Does the traditional teaching about Jesus' crucifixion make God appear to be a "psychopath?" (See the details)

Question

An Anglican priest, the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, has said that the traditional explanation of the Crucifixion is "pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical."

"What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own son?" Dr. John said.

"And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we would say they were a monster."

So, Christians, does your faith have more diversity and contain all sorts of interpretations of its seminal events & beliefs, or do believe these statements condemn Dr. John to eternal torment?

(For the full article, click below.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/05/ndean05.xml

OOPS!

It should have read "or do YOU believe these statements condemn Dr. John to eternal torment?"

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

ELIZABETH D: Thank you for your concern, even stated with such rancor.

I assure you that this question was in no way meant for you, and you may feel free to ignore the questions that I post.

Those who responded in gratitude seem to enjoy the process of thinking, and it is for them that I have passed on bits of information that I have at my disposal.

It was not intended to give you a headache or provoke the aspersions you tossed my way.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

If God wanted to forgive us of our sins, then he could have done it without killing off his son don't you think?

Next time you for give your dog for slobbering, do it by killing off your son.

Psychopath? Hell yeah.

Answer 2

Very Interesting - I looked at the Web Sight. Apparently (according to the web-sight) after Dr. John made these statements; he was asked to "Step Down"! My God - he was asked to step down for 'THESE' Specific details. If you want to still believe him and follow him - That's totally up to you. Jesus/God DID give 'Free Will' and I would give up my life, if necessary for you to have "That" right!

My Faith is based on Grace. God sent His only Beloved Son - that "Who would believe on him would have everlasting life." It was a gift! The Lord - was born of a Virgin, Did Healing and Gave His Word - Showed the people His ways. And, Yes - the First Christian - were Jews - Thank You!

Jesus was crucified, and rose on the 3rd day and then went to Hell to Claim the Keys to Life and Death - then, was witnessed by over 500 over a 40 day period of time - then Assended to the Father with many people watching.

It was a gift - It was/is Prophecy - Full filled!

I Pray that this will touch your heart - For the 'Road' to the World is Wide where the 'Road' to the Lord and Heaven IS "Narrow'.

Take Care and God Bless!

Answer 3

You must understand that Dr John is not saying anything new. As early as the 1930s, a leading Anglican theologian here at Cambridge wrote that penal substitutionary atonement was obsolete. I agree with him: I don't think that this doctrine speaks to humanity in any meaningful way today. But some Christians cling to it, and I think Dr John could have been slightly more moderate in his language and more respectful towards them.

That said, conservatives and evangelicals are often not all that respectful towards liberals in the church, and the fact that Dr John happens to be gay probably didn't do him any favours in their sight. I had the pleasure of listening to all of Dr John's Lenten Talk on Radio 4, and I found it very considerate, very gracious, and very humane. No more than one would expect from such an accomplished theologian and preacher.

And in answer to your question: I don't believe in eternal torment. That, too, is not a very radical position, although some Christians will think it is (bring on the thumbs-down!).

And in reply to the person below: no, I don't think you do understand. There is no single Christian theology of redemption, and penal substitution rests more on the theology of the Reformation than on Anselm. It certainly has nothing to do with the theology of the early church.

Edit yet again: Just to point out, I think the key phrase in Jeffrey John's Talk was not that much-quoted passage above, but the following: "'On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God but by God."

Answer 4

Diversity of faith can range from mystic christians to conservative dogmah. No, I personally can not agree with this statement. The pillar of personal faith is between your personal choices to be or not be one with a lover. If one says they believe God and believe in Gods' forgiveness through christthen they are saying the have aaccepted marrage to that. Love and marriage are a contract that is continually evolved.

Answer 5

I think the person you are quoting does not take the time to get to know the Bible well That Jesus volunteered to come down here and offer up his perfect life to ransom back mankind from sin and death was a supreme act of Love .I cant speak to his motives only to his lack of knowledge and understanding of the Core beliefs and Values as espoused by the Bible and as John 17:3 tells us we need to take in accurate knowledge Of Jesus and his Father if we are to have everlasting life hope this helps you Gorbalizer

Answer 6

With all due respect to Rev. John, even I, a non-believer, understand traditional Christian theology better than he does. The redemption of the crucifixion and resurrection was not a punishment of an innocent third party, but a self-sacrifice of God himself. As St. Anselm wrote in "Cur Deus Homo," the original sin was so grievous that humans did not have the power to redeem themselves. Only God, by becoming human himself, could offer that kind of redemption.

Answer 7

Apparently this so called Reverend forgot to read the scriptures. God is all knowing therefore before the creation of man understood that man would fall from righteousness and according to his righteousness was worthy of death. The Bible teaches that this plan was formed before creation. Jesus is the son and was in the beginning with God before creation Jesus is a part of the whole of God it was God's plan to pay the penalty for death for man before creation...Therefore making the idea that man's sin causing God to destroy his son is insane. It was God's righteous plan to bring his people to his righteousness by sacrificing his own flesh for ours. We like God, having been created in his image are more than flesh but also have an eternal spirit.

Answer 8

I had not considered it that way before. Of course I am looking at life (and all the stuff that goes with it) in very different ways lately. I have become open to all interpretations.

By the way although I rarely answer your questions, I have always enjoyed reading them. They are very thought provoking.

Answer 9

Why? the certainty Jesus lived is extra useful and extra profusely documented that Julius Caesar. in case you prepare the comparable standards which you employ to push aside Jesus to the info for Julius Caesar, then you definately must additionally see that Julius Caesar on no account existed! Conversely, whilst the comparable historic and archaeological standards used to rfile Julius Caesar are utilized to Jesus, the theory that Jesus existed might desire to be properly-called authentic. in any different case, making use of two distinctive standards of verification, one for Julius Caesar, one for Jesus, is in basic terms unscientific, arbitrary, 2-confronted mendacity. for this reason, there is not any controversy to show. What church homes DO teach is the right and consistent use of medical technique -- making use of the comparable standards contained in the comparable thank you to the two components of the difficulty. YOUR factor loses.

Answer 10

I don't know if Rev. John is hellbound, but this is definitely a ridiculous statement for a reverend. If you go to Bible School, you should learn about the significance of blood, spirit, etc.

you've heard the free will thing, right? well as beings, we have free will to sin or not to sin, and when we sin, it's like a stain on your spiritual garment (lets say fecal matter for arguements sake). the filthier you get, the more you need to wash your clothes (repentance).

sin brings about emotional, spiritual and moral death, so it comes to represent death. blood, which all complex animals need in order to keep alive, has come to represent life. Spirit, coming from God who is Life, has then been represented by blood.

God and sin don't mix. ever. so If God's in Heaven, you, who have those filthy garments, can't be with Him, so you need to wash your clothes. Before Jesus, all they had was normal water (animal sacrifices) to make the garment presentable, but still only good enough for Abraham's bossom (sub Heaven) and not Heaven. So you need that stain remover to actually get rid of all that fecal matter on your clothes.

Christ was that stain remover. since Abraham's bossom was done away with when the stain remover was available, your garment can only be cleaned by it. understand?

and yes we tend to have different views, but that's wrong in itself.

Answer 11

There is only one Bible and in that Bible are many mentions of apostate teachings. This is another one. It is almost a direct recreation of when Peter said to Jesus >>

Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.