The narrow path

reply to post by Akragon

How does anyone Justify killing an animal to resolve sin?

Even back in the OT times...

1) "The gods said to do it!" on one level.
2) Lambs are food. Priests like to eat meat.
3) Some of the people of Canaan' s land had god's who asked, whether in person, through priest, or through a priest wearing a god mask (compare with the Veil over Moses' face) that blood was necessary to ensure the fertility of crops, livestock, and people.
4) Some gods expected the first born son of a woman be sacrificed to ensure a long and fruitful child-bearing period.
5) As the Canaanites gradually (500 years or so) adopted the Midianite god Yahweh, as clan god, and becoming Israelites, a new national myth was needed, the Exodus, which included a new reason to continue old practices.
6) The national myth inferred that the cost of coming from Egypt was the death of all first born in Egypt except the ones for whom a lamb was slain.
7) The life of the first born son of the woman was still forfeit. But, he could be redeemed by sacrifice. along with donkeys. The "clean" animals were just killed out of hand.
8) After the Exodus, the whole nation was found to be evil by Yahweh, thus all of their lives were forfeit. Yahweh was appeased after armed Levites randomly killed Israelites, thus earning the right to be the priestly tribe..
9) Daily sacrifices were made to remind the people that their lives were forfeit for their constant rebellious ways, and to feed the priests. Also, the first born redemption was continued, with a coin and a dove.

Why this has anything to do with Jesus, I've got no explanation. Maybe Judaic Christians can explain it.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If anything, women staying silent hurts matters because them staying silent means their wisdom will never be known, and who doesn't want wisdom?

I traveled out of state once to go to a funeral. A church lady allowed me to stay at her home. A rather different sort of church, made up of single mothers, their children, and women whose husbands never went to church.

I heard some one say that the women only wore the veil when a man was present. It was Christmas Eve and the lady invited me to go to the service. I declined because they seemed to do all right without men, and I didn't feel like cramping their style.

reply to post by Akragon

No one answered my question on an earlier page...

This sin sacrifice of old times... How does the slaughter of an animal justify sin?

I can't wrap my brain around the concept...

I don't think it did.
I think people retrofit the old sacrifices to seem like their idea of what Jesus was doing when he died.
So it is like a circular argument, that 'Jesus died to pay for sins because that was what animal sacrifices were for, right?'
The sacrifices were obligatory because that is what people believed back then, that you had to lure God close to you by giving Him a reason to come close, which would be what people imagined a god would like, since there were no animals to eat up in heaven, so He was dependent on nice people on earth to feed Him.

According to OT Law, there was no way to rectify deliberate sins, that was considered rebellion and you were cast out.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The narrow path is presence.
Humans walk a wide path that spans time - from birth (past) to death (future) but this is listening to thought about other times.
Come to this moment of presence and you will be on the narrow path.

Easy to answer when Christians argue so much.

Why can't we read a word and come to the same conclusion? Probably because words can mean more than one thing and Jesus spoke in parables just so that ignorant people would not understand him.

The earth is alive.

But it doesn't make sense for the earth and the universe to be alive.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think people retrofit the old sacrifices to seem like their idea of what Jesus was doing when he died.
So it is like a circular argument, that 'Jesus died to pay for sins because that was what animal sacrifices were for, right?'

It became a circular argument. But it didn't have to be that way. The hardness of our hearts made it so. By our, I mean us people, especially us religious and/or superstitious people, in which group I include myself.

The statement that I made above:

Why this has anything to do with Jesus, I've got no explanation. Maybe Judaic Christians can explain it.

Isn't true. It's a revelation of my own sloth.
------------
A child asks the question, "Why don't we sacrifice animals like God's people in the Old Testament did?"

The parent replies, "Because Jesus, the real sacrifice came, and now, we never have to kill animals again."

The child thinks about that for a bit and says, "Oh, then Jesus died for the animals."
-----------------
You told me the story of Jacob wrestling the man/angel/god at a point critical to the survival of a tribe. And my response was, that that should have been the defining myth(as in origin story) for an emerging nation, rather than replacing it with a new myth, the Exodus.

Some Christians did the same thing. What was the true transition point? When and how did a group of people (Christ's people) go from not being a people, to becoming the people of the One true God?

