Orthodoxy turned on its head

[Shtef]

Orthodox Christianity would have it that it was God's will and Jesus' mission to be crucified in order to attone for our sins and deal the Devil a fatal blow.

In the same breath, it teaches that Satan over ran the souls of Judas and the Pharisees causing them to betray Christ, leading him to his crucifixion.

These two teachings contradict one another.

If the purpose of Jesus' death was in fact to attone for our sins and take away Satan's power over us, would Judas and the Pharisees not have been doing the work of God? Furthermore, if Jesus' crucifixion did in fact attone for our sins, would the Devil have not done everything in his power to keep Jesus alive?

You see, Jesus' death attonong for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees being subjects of the Devil can not co-exist.

Either Jesus' death did attone for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees are good men who should be revered for the roll they played in the salvation of mankind

OR

It was not Jesus' purpose to die for us at all. His purpose was simply that of a teacher and a roll model but had his term here cut short by subjects of the Devil.

So, for all of those who wish to cling to the idea that Judas and the Pharisees were of the Devil, you have to kiss goodbye the notion that Jesus' death attoned for our sins. The Devil would not have played a part in his own down fall.

If you can't let this notion go, you should rethink your position in relation to the charcter of Judas and the Pharisees. Perhaps you can make saints out of them.

 

[michel]

Hi Shtef

As I notice that this is your first visit here, I thought I would take the opportunity to welcome you to Religious Forums;

I hope that you would feel able to introduce yourself to the other members of the forum, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to look at.
I notice that you posted this exact thread twice (once in Same Faith Debates, and Once in General Religious debates); was that your intention ? - If you want one of them deleted, you only need ask.

As far as your post goes;

Orthodox Christianity would have it that it was God's will and Jesus' mission to be crucified in order to attone for our sins and deal the Devil a fatal blow.

Tell the triuth I didn't know that to deal the Devil a fatal blow had anything to do with it.

As far as my knowledge goes, his sacrifice was so that, if we believed in him, and repented our sins, we will be forgiven our sins.

it teaches that Satan over ran the souls of Judas and the Pharisees causing them to betray Christ, leading him to his crucifixion

I'm afraid you have lost me there; could you quote scripture to explain your point

Sorry, I am not very knowledgable.

 

[Popeyesays]

Orthodox Christianity would have it that it was God's will and Jesus' mission to be crucified in order to attone for our sins and deal the Devil a fatal blow..

God sent Jesus, for sure. However, define "orthodox". And, of course, the devil does not exist anyway, certainly not as an opposition to God.

In the same breath, it teaches that Satan over ran the souls of Judas and the Pharisees causing them to betray Christ, leading him to his crucifixion.

These two teachings contradict one another. .

I don't think it teaches that at all. If a particular church or denomination teaches that, they are in error.

If the purpose of Jesus' death was in fact to attone for our sins and take away Satan's power over us, would Judas and the Pharisees not have been doing the work of God? Furthermore, if Jesus' crucifixion did in fact attone for our sins, would the Devil have not done everything in his power to keep Jesus alive?

You see, Jesus' death attonong for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees being subjects of the Devil can not co-exist.

Either Jesus' death did attone for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees are good men who should be revered for the roll they played in the salvation of mankind.

My faith accepts the divine origin of Jesus' spirit, but teaches that in the long run, ALL are the servants of God, since God's will cannot be thwarted.

OR

It was not Jesus' purpose to die for us at all. His purpose was simply that of a teacher and a roll model but had his term here cut short by subjects of the Devil.

So, for all of those who wish to cling to the idea that Judas and the Pharisees were of the Devil, you have to kiss goodbye the notion that Jesus' death attoned for our sins. The Devil would not have played a part in his own down fall.

If you can't let this notion go, you should rethink your position in relation to the charcter of Judas and the Pharisees. Perhaps you can make saints out of them.

I would tend to agree that Jesus' purpose was to educate mankind to the will of God, what MEN did to Him was the act of men, not the will of God. It ws part of Free Will, which IS the purpose of God creating mankind.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Shtef]

I don't think it teaches that at all. If a particular church or denomination teaches that, they are in error.

