We hear time and again that Jesus went willingly to the Cross to pay the price for our sins. Yet the oldest Gospel records a pissed of Jesus blaming Judas for his crucifixion: “For the Son of Man goes, even as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born." Mark 14: 21
Moreover, Christians should thank Satan for their salvation, since without Satan, there would not have been any shedding of blood for sins: Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them. They were glad and agreed to give him money. So he consented, and began seeking a good opportunity to betray Him to them apart from the crowd. (Luke 22: 1-6).
This theme is also noted in the Gospel of Judas.
Since both Jesus and the other criminals were all NAILED to their crosses, all three are seen as shedding their blood for the world's sins.
Catholic art from the Middle Ages took offense at this and paintings of the time show ONLY Jesus nailed to his cross while the other two criminals are tied to their crosses.
Of course, Christian theology tells us that only Jesus was sinless (try telling that to the Jews of his day or the Romans).
Then too, it’s so odd how a simple Jewish man named Jesus (who loved everyone and preached God’s love and forgiveness to all who would receive it) ended up hated by the Jews, executed by the Romans and abandoned by his very apostles he had spent 1 -3 years with in one on one teaching.
[Inversely, if it was not for theology, God himself would have no salvation!]
While to you this thing, blood, is one of those absurd doctrines found in the Christian bible, but deep meditation on this reveals a powerful story of forgiveness, even without considering scriptures.
Undeniably, Jesus was an exceptionally good man by all standards. His morals, intellect and wisdom were unprecedented and unsurpassed in the whole history of mankind. In short, these sort of people are rare in our world and what is expected from us (avarage Joes) is to treasure and venerate these kind of people in our pop culture. Isn't this what we do to our exceptional political leaders, scientists or even social workers?
Ironically, Jesus did not receive this kind of reception and veneration. As a paradox he suffered the worst kind of humiliating death alongside the worst criminals of the society, a story well known to you John, as a former esteemed Church Minister. Can you regard this as a just treatment on Jesus? Dont you think that Jesus is seriously owed justice by the people who condemned him to death? It implies that these people who killed an innocent man as Jesus also deserve to be killed, as a matter of justice in our own courts of law.
Obviously John you are innocent as regard to the death of Jesus for you were not there in the alliance of those who shed an innocent man's blood. However, it is a natural reaction to sympathize with Jesus with what happened to him. It simply baffles me when I see people like Harry having little or no empathy on what happened to Jesus. Whether Jesus death had spiritual significance or not is not my point, my point is that everyone is supposed to feel sorry on what happened to Jesus.
I suspect this is what is God's criteria of salvation. Do you feel sorry about what happened to Jesus when you read his story? Apparently many people who read Jesus story feel sorry about him, except these few Dawknites.
Now I'm wondering why anyone should feel sorry for Jesus, he is now in the greatest position to have ever been obtained by a human being in the whole entire universe, sitting in Heaven on the Great White Judgment Seat Throne beside God of all God's, Holy's of all Holy's, for a mere 3 days of suffering, when there's been thousands, perhaps millions whom have suffered horrendously for more than 3 whole days, and some of them have no doubt since then been thrown into the giant lake of hell fire, perhaps the great Mother Teresa resides in hell beside Satan, for her lack of faith near the end of her life, along with over 6 million Jews who refuse to believe in Jesus The Christ Saviour for who his blood was shed and sacrificed for all us worthless infidel sinner reprobates.(heavy sarcasm)
Feel sorry for Jesus...huh?
Jesus just won the lottery that's all and happened to have been selected and chosen by the very people whom thought that he deserved to be in a position to be sacrificed because he was gullible and meek and kind and was never one to say, NO! I will not! I can not! Jesus was the over achiever type.
Besides, since Jesus' sacrifice, there has been a huge increase in the goat and sheep population since that time, and I'm sure they are much grateful for it.
If, and ONLY IF the Jews were the only people in the history of the world that used blood sacrifice to appease their Gods too, then the so-called Atonement of Jesus with his death on the Cross might mean something. But like so much of Biblical theology, it is just another universal idea made exclusive.
However, human appeasement of their gods for sin has a long history in most of the “pagan” religions from the time of ancient Greece on over into the New World's Maya population as Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto pointed out.
Then too, just think of the horror for you Christian if Jesus was simply a well beloved country parson who quietly ministered to the needs of the people of Palestine and Jesus himself was approaching the Biblical three score and ten (the his 70 birthday) and a natural death.
By your own theology, God would have had to cause some of the very people who loved him to pick up knives, swords and clubs and chase this beloved country parson down so they could murder him in a very bloody death to make their God (that both they and Jesus loved) happy. (Thus, giving Yahweh a blood theology he could work with on sins).
