't believe in Jesus. When I had my first child I was still a believer and I struggled with the idea that I should teach her that people who don't believe in Jesus deserved hell. That wasn't an idea I really wanted her to believe and eventually I realized that I didn't believe that and that I didn't have to believe that and teach it to her. She didn't have to grow up thinking that grace was child rapist being forgiven and spending an eternity in heaven while the lady who isn't Christian but helps children will spend an eternity in hell because she rejects the idea of Jesus. 

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll try to explain this the best way I can. I don't know if it will make sense to you and it may be overly simple but I'm willing to try.

Old Testament Judaism is all about ritual. Ritual sacrifice was the means by which the Jews believed the would be forgiven for their transgressions and be able to enter heaven. Jesus fits into that tradition of ritual sacrifice. If Jesus lived a perfect life (much like the lamb or other animal could not of possibly committed human "sin") and was sacrificed (killed for a crime he didn't commit) he would represent the human version of the ritual sacrifice that the Jews were familiar with. I think it may help to keep in mind that we are generally not the "intended audience" for Jesus/the Bible as people alive then would have had no idea that people would still be reading these things thousands of years later.

I never understood how this was reconciled with Genesis, Chap. 22 (the near-sacrifice of Isaac).  That story seems to make it clear that Abraham's intention was enough, and that God had no interest in actual human sacrifice.  [I assume that the story is there to explain that the Israelites weren't wusses for not having human sacrifice.]

[Palimpsest]

Eh, it has always been a lot of magical thinking to me even when I was trying very hard to get saved.  I apparently lack Christian DNA and the ability to believe in a Supreme Being.

There is some good sound theological discussion above.  Can some of you help me out with barely remembered stuff?

IIRC, there is very little about the concepts of "heaven" or "hell" in the Old Testament.  To me, the God of the Old Testament always seemed a quixotic, irrational, vengeful, very peevish Being.  See Job.

Everlasting life is *the* Christian concept, along with heaven and Jesus actually being human and also strangely "the only begotten Son" of the nebulous, mystical, and omnipotent sky pilot.  You have to really reach to find concepts of the afterlife in the OT.  There's a bit in Psalms "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices ,my body also will rest secure because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead."  With the Moses story in Deuteronomy, the deal between God and Moses seems more of a "live long and prosper" in the promised land of Canaan than promises of eternal life.  In the OT, the mentions of hell are translated from the Hebrew "sheol" but that seems to describe merely a place for the dead, not the everlasting fires of damnation.  

Jesus (or the preachings that are attributed to him) talked about hell a lot, but there are different level of heat, so to speak, in various words that got simplified into the single English word "hell."  Most of the lakes of fire and gross stuff in hell seem to come from John and Revelation 1 and 2.  As an aside, the Revelations chapters have always given me the creeps because they seem the ravings of a disturbed mind. 

So an awful lot of this stuff that is cited as literal Biblical Truth by Fundamentalist Christians is in fact imposed or interpreted differently later as Christianity developed, became established, and diverged into different denominations.

 

 

[formergothardite]

I was always told that the story was there to show us that we should follow God and trust him no matter what crazy thing He asks us to do. I was taught that the moral of the story was absolute obedience in all things, no matter how crazy it seems. God not being interested in human sacrifices was not an idea that was ever brought up. Taking it as a lesson that God is saying he doesn't want human sacrifices makes the story a bit less horrifying than the way I was taught which is that God will test you to see if you have absolute obedience by asking you to do things that seem awful. 

[DaisyD]

The whole Grace thing for me goes with the judge not lest ye be judged. God knows what's in your heart. If you are a terrible person and try a last ditch effort to save yourself, he knows if you've truly repented. If you are a good person in your heart, he knows that too. I don't believe that you have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven either, so what to I know.

[purple_summer]

I never understood how this was reconciled with Genesis, Chap. 22 (the near-sacrifice of Isaac).  That story seems to make it clear that Abraham's intention was enough, and that God had no interest in actual human sacrifice.  [I assume that the story is there to explain that the Israelites weren't wusses for not having human sacrifice.]

I was taught that it was essentially a loyalty test. Do what you're told even if it seems crazy and you don't want to do it. Blind obedience. It did always worry me as a child and it made me think "what if" over a lot of things.

[Four is Enough]

Well, Fascinated, I am a cradle Catholic, and I grew up believing that Jesus died for our sins. However, even believing that wasn't enough. Through my free will, I must also do works  and live In such a way as to deserve the Kingdom of Heaven. So to me, an unrepentant mass murderer is not going to heaven, even IF he believes in Jesus. True contrition, however.. changes the picture. Heaven, I came to believe, is the presence of God; Hell is therefore the lack of God.

