Tom -
Thanks for the interpretation; is is internally self-consistent and I appreciate it for that reason. Seriously.
The problem for the non-believer (in the traditional sense) is that it is a long long long leap from:
"I have brought you glory on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do." (John 17:4)
"
to:
"
Jesus was tempted, obeyed God and triumphed. He fulfilled all righteousness.
As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he had to be a perfect sacrifice. Sinless and pure.
"
The "work" He was given to do could simply have been to awaken a new level of moral sensibility in people - the hypothetical imperative in Kant's terms. One can believe literally in His Crucifixion and Resurrection and even His status as the
Son of God without necessarily believing in the "sacrifice" idea - which is really
a very old, very primitive, and VERY ignorant idea from the Judaeo- part of the Judaeo-Christian heritage. In fact, one of the main reasons I rejected Judaism as a religious possibility very early in my life is that I couldn't understand how one could take seriously the theology of a people who thought there was a real BEHAVIORAL difference in idol-worship (praying to statues) and pouring blood over stones to honor their own Deity (of course I know there was a CONCEPTUAL difference between idol-worship and monotheism.)
But oddly, even though I think the whole "sacrifice" basis of Christianity is an unfortunate inheritance from its ancestor religion. I believe that the temptations in the desert ARE nonetheless the central fact of Christ's own private human experience on earth. WE as humans crucified him, not to fulfill some plan, but because WE as humans betrayed and denied him. But He, Whomever He was or wasn't, underwent the temptations on His own. WE had nothing to do with that.
Best regards
Dave
Dave,
what you refer to as my "interpretation" is what has been believed by Christians for 2000 years. It is without question what was believed by the New Testament writers.
One example of this is found in I Corinthians 15:3-5.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."
Biblical scholars say that Paul, (writing in 56AD), is quoting a liturgical saying that dates to within 5 years of the crucifixion! In other words, it dates from around 38AD.
Notice that it says "Christ died for our sins" and then points out that this was "according to the scriptures".
This is in accord with Isiah 53:1-12 where the suffering servant is described. He "was pierced for our transgressions, and he was crushed for our iniquities" (V5) The "punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (V6). "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all". (V7). "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days." (V10).
So, the idea of an atonement through sacrifice is a "cover to cover" idea in the Bible. To try to reduce Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Christ, to a mere moral example is to gut the Scriptures of their central theme.
It is, quite frankly, to create an imaginary ChristJesus that is very different from the one revealed in the New Testament. If you wish to relate to reality through an imaginary being, no one can stop you.
But what will release you from the guilt of your sins? (Please don't tell me you've never sinned.)
A ChristJesus who's entire life and ministry was merely for the purpose of telling people, "be nice to each other" can't do that.
Thomas Maddux
