Sacrifices are always innocent, that's what makes them pure and worthy of god's appreciation. The guilty parties are the one's the sacrifice is for.

In the OT it was all about sacrificing your best and most unblemished animal. The innocence of the lamb (the sacrificial lamb) is somewhat associated with Jesus.

Wayfarer is right. Jesus was the one ultimate sacrifice to god that was such a great sacrifice that it meant god could forgive the sins of all mankind (so they could achieve salvation/a blessed afterlife).

Before then salvation was very expensive, which is one of the reasons why Christianity became a favorite religion of the poor masses...

(IIRC salvation as not immediately doled out as it is today in the earliest days of Christianity. At first communion was only for the clergy and patrons were expected to donate for status (something that asceticism broke out against). At one point, answering the call to crusade would have meant a guaranteed place in the preferred afterlife. Overtime holy wine and bread and salvation got put on offer to anyone willing to pay their taxes, and finally until today where the standards of salvation are so loose that you merely need to hold a certain belief and say some specific words and you're in like St. Flynn...).

But the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice — Agustino

You would have a hard time making that stand up in an essay on Christian theology. I have heard of Girard, but he's obviously a very profound author, and one I haven't had time to absorb. But I don't think it detracts from the point that 'Christ's sacrifice on the Cross' is a perfectly orthodox expression and arguably the central point of the entire Christian faith.

If often seems to me that the 'meaning of sacrifice' is something that has become almost completely lost in the so-called 'modern age'.

But the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice. This is precisely the point of the Gospels. Unlike all other myths, Jesus Christ was innocent. The sacrifice wasn't necessary. He was not guilty. Read more here (I've started to adapt your tactic to send you to other sources ;) - see, I'm learning from you): — Agustino

In a sacrifice, the thing sacrificed is generally innocent. The sacrifice is not to punish the guilty, but to make a demonstration to the higher power (God). This is why the procedure, which is "the sacrifice", is well thought out, even contrived, and carried out on the innocent, to ensure that the higher power will respect the sacrifice as a sacrifice, and not just a killing of the condemned, the unwanted.

I stick with what I said - Christ's sacrifice makes sense in the light of a culture that understood and practiced sacrifice, which all ancient cultures do. Even today, Hindus and Muslims still have 'rites of sacrifice' (Buddhism has never had or endorsed such rites.) There was a Jewish ritual of the 'scapegoat' (for which there is a wikipedia entry here) which prefigures 'Christ's sacrifice'. But note that Christ's sacrifice 'put an end to all sacrifice' - so, among other things, denotes the end of sacrificial religion altogether. But that is why the expression 'lamb of God' and 'blood of the Lamb' and so on.

So, one observation I have, is that our post-industrial culture simply doesn't 'get' the idea of 'sacrificial atonement' at all. There's nothing like it in our cultural background any more. However, it also should be noted that not all Christian denomination accept the 'doctrine of vicarious atonement'. The Orthodox view is quite different.

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. This is from the previous blog post I put up:

virtually every god or hero of classical myth boasts an ambiguity of character that previous theories of myth could not fully resolve. Thus Apollo both sends plagues and restores health; Oedipus saves Thebes from a monster and then perpetrates a monstrosity that threatens to destroy Thebes.

The major theses of Girard’s theory are: (1) That, as Aristotle affirmed in his Poetics, human beings are the most mimetic or imitative of animals; (2) that the human propensity of one individual to imitate another, not only in gestures, but in appetitive interest and desire, conduces to the belligerent convergence of two or more parties on solitary objects of mediated and amplified allure; (3) that, as proto-humanity’s instinctual aversion against intra-specific aggression broke down, such mimetic convergence became an existential problem for the most advanced hominid groups, leading in one such group to a unique sacrificial crisis, in which excitation over an object became a war of all against all; (4) that the afflicted not-quite-community resolves its mayhem through concentrating the chaos of blows on an arbitrarily selected individual who therefore seems not only the cause of the riot but also the agent of its resolution. The victim is thus (5) transfigured in the new type of awareness that he creates as both miscreant and intercessor-god; he becomes sacred, and the sacred, rooted in the dissimulation of “the scapegoat mechanism,” is, as Girard asserts, the oldest of institutions.

