Resume José Ramón Busto Saiz, a Jesuit and professor of exegesis of the Old and New Testament in his book Introduction to Christology, the "theory" San Anselmo Theological on Redemption, made in the eleventh century:
"According to this explanation of S. Anselmo, I present a fast, man's sin causes an infinite offense against God. Since man is finite and limited, can not repair an infinite offense because the offenses are measured by the category of offense. A being that must be infinite to satisfy the offended honor of God, which God has to incarnate, to be that being infinite infinite offense repair done. And it has to be incarnated, because, having been committed the offense by man, must also be repaired by man. Jesus dies and his death deserves God's reconciliation, because that offense repairs infinite, since the death of Jesus is a sacrifice that is of infinite value to be the death of an infinite being. So Jesus saves us. "
Given this reading of the death of the Nazarene, Busto Saiz opposes a modern theology (his), much more in tune with the mood of our contemporaries, according to which Jesus appears in history as a fighter for Justice and freedom of the oppressed and the Powers of this world (Rome and the Temple of Jerusalem) can not digest, so they decide to remove it. Redemption is specified, then, finally adequate response to his Lord of Creation. God has won because his love is bigger than fear, oppression and death.
Although, in my opinion, the New Testament study suggests the confusion of dealing with this issue (if the sacrifice of Jesus is a redeemer, it is involuntary, since they know that sacrifice is a sacrifice), I now much more interested in the theology of St. Anselm in this regard. For, indeed, if we read the Gospels carefully, it is clear that Jesus insists that his blood is used to erase the sins of the world (idea much more starkly exposed in the letters of St. Paul.) And I think the wording of the NT texts are deliberately seeking to introduce this argument in the minds of the early believers: The sacrifice of Jesus cleanses sin itself. Then God committed to the fallen and it comes back. But "the fact itself," the death of the Nazarene, redeem. This is uncomfortable for the most progressive in theological body of the Catholic Church. No wonder. It is very hard to think that the deity needs the blood of an innocent to eliminate faults.
time ago, exchanging views (somewhat violently) with a Christian church not assigned to any particular (and now, sadly, is no longer with us), I discovered a new interpretation: for him, not that God needed death of an innocent to redeem His creation, but was the man who, to destroy the feeling of guilt must believe that the Blood of Jesus Christ was "sufficient" to clear his conscience. It was inevitable psychic phenomena.
has impressed me this reading. Not sure to share in regard to the interpretation of the Christian faith, but I am very keen on what you have naked exposure of the behavior of the human mind.
"According to this explanation of S. Anselmo, I present a fast, man's sin causes an infinite offense against God. Since man is finite and limited, can not repair an infinite offense because the offenses are measured by the category of offense. A being that must be infinite to satisfy the offended honor of God, which God has to incarnate, to be that being infinite infinite offense repair done. And it has to be incarnated, because, having been committed the offense by man, must also be repaired by man. Jesus dies and his death deserves God's reconciliation, because that offense repairs infinite, since the death of Jesus is a sacrifice that is of infinite value to be the death of an infinite being. So Jesus saves us. "
Given this reading of the death of the Nazarene, Busto Saiz opposes a modern theology (his), much more in tune with the mood of our contemporaries, according to which Jesus appears in history as a fighter for Justice and freedom of the oppressed and the Powers of this world (Rome and the Temple of Jerusalem) can not digest, so they decide to remove it. Redemption is specified, then, finally adequate response to his Lord of Creation. God has won because his love is bigger than fear, oppression and death.
Although, in my opinion, the New Testament study suggests the confusion of dealing with this issue (if the sacrifice of Jesus is a redeemer, it is involuntary, since they know that sacrifice is a sacrifice), I now much more interested in the theology of St. Anselm in this regard. For, indeed, if we read the Gospels carefully, it is clear that Jesus insists that his blood is used to erase the sins of the world (idea much more starkly exposed in the letters of St. Paul.) And I think the wording of the NT texts are deliberately seeking to introduce this argument in the minds of the early believers: The sacrifice of Jesus cleanses sin itself. Then God committed to the fallen and it comes back. But "the fact itself," the death of the Nazarene, redeem. This is uncomfortable for the most progressive in theological body of the Catholic Church. No wonder. It is very hard to think that the deity needs the blood of an innocent to eliminate faults.
time ago, exchanging views (somewhat violently) with a Christian church not assigned to any particular (and now, sadly, is no longer with us), I discovered a new interpretation: for him, not that God needed death of an innocent to redeem His creation, but was the man who, to destroy the feeling of guilt must believe that the Blood of Jesus Christ was "sufficient" to clear his conscience. It was inevitable psychic phenomena.
has impressed me this reading. Not sure to share in regard to the interpretation of the Christian faith, but I am very keen on what you have naked exposure of the behavior of the human mind.
If my late partner was right, Christianity is the only cure for the neurotic world we inhabit and the Gospels would be the most acute reflection of the nature of man. One might, therefore, is able to be happy thinking another person (in this case, "Big Other") has paid for his sins.
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist and, therefore, I am unable to analyze this in detail. I lack conceptual tools with which to work this mess. I will say, however, that, as I see it (just, I think, look around) the killing or at least an attempted sacrifice (a misconception about him) is on the agenda in our societies. How many people really think giving up something for someone? The sacrifice here is a real murderer of doubts. Standing in the artificial dilemma: "Fulanito I care but I care more Somebody's niece and jacket Walk the sacrificial ax and I Fulanito book ", ie giving the appearance of harshness to an election many mists dissipate emotional and can begin to work with in the joy of having given up something: it is a leap has justified. There
sacrifice. It is a decoy that hides nothing moral cowardice of not knowing face an uncomfortable reality: being incapable of love and surrender without, somewhere, pain appears as an essential ingredient of soup sentimental. And it's funny because the sacrifice is not so, but is sought and, once found the idea false, he denies and blames the slaughter ("he / she asked for it"). Is it possible that our happiness depends on an alien destruction, a destruction not only physically but from everything that once surrounded him and meant something and now crumbling up in memory?
And if this is what we are?
0 comments:
Post a Comment