I think you'll find that it does. Jesus himself is purported to have said that Satan, meaning Judas, was among them at the last supper.

 

[Shtef]

Define "orthodox".

Any of the denominations that revere the crucifixion and see it as perhaps being the most important event in Jesus' ministry.

I don't know if I made my point clear in the original text but it is my contention that jesus' crucifixion, a part from being a tragedy, contributed nothing to the salvation of mankind.

Those who argue that it had everything to do with our salvation can not look down on those responsible for the crucifixion

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't think it teaches that at all. If a particular church or denomination teaches that, they are in error.

I think you'll find that it does. Jesus himself is purported to have said that Satan, meaning Judas, was among them at the last supper.

Jesus meant no such thing. Kindly produce the verses to make the claim.

Here it is from Matthew 26 :


21And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

22And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

23And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

25Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

30And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

31Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

32But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

33Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

34Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 35Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

Here from Mark:

17And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.


18And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

21The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Here's the closes to what you say, but it is not what you mean. From Luke:

" 1Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.


2And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. "

Satan is our lower nature and everyone has satan within himself. We are all our own temptation. We are never possessed by anything but ourselves. It is a great heresy to suggest that God has an opponent of equal power to His own.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Shtef]

3Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. "

It is a great heresy to suggest that God has an opponent of equal power to His own.

Regards,
Scott

Can you please explain the meaning of "then Satan entered Judas.." if it does not mean what I suggested it does. Please keep in mind that I am looking at this from an Orthodox Christian perspective.

 

[Popeyesays]

Can you please explain the meaning of "then Satan entered Judas.." if it does not mean what I suggested it does. Please keep in mind that I am looking at this from an Orthodox Christian perspective.

Yet you still refrain from defining "orthodox". It has many meanings you know - even within Christianity. As to looking at it from one perspective and trying NOT to consider other perspectives - well that defeats the purpose of discussion in an interfaith forum does it not?

As to the nature of Satan. To make Satan the "Great Enemy" of God is Manichaean in approach and a heresy against the normative theology of Christianity. If Satan is not the opponent and equal of God then what is "satan". I am differentiating with the use or non-use of a capital "S". "Satan" is the entity. The lower case "satan" is the real satan of the Bible. It is the still, small voice of Ego and Self which we all possess. God calls us away from the Ego and Self and would have us live an act selflessly and in submission to God's will. The "satan" within us all is the voice that says "What's in this for ME?" It calls us to self and passion, selfish acts and attempting to resist the will of God.

This is the "satan" with which Jesus wrestled in the desert. He had to still that voice of resistance and ego to do God's will with His life.

Judas also possessed these two voices within himself. And it was the voice of ego and selfishness which caused him to accept thirty pieces of silver for the betrayal of Christ.
So in this sense, satan had already entered into Judas and he gave up the voice of God's will within himself.

From my own Scriptures, the voice of Abdu'l Baha says it this way:
"Judas Iscariot was the greatest of the disciples, and he summoned the people to Christ. Then it seemed to him that Jesus was showing increasing regard to the Apostle Peter, and when Jesus said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,' these words addressed to Peter, and this singling out of Peter for special honour, had a marked effect on the Apostle, and kindled envy within the heart of Judas. For this reason he who had once drawn nigh did turn aside, and he who had believed in the Faith denied it, and his love changed to hate, until he became a cause of the crucifixion of that glorious Lord, that manifest Splendour. Such is the outcome of envy, the chief reason why men turn aside from the Straight Path. So hath it occurred, and will occur, in this great Cause. But it doth not matter, for it engendereth loyalty in the rest, and maketh souls to arise who waver not, who are fixed and unshakeable as the mountains in their love for the Manifest Light."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 163)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Shtef]

Please, I am not here to debate the nature of Satan or satan. I myself do not believe in an evil entity but referred to one as Orthodox Christianity would.