[47of74]

Several people have said it but basically, people used to have to make blood sacrifices to wash away their sin. When Jesus was crucified, his blood sacrifice washed away all the sins of his followers in perpetuity. Now Christians no longer have to make blood sacrifices to wash away sin. It was done for them by Jesus. Presumably his sacrifice was so much bigger, by comparison to a goat, that's why it works.

His teachings and all encompassing sacrifice represent a shift to a kinder, gentler diety. God no longer wants us to kill for him. He wants us to be kind to others and take care of each other. That way of thinking doesn't serve some people's purposes, thus all the OT quoting from Christian extremists. 

Yes what Jesus actually did and said or didn't say doesn't fit in too well with the fundies so they gloss over what he said in the favor of the OT.

[singsingsing]

Well, Fascinated, I am a cradle Catholic, and I grew up believing that Jesus died for our sins. However, even believing that wasn't enough. Through my free will, I must also do works  and live In such a way as to deserve the Kingdom of Heaven. So to me, an unrepentant mass murderer is not going to heaven, even IF he believes in Jesus. True contrition, however.. changes the picture. Heaven, I came to believe, is the presence of God; Hell is therefore the lack of God.

And my protestant church essentially taught the same thing, just in a slightly different way. It's not your works that lead to salvation, it's the grace of God. But that grace is evident in you through your works. "You can tell a tree by its fruit." So good works are not a requirement to be saved, they're the result of being saved. And if you're not doing good works (or especially, if you're doing really bad things), it may be proof that you haven't really surrendered yourself to Jesus. Etc.

[browncoatslytherin]

The Israelites believed that God is in everyone that is alive, and blood symbolized life.

(Also, that's why people are not allowed to eat blood, according to kosher.)

ah, right right. many thanks. quite a bit of material still sticks with me, but i've lost bits and pieces over the years.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I was always told that the story was there to show us that we should follow God and trust him no matter what crazy thing He asks us to do. I was taught that the moral of the story was absolute obedience in all things, no matter how crazy it seems. God not being interested in human sacrifices was not an idea that was ever brought up. Taking it as a lesson that God is saying he doesn't want human sacrifices makes the story a bit less horrifying than the way I was taught which is that God will test you to see if you have absolute obedience by asking you to do things that seem awful. 

Human sacrifice wouldn't have made Abraham unique.  It already existed.  [See http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/first-person-human-sacrifice-to-an-ammonite-god/, for example.] There are references to the practice in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, where it is condemned.  In that context, the thing that was different with the Israelites would have been NOT doing human sacrifice. 

[Crocoduck]

Absolutely true. And it kind of ends the discussion, really. One either questions it, finds a satisfactory answer, or chalks it up to god's mysterious ways, and moves on, or doesn't. I guess I'm just amazed that so, so many people accept this and move on. My brain hurts thinking about it. 

 

I think this is the essence of the faith & reason divide, Fascinated.

I studied philosophy as an undergrad and through a lot of mental training and soul searching, finally concluded I could not remain Roman Catholic.

There are millions of pages of argument and critique written by people much, much smarter than I am related to faith and the perfection of Christ. Some of these works are extremely compelling (I am particularly in awe of William of Occam's writings).

However, the ultimate acceptance of any religion does require, if not a full leap, then at least a small step over a chasm. To me, this is what "faith" truly means. Turns out, I don't have any.

[47of74]

And my protestant church essentially taught the same thing, just in a slightly different way. It's not your works that lead to salvation, it's the grace of God. But that grace is evident in you through your works. "You can tell a tree by its fruit." So good works are not a requirement to be saved, they're the result of being saved. And if you're not doing good works (or especially, if you're doing really bad things), it may be proof that you haven't really surrendered yourself to Jesus. Etc.

One of Luther's big hangups on the church was that he saw the Roman church essentially taking advantage of the idea that good works along would get you into heaven to enrich themselves at the expense of people.  Especially after he really read the scriptures.

He saw people thinking that popping a coin in a box and a letter from a church official authorized by the Pope would get them a get in to Heaven free ticket or would get a deceased relative into Heaven.  Luther came to believe that it didn't matter how much money one donated to the church or how many letters one got from the Pope, it would never be enough, and instead it was more important to be a good person and let God take care of the rest.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Eh, it has always been a lot of magical thinking to me even when I was trying very hard to get saved.  I apparently lack Christian DNA and the ability to believe in a Supreme Being.