So, edson, instead of feeling sorry for Jesus and hating the people who killed him and all the while knowing what God required for forgiveness of sins; Christians should have cheered all the way though Mel Gibson’s other movie The Passion of the Christ chanting the whole while: Without the shedding of Jesus’ blood we’ll fry like beacon in Hell! Thus, shouting “Glory” and “Allelulia…Salvation is mind!” every time Jesus’ flesh is laid open.But you Christians want it both ways. It’s outwardly: Poor Jesus, but inwardly: Make that sucker bleed! Salvation is MINE!!!
Somehow I don't seem able to get this posting process right. But anyhow...
I have always wondered about Christianity's preoccupation with blood and (a distinctly different preoccupation) sacrifice. Blood and sacrifice. Being washed in the blood in any other context is a scene from a horror movie. There is something creepy about a congregation gleefully singing about a Perfect Sacrifice.
A parent has an instinct to rescue a child in trouble, to care around the clock for a sick child, to sacrifice their own needs until the sick child is well again, and this is extended to a sligntly less fevent level to other relative and to a lesser extent to others of the social group. so if one comes to beleive in a higher, stronger, power, would not one seek ways to 'care for' and 'gift to' them? with one's own labor, with the best of the crop, the best of the livestock, even with the best of ones people to the point of human sacrifice to the gods? but that becomes icky at some point and having an even more precious thing, a 'half god', to sacrifice would be better, and you can't keep doing that, so do it once and for all and have it done. now you only have to BELIEVE in it to benefit from it. isn't that kinda how this sort of religion 'evolved' from the instinct to make sacrifices for ones children and the needy in ones family and social group?
Harry, you are right that blood sacrifice was not exclusie to joos only. Almost every medieval culture had some sort of bloody sacrificing to please their gods (and some are still involved with this practice). Basically this is what exactly the bible says that God was the first to shed an innocent blood of an animal followed by Abel, by Noah and Ibrahim. Traditionally these are not taken to be joos but rather Patriachs (who gave rise to the humanity as we know it today). Instead of debunking biblical theology, this should have at least insinuated in your mind that, uh, possibly humanity originated at a single culture with some common beliefs thus confirming a biblical story of united at some point in time before an Affair of The Tower of Babel?
For your information, I never hate people who killed Jesus, for I am one of those few christians who understand the purpose of Jesus sufferings emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. In writing the above post I wanted to instill in you a sense of what most christians feel about Jesus. many Christians are nominal christians who knows little biblical theology. But they are compelled to love Jesus emotionally for what he suffered at Calvary. As I said, it simply amazes me when some people misses any sense of love for a man as innocent as Jesus. You may reject Jesus as the Son of God (for it is only through special revelation one knows this), but you should at least love him as good man (at least to be taken seriously)!
As noted by Albert Schweitzer (1875- 1965) and Rudolf Bultmann (1884 - 1976), little can really be known about Jesus which is not encased in myth.
As to blood sacrifice being original with the Israelites only: The only proof you have comes from the Bilbe itself and, with no extra Biblical evidence (pre-Temple), you are engaged in Circular Reasoning.
The argument that similar sacrificial systems show that we came from a common culture is only valid if we can be sure that cultures never borrow and adopt from one another. And I think we both know that's simply not the case.
Blood sacrifices existed long before any Judaism existed. Blood sacrifices were pretty much worldwide, that is, in all places where humans existed.
Now, the NT says itself that it was impossible for those sacrifices to take away sin. So, why do 'em?
Why would a god instruct his followers to copy after the pagans all around them and have blood sacrifices?
The answer is, a god wouldn't. However, a controlling priesthood would.
The passover is merely the Jew's copycat holy day of an earlier pagan spring equinox sacrifice for planting time.
The Jewish feast of booths (tabernacles) is the celebration of the harvest - also from paganism and not a new invention.
Pentecost - from the pagan feast of the early crops. A welcome treat after a long winter of dried up fruits and vegetables.
Anyway, Judaism is completely borrowed and copied stuff from earlier folks. I guess that throws a monkey wrench into the plan of salvation by a god, but hey, you can't have everything.
wow. i thought i'd find a conversation between you guys and actual Christians when i read this. poor guys...
oh! i almost forgot: harry, instead of saying "pissed of" up top in that first entry, you would sound more credible saying "pissed off." i began dozing off around the rediculous sentence about thieves dying for the world; i can't remember what it said.
15 comments:
We hear time and again that Jesus went willingly to the Cross to pay the price for our sins. Yet the oldest Gospel records a pissed of Jesus blaming Judas for his crucifixion: “For the Son of Man goes, even as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born." Mark 14: 21
Moreover, Christians should thank Satan for their salvation, since without Satan, there would not have been any shedding of blood for sins: Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them. They were glad and agreed to give him money. So he consented, and began seeking a good opportunity to betray Him to them apart from the crowd. (Luke 22: 1-6).
