Symbolism of the cross.

[Elijah John]

For those of us who reject the notion that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, does the story of the crucifixion and resurrection have any value, symbolically?

Paul's interpretation was that Jesus death was a blood-atonement. But that's just it, his was an interpretation. No matter that the Church and millions of Christians take that interpretation as "Gospel" it is still an interpretation.

Even if Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, it's a good story, isn't it. After all, here we have a disgraced, failed apocalyptic prophet executed at the hands of the mighty Roman empire. Yet, God vindicates Jesus, and makes him triumphant in his resurrection and ascension. "Christ" lives on in the hearts of millions as their Lord and Savior, even as the Roman empire has fallen.

As a Theistic skeptic, what I derive from this story is this. God favors the lowly of the world, and the world's values are not God's values. The cross is a symbol of ultimate triumph of the oppressed and downtrodden. That interpretation is in line with the teachings of Synoptic Jesus (Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" etc) and even with some of the teachings of Paul. ("God chooses the weak to shame the strong" or words to that effect)

Also, I see Jesus death as a martyrdom. He died for his beliefs and for his devotion to God as he understood Him. And God vindicated that devotion by raising Jesus from the dead. (in one way, or another)

That is how I find meaning in the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection. How about you? Beyond blood-redemption, do you (even as a dissenter from orthodoxy or even as an atheist) find any value in the story of the crucifixion and resurrection? Whether or not it actually happened?

[Elijah John]

That is how I find meaning in the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection. How about you? Beyond blood-redemption, do you (even as a dissenter from orthodoxy or even as an atheist) find any value in the story of the crucifixion and resurrection? Whether or not it actually happened?

I think Jesus was a preacher of no great importance to Rome. He fruitlessly begged the God he adored, then placed his faith in what he understood was his physical return.


Sweep away a few centuries and this obscure Jew rises like a ghost above Europe, moves through Africa and across to America and Australia, a far cry from his footsore travels around Galilee and Jerusalem. In many ways this resurgence, this discovery of Jesus in the preaching and writing of prelates and theologians, is the Resurrection he did not expect. In a real sense he died, but lives on. Who needs atonement theories or empty tombs? If evidence you want, look around you.


That's one way of seeing it.

And a good way.

I wonder sometimes if the Resurrection was never intended to be taken litrally, and instead was concieved as a type of "mystery religion". There are clues. The disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize the risen Jesus until he broke the bread. And Paul references the "mystical body of Christ", equating it with the Church.

Perhaps the only risen Jesus we have is in this corpus, this mystical body we call the Church. And communion is food for that mystical body of Christ.

And of course, we have the RIsen Christ in his words and teachings.

[Tcg]

Can't we derive inspiration from a story, even if it didn't really "happen"? If the resurrection was myth?

I thought your inquiry was to individuals. Given that, I answered for myself, not for "us".

Obviously some people derive inspiration from the story. As my earlier reply revealed, I am not one of them.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said "can one derive.." as opposed to "can we derive..."

I don't see how that would have made any difference. We have already seen that some can. If some can, then one could.

It doesn't provide the least bit of inspiration to me.

Once again, I thought that answers the question the OP asks.

Unless it wasn't really a question and you simply want everyone who replies to state that it's a great story.

If that was your goal, I've ruined it I suppose.

In any case, my answer couldn't be clearer and I answered it in good faith.

I suppose you could phrase it a third way (or would it be a fourth way), but I'll answer it the same honest way I did the first time.

[Elijah John]

Can't we derive inspiration from a story, even if it didn't really "happen"? If the resurrection was myth?

I thought your inquiry was to individuals. Given that, I answered for myself, not for "us".

Obviously some people derive inspiration from the story. As my earlier reply revealed, I am not one of them.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said "can one derive.." as opposed to "can we derive..."

I don't see how that would have made any difference. We have already seen that some can. If some can, then one could.

It doesn't provide the least bit of inspiration to me.

Once again, I thought that answers the question the OP asks.

Unless it wasn't really a question and you simply want everyone who replies to state that it's a great story.

If that was your goal, I've ruined it I suppose.

In any case, my answer couldn't be clearer and I answered it in good faith.

I suppose you could phrase it a third way (or would it be a fourth way), but I'll answer it the same honest way I did the first time.

I am not insinuating that you have been dishonest, nor am I asking you to be dishonest. Where is that coming from?

Again, fair enough. I get it, you don't derive anything from the story. I don't mind anyone saying that, but it would be nice to elaborate a little, or else why bother to post on the thread?

And if anyone DOES say it's a good story, the invitation from the OP is to tell us what they get out of it, beyond the ole orthodox "blood atonement" thing.

I realized after I wrote this OP that the atheist might not be able to contribute, because the notion that there is a God to vindicate Jesus, (and to favor the lowly), plays an important role even if the resurrection narrative is just a story. Unless, of course, there are some poetically minded atheists/agnostics among us who appreciate a good myth. One does not have to believe in a given pantheon in order to derive some value from myths associated with that pantheon. I was also attempting to draw out from this particular forum those who see shades of grey.

But much to my disappointment, (with some wonderful exceptions) I have been finding there are as many literal minded atheists as there are literal minded fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Something is either true or false, with all too many. Categorical, black and white thinking infects the non-Theist, as often as it does the Theist. Two sides of the same dogmatic coin.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]

I realized after I wrote this OP that the atheist might not be able to contribute, because the notion that there is a God to vindicate Jesus, (and to favor the lowly), plays an important role even if the resurrection narrative is just a story. Unless, of course, there are some poetically minded atheists/agnostics among us who appreciate a good myth.

