What changed when Jesus died?

[Thomas]

This works on the assumption that the universe is the common ground between God and humans. There must have been an obstacle of some kind in the universe phsycially separating God and humans.

Wrong assumption. The soul is the common ground between God and man, not the universe, and the soul is not a physical nor a material thing.

So if you're looking for a material, measurable change, a physical difference, you're looking for the wrong thing.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi BlueJay -

One bug-bear:

The Bible, however, was not always right. For example, it assumed a flat earth. And today we know that the earth is not flat. Likewise it assumes a that the sun revolves around the earth (e.g. the day the sun stood still) and today we know that is not true.

The Bible no-where assumes a flat earth. The Church never assumed a flat earth. Christopher Columbus and his crew never assumed a flat earth. This whole 'flat earth' thing is one of those myths which has entered common consciousness but which is simply not true.

One of my favourite (and inexplicable) inspirations is the Greek mathamatician who stuck a stick in the sand on a beach, and another stick a mile away, then measured the length and angle of shadow from both, and worked out the earth was round, and the circumference was roughly 24,000 miles - he was right to within a hundred miles! That's some thinking.

The day the sun stood still
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies" and "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13).

OK -
So where do we go from here?

The fundamentalist view
is, of course, that the sun stood still. I find that hard to believe. Although, apparently, cosmologists and astronomers have found an anomaly in computing the orbit of the earth back through time:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/hblim/passages/sunstill.htm
hmm ... I still have doubts.

The rationalist view
is, on the other hand, that the Bible is all myth and fable. So none of it is true.

But the above is a fundamentalism of a different stripe.

The Catholic view
is that the Bible is inspired by God and written by man, and it conveys those truths which God wants to make known with no admixture of error (to paraphrase Dei Verbum - a dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Faith)

What the Church has done has accepted the findings of modern science - literary criticism - without throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as the rationalists of the Enlightenment did)

So the Bible contains many literary forms - songs, poems, discourses, dialogues, stories, and employs many literary styles.

Now - being an avid reader of 'war stories' one thing upon which all sources agree is the passage of time in combat - that what seemed, in reflection, to be a frantic few minutes was, in fact, hours ... and what lasted hours actually was but a few moments ... I can read the story of the battle at Gibeon as being a significant engagement and the reference to the sun standing still at Gibeon "until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies" is a poetic reference ... one might have said "there were thousands, we killed and we killed, it just went on and on, there was nothing, just killing, hacking, stabbing, biting, kicking ... like time had stopped, like the world stopped ... like everything stopped, and all there was, God help us, was the killing ... on and on ... I could not believe how many we killed ... I cannot believe that we did all that in just five hours of fighting ... God must have been with us that day, man hasn't the strength in his arms to kill as many as we did ..."

Look at this question another way.

Both the Jews and the Babylonians had a myth of the flood. In the Babylonian version, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the King Gilgamesh becomes dangerously powerful and the gods create a companion to divert him - the consort Enkidu (echoes of the creation myth) - the two set off on a series of adventures so bold that they enrage the gods, who decree that Enkidu must die, and horror-struck Gilgamesh travels to the ends of the earth to seek out the survivor of the Flood, Utnapishtim, who built an ark as instructed by the god Ea, and was granted immortality.

The interview does not go well. Gilgamesh is told that the gods reserve immortality for themselves alone, that he, Utnapishtim, was a special case, for he saved humanity, but Gilgamesh is just a man, and mortal, and destined to die.

Gilgamesh returns home, older, wiser, repents of his ways, lives a virtuous life, and the story ends with the ghost of his lost companion Enkidu laying out in melancholy fashion the fate of man - to die - even he, Gilgamesh, will die ... only the gods live forever.

The message of Utnapishtim - the religious outlook of Babylon, was tragic and fatalistic. The gods were apart from humanity, who interfered on a caprice, or when man annoyed them. The religious activity of humanity is an act of placating the gods.

The Hebrews saw it differently. The God of Isreal is Good, is constant, is unswerving, is just ... He does not change ... so what befalls them is brought about by their own errors - it is divine justice - but that same God forgives - divine mercy - and has made promises that will endure - He is their God, and they are his Chosen People ... He will dwell with them ...

The Hebrew story is of a Covenant - a contract - a promise - no other gods of antiquity engaged in quite such a pact with their people as did the God of the Jews - the Covenant is all that matters, everything that happens turns on that point - the belief that good things come from God as a just reward, and bad things as a just reward, but through it all is a belief that God is Just, and is committed to His creation.

But life in Him ... that was never part of the Covenant, that was not part of the deal. That was the New Covenant in Christ - not just 'a land of milk and honey' but everlasting life in God ... that was something new ... that changed everything ... that inaugurated a 'new humanity', and to do so the old had to overcome the impasse of death - the self-inflicted wound of the Fall - so human nature had to be reconstructed as something that does not cease at death but passes on ... man can't do that, man can't remake his own nature ... only God can do that ... but there's a price ... man has to acknowledge his culpability in the Fall ... a reality has to be faced ... a truth has to be acknowledged ... but man lives in denial of himself, and denied the Messenger, and killed Him ... but God knew that, too, and showed that even in the worst of himself, man is not beyond redemption ... that his salvation is possible ... they too, the ones who drove the very nails through His flesh .... they too are forgiven ...

That's real love.

... and if we think we're so clever now, with iPods and Mars Missions, how come we spend so much, millions upon millions, on cosmetics, on surgery, on therapy, on technology, on anything that will help us to not face up to who and what we are?

And what happens when we get to heaven with our lifted cheeks and glossy hair, smooth skin and Grecian physique, our nipped-and-tucked flesh ... and the angel points to a pile of dead babies, 30,000 of them, just one day's tally ... what excuse will we offer then?

"I didn't know?" And the angel will wonder, "have you been living in a cave?"

Hard questions.

Yes indeed. What changed? God pray the answer is not 'nothing', but God help us, at times it looks that way...

Sorry - it's a Sunday - don't mean to bring anyone down.

Pax

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"I didn't know?" And the angel will wonder, "have you been living in a cave?"

That's a darn good question, even if your post does gloss over a lot of times when the church refused to keep up with the times and many suffered...

I think it is time for a lot of us to not work on our faces and public appearances....I'm not referring to people here, but the churches and all of the hype to push whatever political agenda or to make themselves look better in other eyes. It appears billions are being spent on marketing the churches, tis the cave they are living in...

[Dor]

Originally Posted by wil

I think it is time for a lot of us to not work on our faces and public appearances....I'm not referring to people here, but the churches and all of the hype to push whatever political agenda or to make themselves look better in other eyes. It appears billions are being spent on marketing the churches, tis the cave they are living in...

Wow Wil, something else we agree on.

The church as a whole(not every individual church) is in a very sad state these days.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

No one has really answered my question yet, so I'll be more specific about my question. It's long so bear with me. Seems I can't write it out briefly because then people misunderstand.

Okay, so Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins.

a) What is sin?
Who is paying what to whom?

Sin: intentionally doing something you know is wrong

Okay, I never do that but probably most people do since there is this teaching.

Your definition of sin is flawed. It's just not intentionally doing something you know is wrong. There are sins committed through ignorance:

"If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering." - Leviticus 5:15

Furthermore, there are not only sins of commission (as a result of our actions), but also sins of omission (as a result of what we fail to do).

Sin is really imperfection. To follow this logically, since all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in the two greatest commandments to Love God and Love thy neighbor, then sin is imperfect love. Who can really say that they have loved God perfectly with all their heart, all their mind, all their soul, and all their strength.

But the problem isn't with the acts of the sins themselves (though the consequences of sin are dire), but with the one committing them. Man simply has a sinful nature. There are "good" sinners and there are "bad" sinners, but it makes no difference to a Holy God how good a sinner you are, you are still a sinner.

Our salvation lies not within ourselves, for we cannot change our nature. Though God made man and it was good, the Fall caused us to inherit a sinful nature. It is like we have a computer virus in us that someone else has to purge. God has to change us, fix us. For us to try to change ourselves is a bit like trying to take a bath in dirty water.

Okay. That answers the question about inherent sin. It does not dispose of the sin theology, however.