But the story of the Gospel exposes the inadequacy of sacrifice. When Cain murders Abel, the sacrifice is shown to be evil, for it does not resolve the mayhem. When Jesus is put on the Cross, it is Satan that is killed and Jesus that is living - for the mimetic mechanism is exposed clearly for all to see, and we cannot blame the faults of society on the victim anymore, except, of course, in bad faith. You say that:

post-industrial culture simply doesn't 'get' the idea of 'sacrificial atonement' at all. — Wayfarer

And that's precisely the point Girard makes. We don't get the idea of sacrificial atonement because the idea is unjust at its core - and the Gospel exposes it as unjust and undeserved. Jesus the blameless Lamb is put on the Cross and killed - but His death, unlike the death of mythical heroes - does NOT resolve the crisis in society but rather exacerbates it. Jesus brings a SWORD:

"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

The reason Jesus brings a sword is because he lays bare the injustice of the sacrifice, and therefore renders the sacrifice ineffective at dissolving the mimetic tension that builds up in society. Since the mimetic tension can no longer dissolve - there's no mechanism left for it to - society becomes more and more conflictual, since means of conflict resolution do not exist, except through repenting. Jesus has forced us to have a look at our own faces.

The idea that sacrifice ever worked was Satan's lie. Sacrifice never resolved the problems of society, quite the contrary, an innocent victim was killed to resolve the faults of society that they weren't responsible for in the first place. It was Satan's lie which kept hidden the underlying mimetic conflict, which is now completely exposed.

So the fact that we don't understand sacrificial atonement isn't showing the lack of success of Christianity - BUT ON THE CONTRARY. The fact we don't understand sacrificial atonement anymore is the profound success of Christ, which no one can deny.

Jesus is not a sacrifice. Jesus is not made sacred by His death. He was always sacred, he was never profane, therefore He could never have been a sacrifice. His death and resurrection was His victory.

To call Jesus a sacrifice isn't Orthodox, but heretical - it is blasphemy. It means to treat Christ as one of the many mythical heroes of the past - and that's exactly what Christ is not - He's the anti-mythical hero.

sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane — Agustino

Of course - but by means of giving, or giving something up - something of great value.

Jesus is not a sacrifice — Agustino

That is not what Christians believe, though. I believe you have said in the past that you are associated with the Orthodox faith - ask any orthodox Christian whether they speak of 'the sacrifice of Jesus', I'm pretty sure that they will tell you that is what their faith revolves around. Don't argue the case with me, I'm not an apologist. Find one, and ask him or her.

I am not familiar with Rene Girard, but I presume his account is naturalistic, is it not? Anthropological?

As for 'the sword' - surely that is metaphorical, is it not? It is the division between those who are faithful to him, and those who are not. As is obvious, many of those who originally followed Jesus were put to the sword for their faith.

That is not what Christians believe, though. I believe you have said in the past that you are associated with the Orthodox faith - ask any orthodox Christian whether they speak of 'the sacrifice of Jesus', I'm pretty sure that they will tell you that is what their faith revolves around. — Wayfarer

No, that's actually not true at all. If I ask a fellow Christian, he will tell me his whole faith revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, not His sacrifice.

I am not familiar with Rene Girard, but I presume his account is naturalistic, is it not? Anthropological? — Wayfarer

René Girard is a Christian. He's a Catholic. His anthropology and work led him to convert and affirm the truth of the Gospels, since the Gospels are the opposite of all other myths.

As is obvious, many of those who originally followed Jesus were put to the sword for their faith. — Wayfarer

Precisely. But usually in myth, the sacrifice of the victim brought peace to society (that was Satan's lie). In this case the opposite happens - the death and resurrection of Jesus brings division, not peace in His society.

If I ask a fellow Christian, he will tell me his whole faith revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, not His sacrifice. — Agustino

But the fact is, it is commonly understood as a sacrifice.

Girard might be a Christian, but that is immaterial for the account, which is naturalistic, is it not? I'm not saying there's anything the matter with it on that account, but I can't see how it would support an orthodox understanding.

// 'religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.//

Interesting. I will try and find time to read some more.

No, that's actually not true at all. If I ask a fellow Christian, he will tell me his whole faith revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, not His sacrifice. — Agustino

And I would have thought the former presupposes the latter.

@Mariner - would you have any comment on this point?

it is commonly understood as a sacrifice. — Wayfarer

By who? The Orthodox don't typically view it as a sacrifice.

but that is immaterial for the account, which is naturalistic, is it not? — Wayfarer

Why do you think it's naturalistic? Quite the contrary, the coming of Christ is a divine revelation, not naturalistic at all...

And I would have thought the former presupposes the latter. — Wayfarer

Why? Why is Jesus' death and Resurrection a sacrifice? It is true that Jesus died for our sins (that's why he was killed), but that doesn't mean that it's a sacrificial death. The reason why it's not is because it didn't perform the function of a sacrifice, which is at-onement of the community. It didn't bring peace, but division.

"This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. ..."

