What to do with an atoning/non atoning Jesus?

11214161718

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    @Martin54
    Regarding atonement, etc., I am going to go over to the inactive "What to Do With and Errant Jesus" thread and start posting there concerning something I was asked about, as follows:

    I've frequently expressed my opinion that the Gethsemane scene in Mark is historical, and indicates that Jesus expected to die a death willed by God, and that he was probably influenced by Isaiah 53 in thinking that, for there it is said that it was Yahweh's will or even pleasure that the servant should undergo punishment/chastisement for the sake of many by bearing their sin and being wounded that they might be healed.

    I have been asked why I am so convinced that Isaiah 53 stands behind much of Jesus' thinking.

    I'll soon be going over to that inactive thread and try to tell, in a semi-fictional form, why I think that. It will be a somewhat long story and I hope I will be given space and time to tell it.

    Your opinion as to it being history isn't worth spit. It is not. That is a matter of fact.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    James Boswell II: I've frequently expressed my opinion that the Gethsemane scene in Mark is historical, and indicates that Jesus expected to die a death willed by God, and that he was probably influenced by Isaiah 53 in thinking that, for there it is said that it was Yahweh's will or even pleasure that the servant should undergo punishment/chastisement for the sake of many by bearing their sin and being wounded that they might be healed.

    I hope you will tell us how your understanding of Isaiah 53 fits in with the parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard, I cited above. Would you blame me, James Boswell II, if I preferred to put my money on the words of Jesus against your conviction, however sincere or well argued?

  • That's already been dealt with Kwesi.
  • Thank you, Martin. Indeed it has been.
    On page 11, July 9.

    And my concluding post there was as follows:

    The father in the parable is an ordinary father, just as the sower in the parable of the sower is an ordinary sower, though both of them are surprised in different ways.
    .
    Unlike the father in the parable, Yahweh was said often to have punished Israel for its oft-repeated rejecting and mistreating of the prophets (Daniel 9:10), yet God, like the father, kept sending more prophets (Nehemiah 9:26-31), and finally sent his son, although, unlike the father [in the parable], God knew what would happen!

    The point of the parable is primarily that Jesus knows the Temple authorities are planning to kill him, and he lets them know he knows it! And by not running from them, he again makes clear that he accepts this as God's will..
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    James Boswell II: The point of the parable is primarily that Jesus knows the Temple authorities are planning to kill him, and he lets them know he knows it! And by not running from them, he again makes clear that he accepts this as God's will..

    Knowing what would happen is not the same as wishing or willing it to happen. God's will is that the Temple authorities should accept the authority of his anointed: the Messiah, but they decide to kill him. Far from the murder being engineered by God for some greater end, he is enraged at their actions: “What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.” IMO, and perhaps some others, it's difficult to shoe-horn this parable into Isaiah 53.
  • I repeat:

    The father in the parable is an ordinary father, just as the sower in the parable of the sower is an ordinary sower, though both of them are surprised in different ways.
    .
    Unlike the father in the parable, Yahweh was said often to have punished Israel for its oft-repeated rejecting and mistreating of the prophets (Daniel 9:10), yet God, like the father, kept sending more prophets (Nehemiah 9:26-31), and finally sent his son, although, unlike the father [in the parable], God knew what would happen!

    __________

    Also, this parable is told by the Markan Jesus who again and again says that he as the Son of Man is going to have to go to Jerusalem and there "drink a cup and undergo a baptism" of suffering and death, and once he even says why: Because "even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (the Isaian servant serves) and to "pour out his blood for many" and "give his life as a ransom for many," (the Isaian servant pours our his life as a "sin offering" and "bore the sin of many" to "make many righteous") and when he stands before the high priest and before Herod Antipas and before Pontius Pilate he refuses to defend himself but stands silent (the Isaian servant does not open his mouth but is silent before his slaughterers), and goes to his death believing he will be raised up and return with clouds of heaven (the Isaian servant is raised up and exalted on high awith the great in the eyes of all the world).
  • Oh yes, and in Gethsemane, Jesus accepts his death as God's "will" while the Isaiah servant is given punishment/chastisement as God's will.
  • I repeat:

    The father in the parable is an ordinary father, just as the sower in the parable of the sower is an ordinary sower, though both of them are surprised in different ways.
    .
    Unlike the father in the parable, Yahweh was said often to have punished Israel for its oft-repeated rejecting and mistreating of the prophets (Daniel 9:10), yet God, like the father, kept sending more prophets (Nehemiah 9:26-31), and finally sent his son, although, unlike the father [in the parable], God knew what would happen!

