Human sacrifice was a norm before it switched to animals. The story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac was all about it. Then it was animals and doves in the church. Now it's a monetary tithe in its place in the orthodox. Still 'sacrifice' of material things not self.
Christ (God) offered Himself as a sacrifice and instantiated the eucharist where material things (wine and bread) are transubstantiated into His body and blood via the Holy Spirit. The living God is being sacrificed every Sunday.
The ritual fails to convey the actual message, that's why it was stopped.
It was never stopped. It continues to be practiced practically unchanged for 2000 years.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Using Christ's words to contradict His Church's practices, which He personally instantiated and later sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and the apostles is ignorant.
. It continues to be practiced practically unchanged for 2000 years.
Disproof:
First men, then animals, then God/Jesus, then doves, now tithes and 'the eucharist'.
CHANGE
You said: "Using Christ's words to contradict His Church's practices, which He personally instantiated and later sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and the apostles is ignorant."
Mistaking man's constantly changing interpretation for God's WORD (truth) is what leads to error.
You probably don't realize how each book of the old testament is testament to the failure of the time's religion to come to ultimate truth and so was doomed to CHANGE.
Ignorant. One of us understands what the other is saying. One does not and ignores.
Read the source of what you believe you believe and find the error.
You know......that link you will definitely ignore.
First men, then animals, then God/Jesus, then doves, now tithes and 'the eucharist'.
Early Christians did that? Where do you get that from? It was the eucharist all the way till today. Tithe is nothing to do with sacrifice - it's a duty for every Christian to be charitable and help the Church but no one is forced to give back.
Mistaking man's constantly changing interpretation for God's WORD (truth) is what leads to error.
Again, it's not constantly changing. If it were the case, what makes your interpretation not subject to said constant change? Suppose your interpretation is correct, how do we know it will still be valid tomorrow? This leads to epistemological nihilism - the inability to have knowledge of the thing in question at all.
You probably don't realize how each book of the old testament is testament to the failure of the time's religion to come to ultimate truth and so was doomed to CHANGE.
Truths can't be disproven. And only Truth is eternally unchangeable.
This is your gnostic interpretation of the text which you base on your gnostic worldview and its ruling presuppositions. The Christian interpretation shows perfect continuity in both the OT and the NT. What is the "ultimate truth" in your worldview, do we have access to it and if so, how? Where do you get the standard for truth?
He supposedly offered imperfect animals, but it's an analogy of how the hunter/gatherer stage of civilization practiced human/animal sacrifice in the past. Wine as blood and bread as flesh of a god is sacrifice-by-proxy as is the sacrifice by God of his son to the literalist who needs such analogy. To understand and raise above the ritual would do away with its need. Some need signs, signals, and commandments (the 99), and some don't.
It's nothing to brag on.
So was Cain really just envious of Abel because God accepted his brother's sacrifice and rejected his own, and then killed him out of a jealousy?
Or was it his foolish, ill-conceived attempt to please God with one more worthy that he would accept after being previously rejected, thinking God preferred human sacrifice over animal? 🤔
Interesting possibility. Who knows what Cain was really thinking or if Satan planted the idea in his mind? 🤷♂️
No, he wanted something out of it, that was with good intension.
God knew that, but he had to let free will in honor.
He couldnt tell that he knew because that would interfere with free will.
So to Cain know in the most nrutral way he wasnt pleased with the intensions, Able got favored and that pissed Cain of so bad, he actually killed his brother over it.
I think he didnt do it to try best his brother by killing him.
Else he wouldnt have snarled back not being his brothers keeper
Never heard of Yahweh being into these sacrifices things
You should try reading instead of “talking” to chat bots sometime then:
Genesis 3:21
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Genesis 4:3
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering
Genesis 3:21 refers to Adam and Eve being given their fallen corporal bodies (they were angel-like pre-fall). God doesn't sacrifice to Himself, that's ridiculous.
But I guess it doesn't matter in free Bible interpretation class. "It's just me and muh Bible, boy". I've always said the sola scriptura protestant approach is an atheist-making machine.