Dont forget who the true, and only loaf ward was, and how dat loaf became a spiritual symbol, and was passed on to you through his flesh and blood. A ransom for all spiritual debts, leaving only to render on to caeser what is caeser's.

I think that it was indeed a sacrifice, and frees and redeems the world. Of course it brings division... 99.99999% of the time that someone becomes free, they decide that no one else can handle it, and horde all that precious loaf... but a few try to give it up... its just as difficult to receive as it is to part with.

The Orthodox don't typically view it as a sacrifice. — Agustino

Here is a catechism from a site called 'Orthodox Europe' which is 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate'. There are 18 instances of the word 'sacrifice' on it, in such phrases as:

'Christ’s sacrifice for the life of the world...'

'a Cup, the symbol of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice...'

'Orthodox Tradition regards Christ’s saving sacrifice as a common act of love and self-emptying of all three Persons of the Trinity'...

'It is in this sacrifice that the love which exists within the Trinity was given and became known to humans....'

'The Local Council of Constantinople, which was convoked in 1157, stated that Christ brought His redemptive sacrifice not to the Father alone, but to the Trinity as a whole: ‘Christ voluntarily offered Himself as a sacrifice, offered Himself in His humanity and Himself accepted the sacrifice as God with the Father and the Spirit... The God-man of the Word offered His redemptive sacrifice to the Father, to Himself as God, and to the Spirit...’

Why is Jesus' death and Resurrection a sacrifice? — Agustino

What is the point of asking me that?

Why do you think it's naturalistic? — Agustino

What I said was that Girard's account is naturalistic, not the Bible's. I'm not saying there's anything the matter with it on that account. (As I said, I am not acquainted with Girard, and he seems a thinker of great profundity, so I don't wish to pass further comment on him.)

The future might belong to Christianity. But, I think that whether or not it actually does, is ultimately up to God (I suspect you agree). Can you make the case that Christians know what God wants of them, and that they are actually doing what God wants?

If they don't, and they're not, then He might just find somebody else to do His will.

Here is a catechism from a site called 'Orthodox Europe' which is 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate'. There are 18 instances of the word 'sacrifice' on it, in such phrases as:

'Christ’s sacrifice for the life of the world...'

'a Cup, the symbol of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice...'

'Orthodox Tradition regards Christ’s saving sacrifice as a common act of love and self-emptying of all three Persons of the Trinity'...

'It is in this sacrifice that the love which exists within the Trinity was given and became known to humans....'

'The Local Council of Constantinople, which was convoked in 1157, stated that Christ brought His redemptive sacrifice not to the Father alone, but to the Trinity as a whole: ‘Christ voluntarily offered Himself as a sacrifice, offered Himself in His humanity and Himself accepted the sacrifice as God with the Father and the Spirit... The God-man of the Word offered His redemptive sacrifice to the Father, to Himself as God, and to the Spirit...’ — Wayfarer

I don't find this site to be trustworthy. A lot of the Anglo material isn't very good with regards to Orthodoxy, which explains a lot of the misunderstanding one finds here with regards to it.

However you miss the point that I initially made - sacrifice had a different meaning in the past, which is pretty much the meaning that Vagabond is talking about:

Jesus was the one ultimate sacrifice to god that was such a great sacrifice that it meant god could forgive the sins of all mankind (so they could achieve salvation/a blessed afterlife). — VagabondSpectre

This is where the Bible differs from myths. In myths and other ancient stories, sacrifices are made to appease the gods, and save a community (from the mimetic conflict as René Girard remarks). Thus something or someone profane - a criminal - is sacrificed, and because the community is saved through his sacrifice, he also becomes holy and pure - a hero. This is close to the old Latin meaning of sacrifice, which as I said before, is "to make sacred".

Now the Bible does carry the form of myths, however its content is anti-myth. For example Jesus is taken to be a criminal, put on the Cross, and killed, in an attempt to save the community. BUT the singular difference in this case is that everyone knows that Jesus is innocent. They no longer believe -
in good faith - that Jesus is a criminal who is responsible for the condition of their community. So the punishing of the innocent is shown clearly, and thus violence and scapegoating become impossible in good faith.

You can say that Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself to save us (& reveal the mimetic conflict) - however this "sacrificed" means something completely different. This means giving up on oneself, in order to benefit another. Jesus Christ willingly went to his death, even though He could have avoided it being God. In this sense, yes, he sacrificed himself. But His "sacrifice" has nothing to do with appeasing the gods, as the death of Jesus Christ isn't a form of penal substitution to a menacing God - contra what VS thinks, he's absolutely wrong about that. Jesus Christ is not "made sacred" through his sacrifice, nor is the Pharisaic community saved through it - but quite the contrary. The English language doesn't differentiate very well between these two meanings of sacrifice it seems.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2016/07/heresy-penal-substitution/

What is the point of asking me that? — Wayfarer

Because you have to illustrate to me how it makes someone sacred, how it appeases God, etc. if that's what you believe.