I note that you don't agree with this. You have said, "to make Satan the "Great Enemy" of God is Manichaean in approach and a heresy against the normative theology of Christianity". I disagree. Seeing Satan as an actual entity is very Christian. Your view, and mine for that matter, that satan refers only to the ego in all of us is esoteric and would best be described as the heresy against the normative theology of Christianity.

Now, regardless of whether we are talking about Satan or satan what I want to know is, and this has been my point the whole time, how can it be taught that it was God's will that Jesus die for our sins and at the same time label those who led him to his death as being affacted by the evil one or the ego? If God wanted Jesus to die for our benefit surely it would have been God who led Jesus to the cross and would have been the one guiding Judas etc. No evil entity or ego would have been involved.

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY: denominations that revere the crucifixion and it see as pivotal to our salvation. This is a very reasonable definition of Orthodox Christianity. Despite the minor differences between cotholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, this is one belief they are all married to.

 

[Popeyesays]

Please, I am not here to debate the nature of Satan or satan. I myself do not believe in an evil entity but referred to one as Orthodox Christianity would.

I note that you don't agree with this. You have said, "to make Satan the "Great Enemy" of God is Manichaean in approach and a heresy against the normative theology of Christianity". I disagree. Seeing Satan as an actual entity is very Christian. Your view, and mine for that matter, that satan refers only to the ego in all of us is esoteric and would best be described as the heresy against the normative theology of Christianity.

Now, regardless of whether we are talking about Satan or satan what I want to know is, and this has been my point the whole time, how can it be taught that it was God's will that Jesus die for our sins and at the same time label those who led him to his death as being affacted by the evil one or the ego? If God wanted Jesus to die for our benefit surely it would have been God who led Jesus to the cross and would have been the one guiding Judas etc. No evil entity or ego would have been involved.

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY: denominations that revere the crucifixion and it see as pivotal to our salvation. This is a very reasonable definition of Orthodox Christianity. Despite the minor differences between cotholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, this is one belief they are all married to.

The definition works for this discussion at least. It should be noted that I am not a Christian - orthodox or heterodox - so whle revering Christ, I still have different understandings than a given Christian might.

Now as to the sufferings of Jesus: Every Messenger ever sent by God has suffered at the hands of those people who will not accept His message. From Abraham to Baha`u'llah and Christ is a good example of the extremes to which this suffering can go.

Now, I do not "blame" God for sending a Messenger who will wind up suffering. Other men cause the suffering not God.

"Similarly, call thou to mind the day when the Jews, who had surrounded Jesus, Son of Mary, were pressing Him to confess His claim of being the Messiah and Prophet of God, so that they might declare Him an infidel and sentence Him to death. Then, they led Him away, He Who was the Day-star of the heaven of divine Revelation, unto Pilate and Caiaphas, who was the leading divine of that age. The chief priests were all assembled in the palace, also a multitude of people who had gathered to witness His sufferings, to deride and injure Him. Though they repeatedly questioned 133 Him, hoping that He would confess His claim, yet Jesus held His peace and spake not. Finally, an accursed of God arose and, approaching Jesus, adjured Him saying: "Didst thou not claim to be the Divine Messiah? Didst thou not say, 'I am the King of Kings, My word is the Word of God, and I am the breaker of the Sabbath day?'" Thereupon Jesus lifted up His head and said: "Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?" These were His words, and yet consider how to outward seeming He was devoid of all power except that inner power which was of God and which had encompassed all that is in heaven and on earth. How can I relate all that befell Him after He spoke these words? How shall I describe their heinous behaviour towards Him? " (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 132)

Regards,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Any of the denominations that revere the crucifixion and see it as perhaps being the most important event in Jesus' ministry.

Interesting definition of 'orthodox' because by your use of the word, the Orthodox Church wouldn't be orthodox at all. Your idea of the beliefs of orthodox Christianity appears to be that it revolves around the idea of substitutionary atonement. That may be orthodox for the west but it most certainly is not orthodox in the Christian east. Neither we not the Oriental Orthodox hold to this belief and nor do we see the Crucifixion as the single most important event in Christ's life. Christ's entire Incarnation is what is important, not just one single part of it.