This theme is also noted in the Gospel of Judas.
Since both Jesus and the other criminals were all NAILED to their crosses, all three are seen as shedding their blood for the world's sins.
Catholic art from the Middle Ages took offense at this and paintings of the time show ONLY Jesus nailed to his cross while the other two criminals are tied to their crosses.
Of course, Christian theology tells us that only Jesus was sinless (try telling that to the Jews of his day or the Romans).
Then too, it’s so odd how a simple Jewish man named Jesus (who loved everyone and preached God’s love and forgiveness to all who would receive it) ended up hated by the Jews, executed by the Romans and abandoned by his very apostles he had spent 1 -3 years with in one on one teaching.
[Inversely, if it was not for theology, God himself would have no salvation!]
Exactly John, nothing but blood!
While to you this thing, blood, is one of those absurd doctrines found in the Christian bible, but deep meditation on this reveals a powerful story of forgiveness, even without considering scriptures.
Undeniably, Jesus was an exceptionally good man by all standards. His morals, intellect and wisdom were unprecedented and unsurpassed in the whole history of mankind. In short, these sort of people are rare in our world and what is expected from us (avarage Joes) is to treasure and venerate these kind of people in our pop culture. Isn't this what we do to our exceptional political leaders, scientists or even social workers?
Ironically, Jesus did not receive this kind of reception and veneration. As a paradox he suffered the worst kind of humiliating death alongside the worst criminals of the society, a story well known to you John, as a former esteemed Church Minister. Can you regard this as a just treatment on Jesus? Dont you think that Jesus is seriously owed justice by the people who condemned him to death? It implies that these people who killed an innocent man as Jesus also deserve to be killed, as a matter of justice in our own courts of law.
Obviously John you are innocent as regard to the death of Jesus for you were not there in the alliance of those who shed an innocent man's blood. However, it is a natural reaction to sympathize with Jesus with what happened to him. It simply baffles me when I see people like Harry having little or no empathy on what happened to Jesus. Whether Jesus death had spiritual significance or not is not my point, my point is that everyone is supposed to feel sorry on what happened to Jesus.
I suspect this is what is God's criteria of salvation. Do you feel sorry about what happened to Jesus when you read his story? Apparently many people who read Jesus story feel sorry about him, except these few Dawknites.
Now I'm wondering why anyone should feel sorry for Jesus, he is now in the greatest position to have ever been obtained by a human being in the whole entire universe, sitting in Heaven on the Great White Judgment Seat Throne beside God of all God's, Holy's of all Holy's, for a mere 3 days of suffering, when there's been thousands, perhaps millions whom have suffered horrendously for more than 3 whole days, and some of them have no doubt since then been thrown into the giant lake of hell fire, perhaps the great Mother Teresa resides in hell beside Satan, for her lack of faith near the end of her life, along with over 6 million Jews who refuse to believe in Jesus The Christ Saviour for who his blood was shed and sacrificed for all us worthless infidel sinner reprobates.(heavy sarcasm)
Feel sorry for Jesus...huh?
Jesus just won the lottery that's all and happened to have been selected and chosen by the very people whom thought that he deserved to be in a position to be sacrificed because he was gullible and meek and kind and was never one to say, NO! I will not! I can not! Jesus was the over achiever type.
Besides, since Jesus' sacrifice, there has been a huge increase in the goat and sheep population since that time, and I'm sure they are much grateful for it.
After thinking about what I just wrote, Jesus lost faith in God near the end of his life too, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?"
Perhaps Jesus is roasting in hell along with Mother Teresa and the 6 million Jews?
Apparently Satan is gathering lost souls before God can get to them, very cleaver of ole Sate!
Narrow is the road to heaven.
Hi Steven,
I grasped your sarcasm, you are indeed humorous!
Edson,
If, and ONLY IF the Jews were the only people in the history of the world that used blood sacrifice to appease their Gods too, then the so-called Atonement of Jesus with his death on the Cross might mean something. But like so much of Biblical theology, it is just another universal idea made exclusive.
However, human appeasement of their gods for sin has a long history in most of the “pagan” religions from the time of ancient Greece on over into the New World's Maya population as Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto pointed out.
Then too, just think of the horror for you Christian if Jesus was simply a well beloved country parson who quietly ministered to the needs of the people of Palestine and Jesus himself was approaching the Biblical three score and ten (the his 70 birthday) and a natural death.
By your own theology, God would have had to cause some of the very people who loved him to pick up knives, swords and clubs and chase this beloved country parson down so they could murder him in a very bloody death to make their God (that both they and Jesus loved) happy. (Thus, giving Yahweh a blood theology he could work with on sins).