What I said was that Girard's account is naturalistic, not the Bible's. I'm not saying there's anything the matter with it on that account. — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm asking you why do you consider G's account naturalistic? G does not deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah.

I don't find this site to be trustworthy. — Agustino

There are numerous Orthodox websites which say very similar things.

he death of Jesus Christ isn't a form of penal substitution to a menacing God — Agustino

Your objection is to specific forms of 'atonement theory'. I already said that the Orthodox churches don't believe in the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

In this sense, yes, he sacrificed himself. — Agustino

Which is the sense in which I referred to it, and what I think it means, and what I believe you are denying.

What is the point of asking me that?

— Wayfarer

Because you have to illustrate to me how it makes someone sacred, how it appeases God, etc. if that's what you believe. — Agustino

I didn't define the articles of the Christian faith. When young, I went to a Church school, and we were taught about 'Christ's sacrifice', which is what Christianity revolves around. So it's not my job to explain the articles of faith to you.

But the story of the Gospel exposes the inadequacy of sacrifice. When Cain murders Abel, the sacrifice is shown to be evil, for it does not resolve the mayhem. — Agustino

You seem to completely misunderstand the nature of sacrifice Agustino. Cain murdered Abel. This was not a sacrifice. A sacrifice cannot be a murder, one is presumed to be good in the eyes of God, the other evil. Do you see the difference between the two? Do you see that murder is deemed evil, necessarily, by definition, it is a wrongful killing. Do you accept that it is possible that a killing could be good? And do you see that this is the nature of sacrifice, a killing which is presumed to be good?

You can say that Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself to save us (& reveal the mimetic conflict) - however this "sacrificed" means something completely different. This means giving up on oneself, in order to benefit another. Jesus Christ willingly went to his death, even though He could have avoided it being God. In this sense, yes, he sacrificed himself. — Agustino

Jesus willingly went to his death, because he apprehended that in the eyes of God this was good. Whether Jesus sacrificed himself, or the others sacrificed him, is irrelevant. They were all part of the sacrifice, Jesus included, so they all sacrificed him, including Jesus himself who sacrificed himself. The point though, is that they perceived that in the eyes of God, the killing was good, and this is what made it a sacrifice.

Jesus Christ is not "made sacred" through his sacrifice, nor is the Pharisaic community saved through it - but quite the contrary. — Agustino

Why would you say that Jesus was not made sacred through his sacrifice?

Hell is the place you fall into inside your own self, when you're trapped in the darkness of deception, and delusion. Terror is what you feel when the light finds you where you believe that you're hidden, and the deeper you place yourself, or you're placed by others, the more numb, senseless, stiffer, more mechanical, and decayed you become -- your senses fail, the stress builds, and the less you're even physically capable of handling the terror of the true, the beautiful, and the real.

One's heart becomes bound up, anxious, strangled, and less and less able to even handle the truth. It's no small task to climb your way out... the longer your stay, the deeper the pit, the less able your heart becomes to even handle the truth of what you've really become. What you've really done.

Your objection is to specific forms of 'atonement theory'. I already said that the Orthodox churches don't believe in the doctrine of vicarious atonement. — Wayfarer

No, my objection is to the meaning of sacrifice I described in my first post on this subject:

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. — Agustino

This meaning is not the Christian meaning of it.

Which is the sense in which I referred to it, and what I think it means, and what I believe you are denying. — Wayfarer

Right, but this wasn't the sense I referred to in the post where I said to say that Jesus Christ is a sacrifice is heretical. As I had clarified in the previous post, I was dealing with the old meaning of sacrifice, which involves appeasing the gods, etc.

I didn't define the articles of the Christian faith. When young, I went to a Church school, and we were taught about 'Christ's sacrifice', which is what Christianity revolves around. So it's not my job to explain the articles of faith to you. — Wayfarer

Well do you believe those articles of faith? If so, then yes, I would expect you to explain them.

my objection is to the meaning of sacrifice I described in my first post on this subject — Agustino

Which was:

the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice. — Agustino

I quoted the Catechism of the Orthodox Church, which states that it is a sacrifice, in response to which you declared the source dubious. But all of the Christian churches declare that it is. And while I agree that the meaning of the word 'sacrifice' is open to interpretation, that it was 'a sacrifice' is not.