    __________

    Also, this parable is told by the Markan Jesus who again and again says that he as the Son of Man is going to have to go to Jerusalem and there "drink a cup and undergo a baptism" of suffering and death, and once he even says why: Because "even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (the Isaian servant serves) and to "pour out his blood for many" and "give his life as a ransom for many," (the Isaian servant pours our his life as a "sin offering" and "bore the sin of many" to "make many righteous") and when he stands before the high priest and before Herod Antipas and before Pontius Pilate he refuses to defend himself but stands silent (the Isaian servant does not open his mouth but is silent before his slaughterers), and goes to his death believing he will be raised up and return with clouds of heaven (the Isaian servant is raised up and exalted on high among the great in the eyes of all the world).
  • Cynicism towards a conclusion is not a personal attack on the concluder. That conflation of messenger and message denies that the distinction made by C3 is even real. Being cynical about someone's conclusion cannot possibly be a personal attack. It's a category error.
  • Will we be able to distinguish fact from fiction?

    If we do, we will be accused of attacking someone personally.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    @James Boswell II

    Do you think this theological parallel with the suffering servant of Isaiah represents Jesus' own self understanding or the later theological interpretation of Mark?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    James Boswell II: I repeat .......Oh yes, and in Gethsemane, Jesus accepts his death as God's "will" while the Isaiah servant is given punishment/chastisement as God's will.

    ......But where in the vineyard parable is the death of the son God's will? Clearly it is not. Indeed, it is the opposite, which has terrible consequences for the killers. Perhaps Jesus got it wrong in this instance.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Will we be able to distinguish fact from fiction?

    If we do, we will be accused of attacking someone personally.

    Sadly, yes.
    :cry:

  • I do not know where this idea of attacking someone personally comes from. I certainly do not think that Kwesi is attacking me personally, just strongly disagreeing with my conclusions about the Wicked Tenants parable, as I strongly disagree with his.

    I suggest that @mousethief and @Bishops Finger would do better to avoid such comments (another form of personal attack?) and stick with the arguments, as Rublev does.
    Rublev wrote: »
    @James Boswell II

    Do you think this theological parallel with the suffering servant of Isaiah represents Jesus' own self understanding or the later theological interpretation of Mark?

    I am strongly convinced that it represents Jesus' own self understanding, which was a widely accepted scholarly premise in years past. And two contemporary historical Jesus scholars whom I consider to be among the very best of the best seem tending in that direction, Dale C. Allison, Jr., in his magnificent Constructing Jesus, and John P. Meier who is yet to pronounce his final verdict on the matter, as he will doubtless do in the eagerly awaited and anaticipated sixth volume of his A Marginal Jew.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019

    I suggest that @mousethief and @Bishops Finger would do better to avoid such comments (another form of personal attack?) and stick with the arguments, as Rublev does.

    Not a personal attack, by any means, but, on my part, merely a wry reflection on previous experiences.
    :disappointed:

    However, if a Host should rule that my wry reflection was a personal attack, I'm sure I'll be told, and I'll then abide by that Host's ruling.

  • I invite the Hosts to monitor us all.
  • No need, I think - these boards are monitored all the time, AFAIK.
  • Could we get back to the discussion at hand?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Sorry - where were we? I'm afraid I've lost track!
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @James Boswell II, a reminder:
    <snip>But I say to you and others, do not engage in the personal attack of constant cynicism toward those of us who think doing careful, thoughtful scholarship can help.
    I do not know where this idea of attacking someone personally comes from.<snip>

    Host hat on
    The Purgatory Hosts monitor all the Purgatory threads without needing to be invited. If someone considers they have been personally attacked they have three options
    1. Ignore it and move on
    2. Report it to a (the) host(s)
    3. Take it to Hell
    they may not, in Purgatory, respond in kind, or engage in (junior) hosting.

    Thank you. Normal debate may be resumed.

    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host
  • It was the insertion of the charge of personal attack into the context of a strong but in my opinion acceptable discussion between Kwesi and me that puzzled me. Back to normal debate, please.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    @James Boswell II

    Do you think this theological parallel with the suffering servant of Isaiah represents Jesus' own self understanding or the later theological interpretation of Mark?