If you didn't want honest responses then you should have said so. I don't see anything poetic in the brutal murder of an allegedly innocent man by nailing him to a cross regardless of what window dressing is applied.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]

I realized after I wrote this OP that the atheist might not be able to contribute, because the notion that there is a God to vindicate Jesus, (and to favor the lowly), plays an important role even if the resurrection narrative is just a story. Unless, of course, there are some poetically minded atheists/agnostics among us who appreciate a good myth.

If you didn't want honest responses then you should have said so. I don't see anything poetic in the brutal murder of an allegedly innocent man by nailing him to a cross regardless of what window dressing is applied.

That is a dishonest representation of my positon. I DIDN"T SAY THAT! Please re-read my last post to Tcg. What I do object to are those who do not want to contribute attempting to derail this thread, and arguing about process and not content.

And you are leaving out the vindication part of the story, the resurrection. One does not have to believe it in order to appreciate it as a story.

Seems to me that I posted this topic on the wrong forum, judging by some of the responses.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

As a Theistic skeptic, what I derive from this story is this. God favors the lowly of the world,...

It seems to me that God should not favour anyone. In fact, he should be ensuring that the world he created offers a level playing field for everyone.

.... and the world's values are not God's values.

Isn't it the intention of God that we adopt his values?

The cross is a symbol of ultimate triumph of the oppressed and downtrodden.

No. It is a symbol of the barbarism that some cultures stooped to in order to express and maintain their might.

That interpretation is in line with the teachings of Synoptic Jesus (Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" etc)

The meek have always been suppressed and will never inherit the earth. It is only when the meek overcame it and rose up against tyranny that they ever achieved anything.

"God chooses the weak to shame the strong"

God should not play favourites. Besides, there is nothing wrong with being strong, so why should God shame them? We are often encouraged to be strong in the face of adversity. Is there some virtue in being weak?

Also, I see Jesus death as a martyrdom. He died for his beliefs and for his devotion to God as he understood Him. And God vindicated that devotion by raising Jesus from the dead. (in one way, or another)

Many ordinary humans have died for their beliefs, which may not have included an expectation of an afterlife of bliss. Why didn't God vindicate their devotion in a similar fashion?

That is how I find meaning in the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection. How about you?

Nope. Just another story in the myths and legends genre.

I didn't see this response before. Thank you for the thoughtful response. This shows disagreement without expressing contempt. Addressing content is what I was hoping for, pro or con.

[otseng]

If you didn't want honest responses then you should have said so.

Moderator Comment

Please leave out comments such as these that imply the intent of others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Can't really argue with much of that. I would just add this; that if love is to be measured at all, it is to be measured by the extent of sacrifice one is prepared to make. And that to sacrifice one's life for love is pretty well as much as anyone can sacrifice. So, for me, Jesus gets a 'hero' rating, for the extent of the love He demonstrably bore. And that is why the cross matters.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I can certainly see that. The heroic aspect. Many of these interpetations complement and don't contradict the orthodox blood-atonement line. A good story, ("true" or not) like good myths, (if indeed it is a myth) work on several levels.

[brianbbs67]

Its a story of being redeemed because of faithful belief. That belief is in God. Christ did die for others who followed him and maybe future ones too. He also encourage critical thinking. IE, why do we believe what we are told? I believe he was a great prophet(I do not know if he was God incarnate). He described himself as the Son of man. I , too, was baptized in his and the Father's name. Like the earlier prophets, he was rejected and killed by Judah, for the same reason. He pointed out their misuse of the law and constructing their own and deeming it equal. He called us back to God. At this point in time, neither the pharisees or sadducees were willing to admit fault and lose their power.

So, this an epic story even if a fable. I don't believe it all is, personally. Men have modified this NT a lot. But, its basic tenants still show. The same is true of the Tanakh. I can't seem to recall God commanding the entire work be made and therefore inerring. He did have Moses write down 10 commands. And then 603 more, so it seems, after the Isrealites complained of the 10.

[Elijah John]

Its a story of being redeemed because of faithful belief. That belief is in God. Christ did die for others who followed him and maybe future ones too. He also encourage critical thinking. IE, why do we believe what we are told? I believe he was a great prophet(I do not know if he was God incarnate). He described himself as the Son of man. I , too, was baptized in his and the Father's name. Like the earlier prophets, he was rejected and killed by Judah, for the same reason. He pointed out their misuse of the law and constructing their own and deeming it equal. He called us back to God. At this point in time, neither the pharisees or sadducees were willing to admit fault and lose their power.

So, this an epic story even if a fable. I don't believe it all is, personally. Men have modified this NT a lot. But, its basic tenants still show. The same is true of the Tanakh. I can't seem to recall God commanding the entire work be made and therefore inerring. He did have Moses write down 10 commands. And then 603 more, so it seems, after the Isrealites complained of the 10.

The Ten seem pretty universal. Jews say the Sabbath law does not apply to "the Nations". (Gentiles) Some of the 603 are related to the governace of Moses theocracy. Others, to ritual sacrifice. Many are obsolete, their Divine origin suspect.

The movie is entitled "The Greatest Story Ever Told." I think it does work as a story, at the very least.