There is some good sound theological discussion above.  Can some of you help me out with barely remembered stuff?

IIRC, there is very little about the concepts of "heaven" or "hell" in the Old Testament.  To me, the God of the Old Testament always seemed a quixotic, irrational, vengeful, very peevish Being.  See Job.

Everlasting life is *the* Christian concept, along with heaven and Jesus actually being human and also strangely "the only begotten Son" of the nebulous, mystical, and omnipotent sky pilot.  You have to really reach to find concepts of the afterlife in the OT.  There's a bit in Psalms "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices ,my body also will rest secure because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead."  With the Moses story in Deuteronomy, the deal between God and Moses seems more of a "live long and prosper" in the promised land of Canaan than promises of eternal life.  In the OT, the mentions of hell are translated from the Hebrew "sheol" but that seems to describe merely a place for the dead, not the everlasting fires of damnation.  

Jesus (or the preachings that are attributed to him) talked about hell a lot, but there are different level of heat, so to speak, in various words that got simplified into the single English word "hell."  Most of the lakes of fire and gross stuff in hell seem to come from John and Revelation 1 and 2.  As an aside, the Revelations chapters have always given me the creeps because they seem the ravings of a disturbed mind. 

So an awful lot of this stuff that is cited as literal Biblical Truth by Fundamentalist Christians is in fact imposed or interpreted differently later as Christianity developed, became established, and diverged into different denominations.

 

 

That's right, there is very little discussion of any heaven or hell in the OT.

IIRC, you had the Greco-Roman influence come along after the OT (which ends during the Persian era, right before the Persians were defeated by the Greeks).  Greek philosophers had discussed the notion of the soul, which was somewhat distinct from the physical body and which could endure after death.  Greek philosophy influenced the Pharisees and the Israelite Oral Law (Talmud), and early Christianity.

[AlwaysExcited]

From a non-religious perspective, Abraham's story was written for the Israelites who entered Canaan with all its "interesting" religious practises. And it was meant to ban the Israelites to take over these practises, especially the sacrifice of a first born son; therefore the story's dramatic nature and everything. The message had to be clear, "If you kill your child, you do not please your God, you betray your God."

The Israelites took over some of Canaan's idols and rituals anyway, of course.

[older than allosaurs]

OK--here's one thing I've never been able to figure out. Let's say we are saved not by works but by grace. And if I believe in predestination, my salvation was supplied or denied by the time I was conceived--not a thing I can do about it in my life's activities. But evidently I manifest my state of grace in this life by my faith and my works.

So what if I, as a Calvinist, spent most of my life being prideful and abusive and uncharitable (I'm looking at you, Doug Wilson) but I feel I am full of faith. Am I probably saved or not? Or what if I find my faith late in life and repent my former beliefs and deeds? Was I one of the saved all along, but God was just using my wicked ways as some kind of test for other believers? Or am I damned anyhow?

I can certainly see how having to think along these lines could drive a person to extremes of legalism and anxiety and how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates.

My experience of grace comes, I think, from the unfathomable complexity and beauty of the natural world and the beings within it. Over and over I am amazed and grateful to be here for awhile. Every now and then a descriptive Bible verse or a gospel song captures that feeling for me, and so does a sutra or a Rumi poem, or the guitar intro to Heard it Through the Grapevine. So I'm happy to be one of those undisciplined, self-indulgent, happy pagans.

 

 

 

[violynn]

Any critical thinking spawned questions I had that expected rationalty and consistency were answered with 1st Corinthians 13:12

"For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;  but then shall I know even as I am known."

[libriatrix]

Regarding the original question: I was taught the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Most of that has been explained upthread but I don't see any one post that covers every step of it, so I'm going to lay out what I was taught in very simple terms to show the whole train of the logic. I'm including some other doctrines beyond just the atonement, because I want to follow the entire storyline of salvation.

Everyone has sinned.

The punishment or payment for sin is death and eternal separation from God. 

God wanted to save some people, so he sent Jesus.

Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity who was then born on earth to Mary, is 100% man and 100% God. 

As man, he lived a perfect life on earth and became the only human who has never sinned, not even once. 

Because he never sinned, he did not need to die for his own sins, which left his life free to spend as a payment for someone else's sins.

Because he was also God, he could die as a payment for the sins of not just one person, but of an unlimited number of people. 

He died on the cross and descended into hell between his death and resurrection, thus paying the price for the sins of anyone who believes in him.