    I am strongly convinced that it represents Jesus' own self understanding, which was a widely accepted scholarly premise in years past. And two contemporary historical Jesus scholars whom I consider to be among the very best of the best seem tending in that direction, Dale C. Allison, Jr., in his magnificent Constructing Jesus, and John P. Meier who is yet to pronounce his final verdict on the matter, as he will doubtless do in the eagerly awaited and anaticipated sixth volume of his A Marginal Jew.
  • Please could you kindly provide convenient links to the relevant portions of the works of these gentlemen, and to those of the other scholars you mention from time to time?
  • Links, no. References, yes:

    Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, chapter 5 "Death and Memory: The Passion of Jesus, pp. 387 - 433. See also pp. 461-2.

    Meier has not yet delivered his final opinion(s) but his position may perhaps be inferred from his "Jesus" article in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pp. 1327-8.
  • Thank you, but (forgive me for saying so) these are not much use, without a convenient weblink. I don't doubt for one moment that you're perfectly able to quote references.

    Or are these works not in the public domain, unless one buys the book(s)?
  • James Boswell IIJames Boswell II Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    I think only Meier's may be in the public domain. Indeed, I find a shortened form of it in the NYT. Here is the most relevant section:
    Copyright material removed by host.
  • Thank you. I only hope you haven't infringed copyright by publishing such a long extract!
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Host hat on
    I think only Meier's may be in the public domain. Indeed, I find a shortened form of it in the NYT. Here is the most relevant section:
    Copyright material removed by host.
    I do realise it makes things difficult, but Commandment 7 prohibits the posting of copyright material. “I think x is in the public domain” is not sufficient safeguard for The Ship. If the article is accessible to all via the NYT (New York Times?) or elsewhere online then please post a link. If it is not accessible to all that indicates that it is not permissible to post it in such a way that it is.
    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host

  • Why was a section of an article removed that was indeed in the public domain?. See the link.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited August 2019
    Host hat on
    If you want to discuss or query a hosting decision, please do so in Styx.
    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host


  • Rublev wrote: »
    @James Boswell II

    Do you think this theological parallel with the suffering servant of Isaiah represents Jesus' own self understanding or the later theological interpretation of Mark?

    @Rublev
    I think it represents Jesus' own self understanding. What do you think?

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I think it is a question that is worthy of discussion. Do you have the scripture texts to hand?
  • Without actual citations, I heaped up some up in my reply to Kwesi yesterday (above)
    I repeat:

    The father in the parable [of the Wicked Tenants] is an ordinary father, just as the sower in the parable of the sower is an ordinary sower, though both of them are surprised in different ways.
    .
    Unlike the father in the parable, Yahweh was said often to have punished Israel for its oft-repeated rejecting and mistreating of the prophets (Daniel 9:10), yet God, like the father, kept sending more prophets (Nehemiah 9:26-31), and finally sent his son, although, unlike the father [in the parable], God knew what would happen!

    __________

    Here I have bolded the Isaian parts.

    Also, this parable is told by the Markan Jesus who again and again says that he as the Son of Man is going to have to go to Jerusalem and there "drink a cup and undergo a baptism" of suffering and death, and once he even says why: Because "even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (the Isaian servant serves) and to "pour out his blood for many" and "give his life as a ransom for many," (the Isaian servant pours our his life as a "sin offering" and "bore the sin of many" to "make many righteous") and when he stands before the high priest and before Herod Antipas and before Pontius Pilate he refuses to defend himself but stands silent (the Isaian servant does not open his mouth but is silent before his slaughterers), and goes to his death believing he will be raised up and return with clouds of heaven (the Isaian servant is raised up and exalted on high awith the great in the eyes of all the world).
    Oh yes, and in Gethsemane, Jesus accepts his death as God's "will" while the Isaiah servant is given punishment/chastisement as God's will.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52: 13-53: 12:

    This is a Messianic prophecy which Jesus quotes and applies to Himself prior to His arrest: 'It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors,' and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in Me' (Luke 22: 37; Is 53: 12).

    There are other quotations made in reference to Jesus in Matthew, John and Peter (Matt 8: 14-17; Is 53: 4; John 12: 37-41; Is 53: 1; 1 Pet 2: 19-25; Is 53: 4-6, 9).

    The most interesting example occurs in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the scroll of Isaiah 53: 'He was led like a sheep to the slaughter' (Acts 8: 32-35; Is 53: 7-8).

