SOUL and SUBSTANCE: Why a Literal Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Why a Literal Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

A cornerstone of Christian doctrine it the literal death and resurrection of Jesus Christ--fully human and fully God—as a propitiation for the sin of humanity—past, present, and future—and available simply (and only) by believing God's promise of salvation and eternal life through Christ, the “Holy One” of the Old Testament, and the “Word” of the New Testament. The full doctrine is this:

(A) Human beings can never be free of sin on their own, and thus,
(B) ... are deserving of death (instead of everlasting life).
(C) Because God the Father must turn his face away from sin, it is impossible for people who are sinners to approach God on their own merits.
(D) In order to atone for the imperfect (sin) nature of humans, God came to earth as the man Jesus, to be fully God and fully human, and to live a sinless life,
(E) ... so that he could die a sinner's death as a substitutionary death for the sin of humanity.
(F) The atonement is "free" if the person acknowledges the sin and the need for atonement and identifies with the death of Jesus the Christ (messiah).
(G) The physical, literal resurrection of Jesus, to eternal life, allows the person who identified with His death also to identify with (and to achieve) His eternal life.

There are numerous scripture passages that elucidate this foundational doctrine. Those that I think highlight the essentials of the doctrine are included below, along with the letter of the sub-doctrine indicated above. I include references from the Old Testament, written long before the birth of Jesus, and from the New Testament—which includes the four Gospels, which recount the life and teachings of Jesus while he was on earth, and the epistles and books that were written long after Jesus' death and resurrection.

~~~

(A) Humans are sinful:
~
Psalm 14:2-3 (Old Testament)
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.
~
Ecclesiastes 7:20 (Old Testament)
For there is not a just man on earth who does good
And does not sin.
~
(B) The penalty of sin is death:
~
Genesis 2:16-17 (Old Testament)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
~
Ecclesiastes 12:14 (Old Testament)
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.
~
Romans 5:12-13
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
~
Romans 6:23a
For the wages of sin is death....
~
Leviticus 1:4 (Old Testament)
Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
~
(C) God turns away from sin and sinners:
~
Isaiah 59:2 (Old Testament)
But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
So that He will not hear.
~
Deuteronomy 23:14 (Old Testament)
For the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp...; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.
~
Isaiah 64:5b-6a,7b (Old Testament)
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; ...
For You have hidden Your face from us,
And have consumed us because of our iniquities.
~
(D) Christ (Jesus), the Word or Right Hand of God, was present before the world began, created the world, and later came to earth as the Light of the world, fully human and fully God:
~
John 1:1-4,10-12,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men....
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name....
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
~
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
~
(E) Jesus, through His death, is the perfect atonement for the sin of humanity:
~
Isaiah 53:5 (Old Testament)
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
~
Hebrews 9:11-12
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
~
Hebrews 10:10b-12,14
we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, ...
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
~
(F) Who is eligible for forgiveness through Jesus' atonement?:
~
Romans 10: 9-10,13
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation....
For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
~
John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
~
(G) Why is the resurrection necessary? (Why not just the atoning sacrifice?):
~
(See http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/currenttrendscolumns/leadershipweekly/cln50321.html for an excellent discussion of this.)
~
1 Corinthians 15:13-15
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.
~
1John5:12
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
~
1Peter3: 18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
~
[Note: All scripture passages included here are taken from the New King James Version of the Bible. There are many excellent, accurate translations. I happen to like this one, personally.]
~

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Why a Literal Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS