Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???

[rgprice]

The big problem with the "Gnostic" concepts of Jesus is that, at least from what I have seen most "Gnostic" concepts of Jesus, and the Marcionite concept specifically, is they rely heavily on the Gospels and on the idea that Jesus himself was announcing things and making his Father known. But there is something about the nature of the sacrifice that does seem to lend credence to the idea that Jesus was sent by another God.

In the Pauline letters Jesus provides no knowledge. The role of Jesus is quite clear and specific in the Pauline letters. From BeDuhn's reconstruction of the Apostolikon:

Galatians 2:20. . . But what I now live in flesh I live entrusted to the child of God who purchased me

3:13 Christos has purchased us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse on our behalf

4:3 When we were infants, we were enslaved by the ordering forces of the world. 4 But when the completion of the time arrived, God sent forth his child . . . 5 so that he might purchase those under law, so that we might receive adoption.

5:1 Christos set us free for freedom. . . . Do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery, which is the Law

1 Corinthians 6:19. . . You do not belong to yourselves, 20 for you were purchased with a price. Glorify and exalt God in your bodies.

Romans 3:24 Since we are rectified as a gift by his favor through the indemnity (paid) by Christos Jesus, 27where then is our boasting?

5:1[Therefore,] now that we have been rectified on the basis of Christos’ trust, not on the basis of the Law, let us have peace toward God [through our Master Jesus Christos, 2through whom also we have acquired progress by trust toward this favor in which we now stand], . . . 6For while we were yet weak, Christos died as a substitute for impious people at an opportune time.

And on it goes.

Nowhere in the Pauline letters, orthodox or Marcionite, are we told that Jesus came to make God known, to provide instruction, to warn people, to provide any message of any kind. What we are told over and over again is that Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the ungodly. There is also something about being raised from the dead and having faith that he was in fact raised from the dead. But mostly its that Jesus was a sacrifice offered in our place. But there is nothing at all about Jesus making anything known to anyone. Jesus did not come to earth to spread knowledge or a message according to the Pauline letters.

However, this idea of a sacrifice is itself quite interesting and DOES support the idea that Jesus was sent by a different God.

It makes no sense that God the Jewish Creator would sacrifice his own son to "purchase us" from himself. But it does make sense that one God might send his son as a "ransom" to pay off another God. So it seems that what Paul is saying in his letters only make sense if Paul is talking about contracts and exchanges between two Gods.

God the Father sacrificing his son to pay off the God of the Law, almost like bargaining with the Devil.

Father: "Here Law Enforcer, I will give you My Son in exchange for the souls of all the people on earth."

And this is really almost the only thing that makes anything Paul says make any sense at all.

BeDuhn's also notes in relation to Luke 9:

Moreover, Ephrem indicates that,
according to Marcionite interpretation, “the confrontation between
Moses, Elijah, and Jesus certainly ended with a pact,” since Ephrem
refers to “the perverse tale of Marcion” dealing with “this pact that
Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger on the mountain” involving
the purchase of human souls at the price of Jesus, and so enthralled by
his glory, “they made a bargain with him, because they loved him”

[rgprice]

The way I see it there are really only two possibilities here. Either Paul was indicating that the Jewish God (lets call him Yahweh) sacrificed his Son Jesus in order to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan, whom some Jews identified as the "Lord of this world", or he was indicating that God the Father sacrificed his Son Jesus in order purchase the souls of mankind from Yahweh, who was also considered by some to be the "Lord of this world". It's somewhat odd that this is never quite made clear, but it really has to be one of these two options.

But in either case, the Jesus described by Paul is no "provider of knowledge" nor a messenger of his Father.

[rgprice]

From the orthodox letters:

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

v1-3 is quite strange. It would seem that in this analogy we people are the wife and who is the husband? God? It seems to be saying that a person cannot pledge themself to a different god while the first god they were pledged to is still alive.

But in v4-6 it is said that we died to the Law (or did we die to the giver of the Law?). We are being joined to "another" - to Jesus XS.

Satan did not give the Law. We were not bound to Satan through the Law. Perhaps one could say that the Law was in effect because of Satan?

Under the view that Satan or Beliar is the "Lord of this world", could it be that were were bound to Satan but then released from the bonds of Satan through the Law because of the sacrifice of Jesus, who was raised from the dead? Seems very strange.

Were we bound to the Creator (Yahweh) through the Law? Is our union with Yahweh broken so that we may form a union with Jesus XS and through him to God the Father, who purchased us from Yahweh through the sacrifice of his son? This seems to make more sense.

[MrMacSon]

What we are told over and over again [in the Pauline letters] is that Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the ungodly. There is also something about being raised from the dead and having faith that he was in fact raised from the dead. But, mostly, it's that Jesus was a sacrifice offered in our place. But there is nothing at all about Jesus making anything known to anyone. Jesus did not come to earth to spread knowledge or a message according to the Pauline letters.

However, this idea of a sacrifice is itself quite interesting and DOES support the idea that Jesus was sent by a different God.

It makes no sense that God the Jewish Creator would sacrifice his own son to "purchase us" from himself. But it does make sense that one God might send his son as a "ransom" to pay off another God. So, it seems that what Paul is saying in his letters only make sense if Paul is talking about contracts and exchanges between two Gods.

God the Father sacrificing his son to pay off the God of the Law, almost like bargaining with the Devil.

Father: "Here Law Enforcer, I will give you My Son in exchange for the souls of all the people on earth."

And this is really almost the only thing that makes anything Paul says make any sense at all.

BeDuhn's also notes in relation to Luke 9:

Moreover, Ephrem indicates that,
according to Marcionite interpretation, “the confrontation between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus certainly ended with a pact,”
since Ephrem refers to “the perverse tale of Marcion” dealing with “this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger on the mountain” involving the purchase of human souls at the price of Jesus, and so enthralled by his glory, “they made a bargain with him, because they loved him”

• Isn't that standard, longstanding Christian doctrine?
  Albeit in a sort of reverse, ie., Jesus paid 'the ultimate price' to save human souls?

The way I see it there are really only two possibilities here. Either Paul was indicating that the Jewish God (lets call him Yahweh) sacrificed his Son Jesus in order to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan, whom some Jews identified as the "Lord of this world", or he was indicating that God the Father sacrificed his Son Jesus in order purchase the souls of mankind from Yahweh, who was also considered by some to be the "Lord of this world". It's somewhat odd that this is never quite made clear, but it really has to be one of these two options.

But in either case, the Jesus described by Paul is no "provider of knowledge" nor a messenger of his Father.

• Couldn't there have been a shift?
  ie., with Judaising [post=Marcion] whereby the concept of Jesus' Father [was] shifted from Marcion's superior Father-God to the Jewish Creator-God (which was also conflated with Plato's Creator-Demiurge)?

[MrMacSon]

The big problem with the "Gnostic" concepts of Jesus is that, at least from what I have seen, most "Gnostic" concepts of Jesus, and the Marcionite concept specifically, is they rely heavily on the Gospels and on the idea that Jesus himself was announcing things and making his Father known.

• I don't think so. I think many of the Sethian, Valentinian, Carpocratian, Naassene, etc., texts could well be independent of the canonical gospel concepts and may have preceded them. The Secret Revelation-Book of John (aka the Apocryphon of John) attributed to Sethians is a key 'Gnostic' text that portrays John as the key dude on earth. The Gospel of Philip could well be an intermediate text between some of the texts of these sects and the orthodox, catholic texts.

[rgprice]

• Isn't that standard, longstanding Christian doctrine?
  Albeit in a sort of reverse, ie., Jesus paid 'the ultimate price' to save human souls?

Sort of, but not really. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think orthodox Christians ever said that God had to pay off Satan in order to save our souls.

But the Pauline letters make it pretty clear that one deity is paying off another deity to save our souls.

The whole "God gave his own son for us" thing never seems to have really made any sense. Like, why did God need to sacrifice his son to himself for us? What's the point of the sacrifice? It all seemed very circular.

But if one God is doing the sacrifice to another God, well that makes sense. "I will give you my son in exchange for..." But that transactions makes no sense with just God and himself. But the orthodox also wouldn't admit that God would need to "appease" Satan by sacrifice his son to him. If indeed that were the idea, then basically Jesus was sacrificed TO Satan. And I don't recall ever seeing that claim being made.

[Peter Kirby]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think orthodox Christians ever said that God had to pay off Satan in order to save our souls.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/39a04 ... &cbl=18750

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) attempted to provide answers to such questions and by doing so to explicate scripture’s teaching on the redemptive death of Christ. Origen claimed that the crucifixion of Christ was a ransom paid to the devil, for it was the devil who held man in captivity. This soteriological claim is often met with derision; it has been fiercely critiqued by patristic, medieval, and modern theologians. ... I will attempt to retrieve and defend Origen’s explication of the redemptive death of Christ as it is found in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

The key words 'ransom theory of atonement' will turn up plenty of additional references (including other theologians after Origen).

IMO this was not an original idea from Origen, but that is less patently obvious.

[MrMacSon]

The way I see it there are really only two possibilities here. Either Paul was indicating that the Jewish God (lets call him Yahweh) sacrificed his Son Jesus in order to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan, whom some Jews identified as the "Lord of this world", or he was indicating that God the Father sacrificed his Son Jesus in order purchase the souls of mankind from Yahweh, who was also considered by some to be the "Lord of this world". It's somewhat odd that this is never quite made clear, but it really has to be one of these two options.

But in either case, the Jesus described by Paul is no "provider of knowledge" nor a messenger of his Father.

• Couldn't there have been a shift?
  ie., with Judaising [post=Marcion] whereby the concept of Jesus' Father [was] shifted from Marcion's superior Father-God to the Jewish Creator-God (which was also conflated with Plato's Creator-Demiurge)?

Sort of, but not really. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think orthodox Christians ever said that God had to pay off Satan in order to save our souls.

I didn't fully comprehend the Satan thing, so I was simply focusing on:

The way I see it there are really only two possibilities here. Either Paul was indicating that the Jewish God (Yahweh) sacrificed his Son Jesus in order to purchase the souls of mankind ... or he was indicating that God the Father sacrificed his Son Jesus in order purchase the souls of mankind from Yahweh ...

I now more fully see what you were saying:

Either Paul was indicating that the Jewish God (Yahweh) sacrificed his Son Jesus in order to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan, whom some Jews identified as the "Lord of this world", or he was indicating that God the Father sacrificed his Son Jesus in order purchase the souls of mankind from Yahweh, who was also considered by some to be the "Lord of this world".

I would favour the latter
(the concept of Satan as evil, as some may have viewed Yahweh, may not have been as advanced in Paul's time as it came to be known)

[Secret Alias]

Slavery.

[rgprice]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think orthodox Christians ever said that God had to pay off Satan in order to save our souls.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/39a04 ... &cbl=18750

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) attempted to provide answers to such questions and by doing so to explicate scripture’s teaching on the redemptive death of Christ. Origen claimed that the crucifixion of Christ was a ransom paid to the devil, for it was the devil who held man in captivity. This soteriological claim is often met with derision; it has been fiercely critiqued by patristic, medieval, and modern theologians. ... I will attempt to retrieve and defend Origen’s explication of the redemptive death of Christ as it is found in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

The key words 'ransom theory of atonement' will turn up plenty of additional references (including other theologians after Origen).

IMO this was not an original idea from Origen, but that is less patently obvious.

Very interesting indeed. I'll have to dig into this. But at first glance I would say that Origen must have been right. (Damnit, I'd like to get the full copy of that paper without paying a stupid $41 for it....)

It seems to me that the Pauline letters were open to multiple interpretations, but the central confusion was around identifying who the "lord of this world" was. Jesus plays a role in defeating (or paying off) the "lord of this world". If Satan/Belial/Beliar was the "lord of this world", then Jesus came in service of the "God of Moses" to defeat Satan. However, if the "God of Moses" is the "Lord of this world", then Jesus came to defeat the "God of Moses".

From the DSS:
Damascus Document:

But in the present age Belial is unrestrained in Israel, just as God said by Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, saying, "Fear the pit and snare are upon thee, dweller in the land."

The War Scroll:

Col 13:
You yourself [God] made Belial for the pit, an angel of malevolence, his dominion is in darkness and his counsel is to condemn and convict. All the spirits of his lot, the angels of destruction, walk in accord with darkness, for it is their only desire. ...
Col 14:
But we are the remnant of Your people. Blessed is Your name, O God of living kindness, the One who kept the covenant for our forefathers. Throughout all generations you have made Your mercies wonderous for the remnant of the people during the dominion of Belial.

From Ascension of Isaiah:

4. And Manasseh turned aside his heart to serve Beliar; for the angel of lawlessness, who is the ruler of this world, is Beliar, whose name is Mantanbuchus.

So, according to Qumranic writings, Satan/Belial/Beliar was the "lord of this world". According to Ascension of Isaiah, Satan/Belial/Beliar was the "lord of this world". Also, according to Black Sabbath Satan/Belial/Beliar is still the "lord of this world"

However, of course, it could also be argued that the "God of Moses" was the "lord of this world", which is what the "Gnostics" argued, with support from the Jewish scriptures.

It seems to me that what the Pauline letters state is that Jesus was ransomed to the "lord of this world" in order to pay for the souls of mankind.

How this was interpreted depended on who you thought the "lord of this world" was.

I think clearly the original author of the Gospel of John thought that the "God of Moses" was the "lord of this world", and what the first layer of John claims is that God the Father paid the random price to the God of Moses.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In John, after all, we are told that the Jews have never known the Father and that the father of the Jews is the Father of the Devil. The implication being that Satan is the son of the God of Moses, while Jesus is the son of God the Father. And this, indeed, is supported by works like the War Scroll, which state that God created Satan.

Yet the Gospel of Mark potentially indicates that the ransom price was paid to Satan. For in John the God of the Jews appears to be the enemy, while in Mark Satan is clearly the enemy.

Mark 10:43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

And this may in fact be the key to understanding the development of Marcion's Gospel. If the Gospel of Mark was indeed first and Mark's Gospel provides an interpretation of the Pauline letters, and Mark's Gospel indicates that Jesus was sent by the God of Moses to pay the ransom to Satan, then Marcion and/or other "Gnostic types" would have corrected this based on their understanding of the Pauline letters. One reading of the Pauline letters indicates that Jesus is a ransom paid to the God of Moses, who is the creator of "the Law". Another reading indicates that the ransom is paid to Satan, because God had to put the Law in place while Satan was "lord of this world".

In either case, payment of the ransom alleviates the need for the Law. Either the Law is abolished because the souls of man are liberated from the God of Moses, OR the Law is abolished because the souls of man are liberated from Satan, and thus the Law is no longer necessary in order to protect man from Satan.