Which was: — Wayfarer

the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice — Agustino

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. — Agustino

No it was not a sacrifice if you bother to read my definition. I can't believe that you're insisting on equivocating on the word. Yes it seems that the English language does not distinguish between different meanings of sacrifice as well as other languages do.

I quoted the Catechism of the Orthodox Church — Wayfarer

No you haven't. It seems that you don't quite understand how Orthodoxy works, nor do you get that the English term sacrifice has two different meanings, which are actually two different words in some of the Eastern languages.

which states that it is a sacrifice — Wayfarer

Yes, in a very different sense than what you mean by sacrifice, and what was originally meant by sacrifice.

I quoted the Catechism of the Orthodox Church
— Wayfarer
No you haven't. — Agustino

I did, Agustino. Those citations were from http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx . It is not a matter of equivocation, I am simply citing an authoritative source.

It is the official, online 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate', presented in multiple languages. Yet you dismiss it as 'unreliable' because it doesn't suit your argument. Indeed, All of the catechisms of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican religions refer to 'Christ's sacrifice'.

The introductory paragraph of the above source states:

In our day there is a widely held view that religious dogmas are not compulsory but secondary: even if they still have a certain historical value, they are no longer vital for Christians. Moral and social agendas have become the main concern of many Christian communities, while theological issues are often neglected. The dissociation of dogma and morality, however, contradicts the very nature of religious life, which presupposes that faith should always be confirmed by deeds, and vice versa. Emphasizing this, St James said: ‘Faith apart from works is dead’ (James 2:26). St Paul, on the other hand, claimed that ‘a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’ (Rom.3:28). Under the ‘works of law’ he meant the Old Testament rites and sacrifices which were no longer necessary after Christ’s sacrifice for the life of the world.

I wrote that:

Christ's sacrifice 'put an end to all sacrifice' — Wayfarer

I did, Agustino. Those citations were from http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx . It is not a matter of equivocation, I am simply citing an authoritative source.

It is the official, online 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate', presented in multiple languages. Yet you dismiss it as 'unreliable' because it doesn't suit your argument. Indeed, All of the catechisms of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican religions refer to 'Christ's sacrifice'. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O Good that I see at least you removed your insults from this comment.

No, it's not at all authoritative. The Moscow Patriarchate does not, first of all, represent the Orthodox Church as such, it is only part of the Orthodox Church (and much less does one of its Departments represent the entire Orthodox Church). The Ecumenical councils and synods typically decide on doctrinal matters. And second of all it is:

An Online Orthodox Catechism adopted from ‘The Mystery of Faith’ by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

The Mystery of Faith is "A personal commentary on the teaching of the Orthodox Church, its historical development and its relationship to the spiritual life".

Since when for fuck's sake is a personal commentary of a Bishop "authoritative" in terms of Orthodox dogma? As I said, it seems you don't know what you're talking about with regards to Orthodoxy.

Second of all suppose this was perfectly valid (which it clearly is not), "sacrifice" in the way it is used in the text you have presented, has NOTHING to do with the meaning of sacrifice that I had been using from the very beginning in my comments.

To illustrate, I say:

Why is Jesus' death and Resurrection a sacrifice? It is true that Jesus died for our sins (that's why he was killed), but that doesn't mean that it's a sacrificial death. — Agustino

See the bolded bit? If I took sacrifice to hold the meaning of Jesus dying for our sins (or sacrificing Himself for our sins), then I would not deny it - for behold, I affirmed it many posts ago, the same way the "Catechism" you have presented affirms it. But it is very clear that I was referencing the other, older meaning of sacrifice, which is to make something profane into something sacred for the purpose of appeasing the gods.

Now, English does not differentiate between the two meanings of sacrifice with different words. Other languages however do. It's very typical of the Anglo world it seems to think they can know what Orthodoxy teaches with precision by reading a few materials off Google :-}

Now don't take this the wrong way but it is the case with many Western liberals, especially from the 60s hippie generation, to think that understanding something is easy, so they end up having superficial understandings of matters that are actually quite a bit more refined.

Christ's sacrifice 'put an end to all sacrifice' — Wayfarer

This is false under a common reading that equivocates between the two uses of sacrifice. Orthodox believers are supposed to, in English terminology, sacrifice themselves for the good of their community and for God - the same way Christ sacrificed Himself for mankind. So no, Christ did not end this sacrifice.

You are correct that Christ's sacrifice (one sense of the word here) did 'put an end to all sacrifice (different sense of the word here)'. This last sense of the word sacrifice is the one I have been referring to all along. His death wasn't such a sacrifice.