If you believe in him, love him, and follow him, his death counts as the price for your sins, so you can be washed clean of all past, present, and future sins.

If you actually love him, you will not want to commit more sins and you will do your best to not sin anymore, gradually growing in your ability to resist sinning. This growing ability will come from God, not from you. This is the "good fruits/good works" referenced earlier: Your salvation will gradually begin to show up in your life as you are able to do good more and more and evil less and less. 

 

Some notes:
I was never taught that the Jewish animal sacrifices actually paid for sins but rather that it was a picture God gave them of what would happen in the future with Jesus. An animal's death is not worth as much as a human's death, but Jesus' death is worth more. It was Jesus in the future who actually paid for their sins and God retroactively applied that as they demonstrated their belief and trust in God by practicing the picture of blood sacrifice. 

I wasn't specifically taught how Jesus paid the price of eternal separation from God, as he's not in hell right now, he's in heaven with the rest of the Trinity. But my own reasoning was that hell is outside of time so the fact that he went to hell at all counted as being eternally there, even though 1. he returned to earth's timeline afterwards and 2. heaven is also outside of time and he is now eternally there. I am not offended if this doesn't make sense to anyone else.

I grew up in an evangelical/Reformed environment but this basic theology is believed by all or most evangelicals and fundies. 

 

Hopefully this makes the reasoning of this doctrine more obvious, whether or not anyone thinks it makes sense. 

[formergothardite]

I was always taught that Jesus went to heaven when he died because he said that that day he would be in paradise with the guy who repented on the cross. 

[libriatrix]

Aw yeah, I forgot that whether Jesus actually went to hell or not is controversial. I always understood that he did but I have heard it both ways. 

One of the complicating factors is that the Bible actually refers to several places that contemporary Christianity is fond of lumping together into hell. Here's a quick run-down I found of distinctions between the different places:

http://www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html

The Apostles' Creed, which is a big deal in the Reformed churches I've attended but not in the evangelical ones, says he descended into Hades, which is a temporary resting place for the dead before they go on to eternal punishment/lake of fire. It's not where the fiery torture happens. 

Side note just for fun: If you've ever watched or read Christy (story of a turn of the century city girl going to teach school in the Appalachians), there's a fun scene where a dying woman stymies the young pastor come to comfort her with this theological question -- do we go straight to heaven when we die or not. As he hems and haws and uses theological jargon SHE starts preaching to HIM, using the verse cited above, where Jesus says "this day you will be with me in paradise." Hilarious. 

[Palimpsest]

The Apostles Creed from the old version of the CofE (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer.  I am scared that I can do it from memory

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord.  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried.

He descended into hell.  On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost.  I believe in the holy catholic church,  the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

[47of74]

The Apostles' Creed, which is a big deal in the Reformed churches I've attended but not in the evangelical ones, says he descended into Hades, which is a temporary resting place for the dead before they go on to eternal punishment/lake of fire. It's not where the fiery torture happens. 

 

The 1988 Ecumenical translation said that Christ did descend to hell, as does the version found in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran Service Book used by the Missouri Synod Lutherans.  The Catholic, Episcopal, ELCA, and others use the phrase "descended to the dead" in the Apostles' Creed.  Of course the Nicene Creed says simply that Christ descended to the dead.

[formergothardite]

The Apostles Creed from the old version of the CofE (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer.  I am scared that I can do it from memory

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord.  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried.

He descended into hell.  On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost.  I believe in the holy catholic church,  the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

I went to a Southern Baptist church once where there was a massive fight over the Apostles Creed. One group said it is okay to say in church and the other said that it wasn't because not only did it use the ebil word Catholic but it says Jesus went to hell. 

Christy is still one of my favorite books and I was a bit obsessed with the show at one point. I was crushed when they took it off the air. 

[47of74]

I went to a Southern Baptist church once where there was a massive fight over the Apostles Creed. One group said it is okay to say in church and the other said that it wasn't because not only did it use the ebil word Catholic but it says Jesus went to hell. 

Christy is still one of my favorite books and I was a bit obsessed with the show at one point. I was crushed when they took it off the air. 

When my cousin got married for the first time it was in a Lutheran church.  Something my Grandpa picked up on was that they used the word Catholic during the creed and he mentioned it during the reception (I went to the reception but not the service itself).

Of course the first thing us Protestants will say about the word Catholic in the creed is that it refers to the original meaning of the word - universal - and not the Roman Catholic Church.