James

 

[Dentonz]

Orthodox Christianity would have it that it was God's will and Jesus' mission to be crucified in order to attone for our sins and deal the Devil a fatal blow.

In the same breath, it teaches that Satan over ran the souls of Judas and the Pharisees causing them to betray Christ, leading him to his crucifixion.

These two teachings contradict one another.

If the purpose of Jesus' death was in fact to attone for our sins and take away Satan's power over us, would Judas and the Pharisees not have been doing the work of God? Furthermore, if Jesus' crucifixion did in fact attone for our sins, would the Devil have not done everything in his power to keep Jesus alive?

You see, Jesus' death attonong for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees being subjects of the Devil can not co-exist.

Either Jesus' death did attone for our sins and Judas and the Pharisees are good men who should be revered for the roll they played in the salvation of mankind

OR

It was not Jesus' purpose to die for us at all. His purpose was simply that of a teacher and a roll model but had his term here cut short by subjects of the Devil.

So, for all of those who wish to cling to the idea that Judas and the Pharisees were of the Devil, you have to kiss goodbye the notion that Jesus' death attoned for our sins. The Devil would not have played a part in his own down fall.

If you can't let this notion go, you should rethink your position in relation to the charcter of Judas and the Pharisees. Perhaps you can make saints out of them.

In my opinion the problem with this is: First off, the devil does not know everything. He actually thought he was winning the battle when he had Jesus betrayed and crucified.
Besides, God is always in control; nothing happens without his approval.

 

[Shtef]

Interesting definition of 'orthodox' because by your use of the word, the Orthodox Church wouldn't be orthodox at all. Your idea of the beliefs of orthodox Christianity appears to be that it revolves around the idea of substitutionary atonement. That may be orthodox for the west but it most certainly is not orthodox in the Christian east. Neither we not the Oriental Orthodox hold to this belief and nor do we see the Crucifixion as the single most important event in Christ's life. Christ's entire Incarnation is what is important, not just one single part of it.

James

of course the Orthodox Church is orthodox. It also most certainly teaches substitutionary attonement. You do, after all, still worship the cross. Why? Because of the powers of attonement you believe to be associated with the crucifixion. The only Christians that did not believe in substitutionary attonement were the gnostics who believed that a life based on Christ's teachings was the only way to salvation, flaty refusing to give any credit at all to Jesus' death on the cross.

 

[James the Persian]

of course the Orthodox Church is orthodox. It also most certainly teaches substitutionary attonement. You do, after all, still worship the cross. Why? Because of the powers of attonement you believe to be associated with the crucifixion. The only Christians that did not believe in substitutionary attonement were the gnostics who believed that a life based on Christ's teachings was the only way to salvation, flaty refusing to give any credit at all to Jesus' death on the cross.

Thanks for teaching me what I believe. I'll go off to my priest at once and correct him for you!

We do not, and nor have we ever, taught the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Do you actually know what that doctrine means? We also do not worship the cross. We venerate it and the empty cross is a powerful symbol for us because it represents the fact that Christ is no loger crucified, but resurrected, but that does not constitute worship. In Orthodox soteriology, Christ was not a substitute for us. He did not die to atone for our sins. It was His Incarnation that reconciled God and man, not His death.

Try reading up on Orthodox soteriology before spouting out your western ideas as though they were ours. They are not. I would suggest that you read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasios and look up something on theosis. Substitutionary atonement is no part of Orthodox belief and you only show your own ignorance of our faith by insisting that it is. If you're willing to listen rather than to preach your erronious conclusions at me as if they were fact then I'll happily try to explain how our beliefs differ from western ones.

James

 

[Shtef]

Thanks for teaching me what I believe. I'll go off to my priest at once and correct him for you!

We do not, and nor have we ever, taught the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Do you actually know what that doctrine means? We also do not worship the cross. We venerate it and the empty cross is a powerful symbol for us because it represents the fact that Christ is no loger crucified, but resurrected, but that does not constitute worship. In Orthodox soteriology, Christ was not a substitute for us. He did not die to atone for our sins. It was His Incarnation that reconciled God and man, not His death.