So, edson, instead of feeling sorry for Jesus and hating the people who killed him and all the while knowing what God required for forgiveness of sins; Christians should have cheered all the way though Mel Gibson’s other movie The Passion of the Christ chanting the whole while: Without the shedding of Jesus’ blood we’ll fry like beacon in Hell! Thus, shouting “Glory” and “Allelulia…Salvation is mind!” every time Jesus’ flesh is laid open.But you Christians want it both ways. It’s outwardly: Poor Jesus, but inwardly: Make that sucker bleed! Salvation is MINE!!!
what? the bible, and therefore christianity, cntradicts itself? i am shocked! who knew?
Somehow I don't seem able to get this posting process right. But anyhow...
I have always wondered about Christianity's preoccupation with blood and (a distinctly different preoccupation) sacrifice. Blood and sacrifice. Being washed in the blood in any other context is a scene from a horror movie. There is something creepy about a congregation gleefully singing about a Perfect Sacrifice.
A parent has an instinct to rescue a child in trouble, to care around the clock for a sick child, to sacrifice their own needs until the sick child is well again, and this is extended to a sligntly less fevent level to other relative and to a lesser extent to others of the social group. so if one comes to beleive in a higher, stronger, power, would not one seek ways to 'care for' and 'gift to' them? with one's own labor, with the best of the crop, the best of the livestock, even with the best of ones people to the point of human sacrifice to the gods? but that becomes icky at some point and having an even more precious thing, a 'half god', to sacrifice would be better, and you can't keep doing that, so do it once and for all and have it done. now you only have to BELIEVE in it to benefit from it. isn't that kinda how this sort of religion 'evolved' from the instinct to make sacrifices for ones children and the needy in ones family and social group?
Harry, you are right that blood sacrifice was not exclusie to joos only. Almost every medieval culture had some sort of bloody sacrificing to please their gods (and some are still involved with this practice). Basically this is what exactly the bible says that God was the first to shed an innocent blood of an animal followed by Abel, by Noah and Ibrahim. Traditionally these are not taken to be joos but rather Patriachs (who gave rise to the humanity as we know it today). Instead of debunking biblical theology, this should have at least insinuated in your mind that, uh, possibly humanity originated at a single culture with some common beliefs thus confirming a biblical story of united at some point in time before an Affair of The Tower of Babel?
For your information, I never hate people who killed Jesus, for I am one of those few christians who understand the purpose of Jesus sufferings emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. In writing the above post I wanted to instill in you a sense of what most christians feel about Jesus. many Christians are nominal christians who knows little biblical theology. But they are compelled to love Jesus emotionally for what he suffered at Calvary. As I said, it simply amazes me when some people misses any sense of love for a man as innocent as Jesus. You may reject Jesus as the Son of God (for it is only through special revelation one knows this), but you should at least love him as good man (at least to be taken seriously)!
edson,
As noted by Albert Schweitzer (1875- 1965) and Rudolf Bultmann (1884 - 1976), little can really be known about Jesus which is not encased in myth.
As to blood sacrifice being original with the Israelites only: The only proof you have comes from the Bilbe itself and, with no extra Biblical evidence (pre-Temple), you are engaged in Circular Reasoning.
edson,
The argument that similar sacrificial systems show that we came from a common culture is only valid if we can be sure that cultures never borrow and adopt from one another. And I think we both know that's simply not the case.
Blood sacrifices existed long before any Judaism existed. Blood sacrifices were pretty much worldwide, that is, in all places where humans existed.
Now, the NT says itself that it was impossible for those sacrifices to take away sin. So, why do 'em?
Why would a god instruct his followers to copy after the pagans all around them and have blood sacrifices?
The answer is, a god wouldn't. However, a controlling priesthood would.
The passover is merely the Jew's copycat holy day of an earlier pagan spring equinox sacrifice for planting time.
The Jewish feast of booths (tabernacles) is the celebration of the harvest - also from paganism and not a new invention.
Pentecost - from the pagan feast of the early crops. A welcome treat after a long winter of dried up fruits and vegetables.
Anyway, Judaism is completely borrowed and copied stuff from earlier folks. I guess that throws a monkey wrench into the plan of salvation by a god, but hey, you can't have everything.
I liked reading "The Blood Covenant" by Kenyon.
wow. i thought i'd find a conversation between you guys and actual Christians when i read this. poor guys...
oh! i almost forgot: harry, instead of saying "pissed of" up top in that first entry, you would sound more credible saying "pissed off." i began dozing off around the rediculous sentence about thieves dying for the world; i can't remember what it said.
Post a Comment