Jesus died to save people from their sin. Sin absolutely had to exist. WHAT IS SIN? No answer todate.

See above.

The second part of the problem: Who is paying what to whom?

The man on the cross obviously is the one paying. The Bible makes it out that God is paying i.e. he sacrificed his son exactly like Abraham sacrificed Isaac.

Okay so we have God paying God.

Here is the fundamental dilemma:

God is Holy, Pure, Righteous, Perfect.

Man is not. We are sinners by nature.

God is Just. Sin has to be judged. Because He is Perfect, no sin can escape that Justice.

Therefore, since Man is a sinner, he must be judged accordingly. Which means we are all doomed.

God is also Merciful, Gracious, and willing to Forgive. God is Perfect Love.

But, how can God reconcile the fact that He is Perfect and Just with the fact that He is also Merciful, Gracious, and willing to forgive?

There is the Paradox.

If God just forgives us, then there is no justice. If God judges us, then there is no forgiveness.

This is where Substitutionary Atonement steps in.

Since Jesus live a sinless, perfect life, being Divine, He bore the justice of our sins on the Cross. He became sin for us (II Cor. 5:21). All of God's judgment fell on Him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. Through Christ, we are no longer enemies toward God. God has a basis for our forgiveness, without compromising His justice.

Paradox solved.

[17th Angel]

What changed when he died?

His followers grew and spread and came to turn agaisnt each other, not being able to agree on what he taught?

"He said he was god pal!"
"No he didn't! He said he was the son of god!"
"Both wrong! he was a prophet!"
"He ain't no messiah.... We are still waiting for him."

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Sacrifice signifies our inability to please the Lord. The reason for sacrifice is to recognize our inablility to obey God's Perfect Law. If we could perfectly obey God, there would be no need of sacrifice, for our obedience would be that sacrifice.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Consider this passage in 1 Peter 2.

As you come to him, the living Stone -- rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him -- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:4-5

Spiritual sacrifices?

This passage suggests that we are part of a Temple -- a spiritual temple. The "spiritual sacrifices" are rituals that we perform inside that spiritual temple. A temple is a place where we conduct these rituals. This place can either be physical or spiritual. The "sacrifice" in a sense is an act of devotion where we give up what we want (our time, money, what we desire) and allow God to make use of what we've given up. This may be manifested in an expression of affection for someone we love, for example, where we give up our time to be with them. That's the sacrifice.

Jesus' sacrifice, in a sense, has nothing to do with that fact that he was crucified, but has to do with the fact that he gave up something. He gave up his life, to be what?

What else? 1 Peter 2:6 talks about the cornerstone that God put in Zion. Jesus gave up (sacrificed) himself in order to dedicate himself as the First Stone in God's spiritual temple. He is the Foundation Stone of that Temple forever. He cannot be removed. He has given his life to be that Stone. His fate is sealed. He can't cancel the decree.

The sacrifices that we are to perform are of the same pattern as that of Jesus when he did it. Our sacrifices are acceptable to God when we conduct them the same way as Jesus did. When we do, we are spiritual descendents of Jesus and we are his people. Descendents follow in the footsteps of their ancestors. If we are his people then we are part of the Temple that he built. We're not incapable of pleasing God!! I disagree.

Jesus' sacrifice was the First Sacrifice. Many more sacrifices are to come after him.

There were sacrifices that came before Jesus (animal sacrifices) when human beings couldn't sacrifice themselves. The sacrifices of human beings that come after Jesus are now acceptable (human sacrifices) because they are made by Christ's spiritual descendents. Sacrifices made by Christ's spiritual descendents are acceptable to God because they live for and believe in the same purpose as Christ did.

We couldn't sacrifice ourselves before because there was no Temple in which to perform the sacrifice. The Foundation Stone hadn't yet been laid. No Temple had been ordained. Jesus was the only one who could conduct a sacrifice that was acceptable to God without a Temple already existing.

The curtain veiling the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem tore open as a sign that human beings can now sacrifice themselves to God and God will now accept that sacrifice. God didn't accept the sacrifices before but he accepts them now. The way to reach God is now open.

That's the meaning of the passage in 1 Peter 2:4-5 as I see it.

Quite a bit of metaphor and symbolism involved here.