On the night that he was betrayed, Jesus took bread and broke it, and said, "This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me.” In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.”

This was the true moment, the real moment that Christ's people came into being. This was no foreshadowing of some coming event. This was it.

Before any of the Gospels had been written, Paul already had this message, straight from the Lord Himself. "1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you"

If this was the reality, the giving of himself, the beginning of Christ's people, then why did men add to it? The hardness of our hearts.

Truly, the manner of death (if he even died) is not relevant.

The crucifixion and resurrection myths were added and somehow replaced the real story. This is sad. It has led to Gentiles being forced to embrace the old system, to drink the old wine. Many Christians are left with no understanding of the real Jesus. The physically crucified, physically resurrected, and physically departed Jesus isn't very real at all, just a crude approximation.

reply to post by pthena


I feel that Jesus had no right to erect himself as the foremost manifestation of the lessons he taught. As I already posted earlier on this thread:

It invites the tendency to miss the lessons for the teacher, which often means that you limit your understanding of those lessons to that one particular manifestation. Just as you wouldn't limit the concept of a motorized vehicle to a Ford Escape, you wouldn't limit your understanding of love to one person's demonstration of it. They simply provide an additional gradient to the meaning, along with every other example and demonstration.

You wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of color in favor of the one that appeals to you. I wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of meaning in favor of the one manifestation I am taught to appreciate. And worship tends to bring that approach out in people.

Never has any President declared themselves the eternal icon of this nation. Washington is not hailed as the one sole representative of America, and Bill Gates is not the sole mascot of Microsoft. They are given the chair for a period of time in recognition of their capability and intentions. When they have finished, a new leader is chosen to beat a path. Jesus had his time, left his mark, and is now all but forgotten - if one is willing to overlook the mythos left in his wake, that is. His legacy is established. It is only fair that we make room for other visionaries to have their chance. How else are we to make progress if we never try anything new?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Where would a son be without having a father?

reply to post by backcase

Where would a son be without having a father?

I haven't had a true father since I was six years old. Hence, speaking from experience, I can confidently say: any place he chooses to be. The same goes for any of us.

Life is 1/10 what happens to us, and 9/10 how we choose to react to it. The peculiar thing about the human species is that no variable guarantees any reaction from us. That is entirely our decision...something we seem to forget most times.

reply to post by backcase


What do you mean exactly? I don't see how that fits into the context of what Jesus said. He said that "the" father was greater than he was, meaning he wasn't limiting the father to just him and that he was not as great as god himself.

We are all children of god, not just Jesus. That is what he was implying when he said that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I feel that Jesus had no right to erect himself as the foremost manifestation of the lessons he taught.
. . .
Jesus had his time, left his mark, and is now all but forgotten - if one is willing to overlook the mythos left in his wake, that is. His legacy is established. It is only fair that we make room for other visionaries to have their chance. How else are we to make progress if we never try anything new?

I don't think that Jesus did set himself up in that way.He was a prophet for his time, place, and people. The time, was the generation that would be alive during the Jewish rebellion that would lead to the destruction of the temple. The place was the Roman province where the temple was, The people were not only the people in that particular place, but also the people scattered around the Roman and Parthian empires.

The message was one of understanding between people, call it peace and harmony or love. The point being that there is no eternal value in rebellion against earthly authorities.

Paul was sent to the West. I don't know who, but someone went East. The ministry of Jesus ended then, when the temple did. People seem to need religion. If one doesn't satisfy, they either modify one to fit themselves, or make one up.

A natural point of reference upon which to build a mythos, is the point at which the prophet stands in time and place. (see transfiguration stories Matthew 17:1–9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28–36) Luke 9:33 "And it came to pass, as they were parting from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah: not knowing what he said."

Jesus gave a memorial that was not space or time bound.

Okay, you've got me there. What I have done because of my own fear, was require Jesus to be relevant/related to me. The words "If you are mine, than I am yours. Fear not" come to mind. If I didn't have the fear, than Jesus would not have had to say that to me.

The only logical answer then, is anything I say or write about Jesus should be regarded as highly suspect, it's just me publicly working out my own angst, as if this were group therapy. Mine is just another spin on an existing mythos. That's the extent of my new. That certainly puts me in my place!

