Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the idea that God must pay the Devil a ransom "certainly startling, if not revolting." [8] Philosopher and theologian Keith Ward, among others, pointed out that, under the ransom view, not only was God a debtor but a deceiver as well, since God only pretended to pay the debt.
In the Gospel of Matthew 20:20–28 and the Gospel of Mark 10:35–45, Jesus explains that he "came as Son of man to give his life as ransom". [1] The ransom paid by the Son of man is an element of a common doctrine of atonement in Christianity. [2]
In light of this view, the "ransom" that Jesus mentions in the Gospels would be a sacrifice and a debt paid only to God the Father. Anselm did not speak directly to the later Calvinist concern for the scope of the satisfaction for sins, whether it was paid for all mankind universally or only for limited individuals, but indirectly his language ...
The parallel passage in Zechariah (xi. 12, 13), is translated 'thirty [pieces] of silver'; but which should doubtless be read, 'thirty shekels of silver', whilst it is observable that 'thirty shekels of silver' was the price of blood to be paid in the case of a servant accidentally killed (Exodus, xxi. 32). The passage may therefore be ...
According to Pate, the Jewish scriptures describe three types of vicarious atonement: the Paschal Lamb although the Paschal Lamb was not a sin offering; "the sacrificial system as a whole", although these were for "mistakes", not intentional sins and with the Day of Atonement as the most essential element; and the idea of the suffering servant (Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-6, 50:4-11, 52:13-53:12).
Penal substitution, also called penal substitutionary atonement and especially in older writings forensic theory, [1] [2] is a theory of the atonement within Protestant Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God ...
The ransom was haggled down to $3 million—Getty agreed to pay $2 million, which, his lawyers advised him, was the maximum amount he was allowed to write off on his taxes.
Abelard not only rejected the idea of Jesus' death as a ransom paid to the devil, [1] [2] which turned the Devil into a rival god, [2] but also objected to the idea that Jesus' death was a "debt paid to God's honor". [1]