Try reading up on Orthodox soteriology before spouting out your western ideas as though they were ours. They are not. I would suggest that you read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasios and look up something on theosis. Substitutionary atonement is no part of Orthodox belief and you only show your own ignorance of our faith by insisting that it is. If you're willing to listen rather than to preach your erronious conclusions at me as if they were fact then I'll happily try to explain how our beliefs differ from western ones.

James

Please, explain how your beliefs differ from those in the west. Mind you, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Eastern Orthodoxy does not have amongst it's doctrines that which renders the crucifixion an act of attonement - substitutionary attonement. Speaking of which, another teaching of orthodox Christianity is the worship of Jesus and the belief that he is the intermediary between us and God - "no man will see the father but through me". What this teaches is that no matter how good our deeds, if one does not worship Jesus, he can not make it to heaven. If this isn't substitutionary attonment, I don't know what is.

 

[James the Persian]

Please, explain how your beliefs differ from those in the west. Mind you, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Eastern Orthodoxy does not have amongst it's doctrines that which renders the crucifixion an act of attonement - substitutionary attonement. Speaking of which, another teaching of orthodox Christianity is the worship of Jesus and the belief that he is the intermediary between us and God - "no man will see the father but through me". What this teaches is that no matter how good our deeds, if one does not worship Jesus, he can not make it to heaven. If this isn't substitutionary attonment, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what substitutionary atonement is, full stop. Substitutionary atonement is the belief that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins because God could only accept payment in our stead by someone as great as He. In other words Christ took on Himself the punishment that was due to us when He died on the cross. This anthropomorphised view of God as some sort of medieval monarch demanding satisfaction for insult to Him is completely alien to Orthodox theology.

For us the cross was absolutely not an instrument of atonement. Sorry to disappoint you. And Christ can be both God and the intermediary between man and God without any belief in substitutionary atonement. In fact, I'd say that the way Orthodoxy expains both the need for the Incarnation and exactly how Christ is the intermediary between God and man makes an awful lot more sense than the western doctrine, but then if I didn't I'd never have converted, would I?

I'll try to briefly explain our soteriology (I really ought to write a short description and get a mod to sticky it in the Orthodox forum considering how often this comes up). Before the fall, man and God were in communion. When Adam and Eve committed the ancestral sin (and no, we don't believe in original sin either), they turned away from God, who is the source of all life. As a result their nature 'broke' and they and their descendants became mortal and acquired a tendency to sin. The only way this situation could be rectified was to restore communion between God and man. Man was incapable of reaching up to heaven to do this so God came down to earth as the Incarnate Christ. In being both fully God and fully man, he reconciled the Divine and the human and repared the bridge between God and man broken in the fall. This, and not any idea of atonement is the main thrust of our soteriology. Christ did have to die. He had to so that He could be resurrected and show us that He had indeed defeated the hold of death over man but Hid death was not a sacrifice to the Father but rather a self-sacrifice for mankind. The manner of His death is an irrelevance except in so far as we know that He was actually crucified. Any other form of death would have worked just as well, though Christ must have had His reasons for what He did. I just don't claim to know what those reasons were. The resurrection is far and away more important than the crucifixion. In fact, all Orthodox Christians wear a cross around their necks. This is almost always an empty cross rather than a crucifix because in our faith this represents the idea that Christ is no longer on the cross, no longer crucified but resurrected. Even when you do see a crucifix (and they are far less prevalent than in many western churches) you can still see a difference in emphasis by the fact that Christ is not slumped in death but standing in victory. He has defeated death (represented by the cross), not been defeated by it. For the same reason, Christ is seen trampling on the cross in our icon of the Resurrection.

I hope now you have some appreciation of just how different our theology is from that of the west and how no hint of substitutionary atonement is to be found in our soteriology. I doubt I've done the subject justice, but it's the best I can do for the moment. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions.

James

 

[Shtef]

No, I think you have done a great job in describing your religion to me. The effort you have made is much appreciated.

Thank you, James.

Steve