What you're telling me then is that it's OK for Jesus to be in the chorus? That him in center stage is a fantasy? That imagining him on a throne is delusion?

I can accept that.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Never has any President declared themselves the eternal icon of this nation. Washington is not hailed as the one sole representative of America, and Bill Gates is not the sole mascot of Microsoft. They are given the chair for a period of time in recognition of their capability and intentions. When they have finished, a new leader is chosen to beat a path. Jesus had his time, left his mark, and is now all but forgotten - if one is willing to overlook the mythos left in his wake, that is. His legacy is established. It is only fair that we make room for other visionaries to have their chance. How else are we to make progress if we never try anything new?

It is highly likely that Jesus was only "the way" for his disciples who were directly initiated by him into the Holy Spirit while he was still in the flesh. But as happens when most spiritual masters leave this sphere of action, a religion arose from his teachings, and the central importance of a living physical master was lost.

reply to post by pthena

That him in center stage is a fantasy? That imagining him on a throne is delusion?

You did have a person on a throne and considered to be divinely approved (son of god), at that time. Tiberius would have been the current holder of that position. The Roman authorization of the imperial cultus was made by decree of the Senate during the reign of Augustus.

Matthew has the same Roman soldiers who tortured and killed Jesus acknowledging him as "Son of God" after the divine manifestations of judgment upon his death. What this sets up is a situation where there is a worldly recognized ruler of the world, and an opposing heavenly ruler of the world when it comes to things spiritual.

The temptation was a satanic attempt to have Jesus give up his true destiny for the worldly rule, which also would include the Roman type. The "true destiny" would be what has been in effect since the "This is" statement by Jesus that you referred to (what is called by the synoptics and Paul, the new covenant, and by John, a new law), which is being the executor of that covenant with God.

What the worldly institution can only pretend to do by human decree, the heavenly institution can truly do by divine decree, which is to act as saviour. So we have an eternal counterpart to the corruptible role of the Emperor, given all power and authority, who we should direct our attention to for help in all matters pertaining to how we should conduct ourselves personally, and how we relate to others.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I do like what you have said, but what I meant was that there can be no son if there is no father.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


He was not implying that we are equal in all things to Him, but He was implying that His Father is our Father, and not Just the Father, but the Creator.

But our paternity comes from the indwelling of Jesus Christ in us.

reply to post by backcase


So we are all sons of god, not just Jesus?

Isn't that one of the main points of Christianity? That Jesus was the "only" begotten son? If we are all God's children, that means we are equal to Jesus.

I should probably make a note of what I was reading while writing my last post.
Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Library Of New Testament Studies), John K. Riches
Also Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...(ancient_Rome)
I was not quoting the book but getting information from it, and also inspiration in general on what was going on in Matthew and what were the points being made.
Anyway, it is a nice book that you could probably read in like three hours, and would be helpful to anyone trying to see the Gospel in its context, as the title suggests.
warning: another $72 book so anyone thinking of buying a copy, I suggest looking for a cheaper used copy.
I was patient and waited to buy mine for $15 + shipping, which make me very happy, being a book in a prestigious series.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I should probably make a note of what I was reading while writing my last post.
Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Library Of New Testament Studies), John K. Riches
Also Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...(ancient_Rome)
I was not quoting the book but getting information from it, and also inspiration in general on what was going on in Matthew and what were the points being made.
Anyway, it is a nice book that you could probably read in like three hours, and would be helpful to anyone trying to see the Gospel in its context, as the title suggests.

Hang on a sec...

Isn't it the Christian claim that Jesus was worshipped as God/King?

reply to post by Akragon

Isn't it the Christian claim that Jesus was worshipped as God/King?

What's your point?
Do you think that I am suggesting otherwise?
How does that relate to what you quoted?
The book that I was citing was written by well known Christian theologians, not atheists or agnostics, if that is what you are asking.
My opinion is that Jesus is a god, out of many such entities. "God" is generally undefined in the authentic New Testament (the part that is not forgeries), so I take the step of theorizing that God in the singular represents the 'order of the gods'.

reply to post by jmdewey60


actually I was referring to the wiki link you just posted...

I didn't quote anything...

Interestingly enough I do agree with your theory... aside from the allusion to the trinity thing