    John has a theology of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb in his gospel:

    He is named as the 'lamb of God' (John 1: 29).

    He is silent before Pilate.

    He dies at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs.

    His legs are not broken on the cross. According to Leviticus the bones of the Passover lamb were not to be broken.

    I would say that Luke and John both have a theology of Jesus as the suffering servant and sacrificial lamb. But this is probably a retrospective perspective which tries to make sense of His passion and crucifixion.

    I am not sure if it is Jesus' self understanding because there is only Luke 23: 37 to support it. Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man rather than a title from Isaiah.
  • He calls himself that and Messiah (Christ) in all the synoptics when questioned by the high priest.
    And although there is textual difference in words in his reply, the words are interpreted as an affirmation by the high priest who tears his clothing and cries Blasphemy.
  • Luke 22:37, rather.
  • Excuse me. You had it right the first time you cited it.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I am occasionally right :wink:
  • As we may hope occasionally to be.;)
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    And if you get it wrong it will be gleefully pointed out to you by your shipmates. So put on the full armour of God!
  • I have, but things keep getting through the chinks. :(
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    'Take up the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God' (Eph 6: 17). :smile:
  • How old are you, sunny one? -- that is, if you don't mind saying.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I don't mind saying - but I'll pm you.
  • I DON'T think so. I'm 79 and 3/4ths.
  • While you are contemplating telling or not telling me (which is okay), I will point out that I just put a request/suggestion for you on the Errant Jesus thread. Goodbye for a while.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Have you located your inbox? It's on the top RHS of the page - you click on the box with three horizontal lines.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    I, like others, don't hold tight to the academic teaching, rather I have my own feel of things which may or may not be accepted by anyone else. We see things through the lens of the written word thanks to the printing press, before which most information was passed on orally. The Jewish people took great pride in accurate passing on of the oral tradition which was later recorded in writing. Why wouldn't 'Q' be simply that, what everyone knew and passed on about Jesus?

    I think Jesus knew that he was the fulfilment of the scriptures, the law and the prophets, and that his death was a necessary element of the extension of God's invitation to future generations of people everywhere. I'm not convinced that it is helpful for us to be able to connect and explain his death within the existing religious thinking of its time. Rather, it is far more helpful to see his death in terms of his resurrection, and the hope and promise of eternal life this extends to us.

    What shall we do with Jesus at all? The question becomes what shall Jesus do with us? We serve. We are refreshed within the church, we are sent out to serve. We listen. Sometimes we hear. We look. Sometimes we see. We knock. Sometimes a door opens.


    Thank you! This is as good an answer as I have read recently. All the talk about who wrote what and what did Mark or John or Matthew mean about blah blah blah...perhaps scholars with too much time on their hands find it interesting to debate and argue endlessly, but I am more about encountering the Trinity in my everyday life. I have been listening to a lot of preaching/teaching from C. Baxter Kruger and Wm. Paul Young. They are very much into scholarship but they also emphasize the way in which we live, move, have our being, wrestle with the Trinity in everyday circumstances. I don't read the Old Testament at all, if I can help it. Sometimes I'll read the New Testament, especially when listening to C. Baxter Kruger on YouTube. But mostly I pray and try to see the world as the "I Threes" see it. That's my irreverent/playful name for God the Father/Mother, Jesus, the Son/maybe Daughter? and The Holy Spirit. I like to argue in a non-antagonistic manner but I just think a lot of what is called discussion seems more like "one-upism". Anyway...onwards...
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Adso also believed that the rational spirit should not indulge in curiosity, 'but feed only the Truth, which (I thought) one knows from the outset' (Name of the Rose).

    For Christians the Bible is a progressive revelation of Christ. The theology of redemption is already present in the OT. And there are some radical developments in the NT.

    Jesus reprioritises the OT Law and regards it as fulfilled in Himself.

    The Synoptics and Acts present Jesus, as the fulfilment of OT Jewish prophecy about the Messiah.

    John identifies Christ with the Greek philosophical concept of the universal Logos. And combines it with the story of Creation in Genesis.

    Paul revokes the OT ritual Law for Gentile Christians.

    These developments became mainstream orthodox Christianity - but some of them could have been seen as heresy by the early church. And some developments such as docetism were seen as heresy (1 John 1: 1-4). The formulation of the orthodox definition of the Trinity by the church was the product of tremendous theological debate.
Sign In or Register to comment.