God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is.
Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
Are you up to the challenge?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
Comparative religion Arguments are for people who don't know what they are comparing with, to, or from without this understanding of source.
Actual comparitive religion will discover similarities leading to ultimate truths they share but don't own. I've done it my whole life. I don't suggest it lightly.
Until the true source is found, It becomes 'wise men in the dark' trying to describe an elephant.
Or as the sufic sage might say, "Like spittle from the mouths of fish on dry land."
Creation is made from Ideation first. All things.
Symbols are ideation.
To mistake the symbol for the ideation behind is 'looking at the finger pointing at the moon.'
You know what an argument between the true gnostics of every religion would sound like? Me either because there would be nothing to argue about. There would be a glorious silence instead.
Many paths, one source/destination. Many boats, one shoreline.
Once the shore is reached, one needs to get out of the boat.
See Christ calming The Storm while disciples ride it out in a boat.
Only Divine Inspiration can explain one's attempt to find the highest truths
and the proof is in the pudding itself. Not its symbol.
Another proposition. What's the source of ideation? How do you have knowledge of the ultimate truth behind the interpretations and various takes? What makes universal metaphysical concepts like knowledge and truth at all possible in your worldview and where are they located?
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?
You’ll need to put some meat on the bones of that final analogy. In what context could you sacrifice yourself for you Loved one’s? Like, throwing yourself in front of a hail of bullets that were otherwise destined for them?
In that case, no you wouldn’t be sacrificing yourself to a god.
However, the Jesus story is fundamentally not that.
Christ doesn’t sacrifice HIMSELF at all. His sacrifice is ordained by his father. Remember, ‘for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son’ and ‘Father, father, why have you forsaken me’ and
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Here, you can see that Jesus was given as a sacrifice TO God.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here, you can see that he was a sacrifice FROM god.
So, God gives his son as a sacrifice to himself for the forgiveness of the world’s sins.
Why not just forgive the sins directly?
Christianity is dumb my man. The mental gymnastics you need to go through to make this retarded concept work is astonishing. And yet, you will impute all manner of nonsense reasoning to do so.
Would you sacrifice your own son to yourself to forgive the sins of your nieces and nephews when it is solely in your gift to forgive anyway? Of course you wouldn’t as that would be insane.
Christ didn't sacrifice himself. Now you aren't showing continuity.
He was sacrificed by God's plan in literal interpretation, and then man blamed.
If you don't offer your SELF to the God of All for its own Reason, magic and its motives won't matter.
If the Christos becomes the Christ and then Jesus Christ who absolves you from both sacrifice of self and sin, the original concept of the Christos and the Chrism are forsaken. During the time of modern Christianity's conception in Rome (Tarsus), gnostic christians called literalists "Seekers after smooth things." Meaning they miss the point by over-simplification.
They had a saying: "If you think heaven is in the sky, the birds in the sky will get there before you."
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't.
That would be a lot simpler.
Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't. That would be a lot simpler.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.
You'd be surprised to learn that every culture at the time (and much later) did animal sacrifices. Did you think the Ancient Greeks or Romans didn't sacrifice? The main crime Christians were convicted for in Rome was refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
Singling out the OT is grasping at straws. If anything, God forbid idolatry and human sacrifices the Canaanites and other people brought to Baal/Moloch.
No it's because "god" is a bloodthirsty tyrant the same as every other deity. With the exception of Egypt and Ganesha in India, gods were depicted as human. Don't talk on matters you dont know about.
You're right, to the extent that the God of the Bible punished those who engaged in human sacrifice. The child sacrificing cananites were punished by the Israelites taking their land and putting them to the sword. God will continue to punish those who sacrifice to demons those who kill those created in his image.
But the Israelites murdered the Canaanite children themselves in the orders of god
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
Jos 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Yes, the Israelites put the demon worshiping child sacrificers to to the sword on orders. Just like when Israel fell into worshiping pagan gods, the Assyrians might swing by to punish them...of course they repent and say it won't happen again...but of course it does.
A lot of modernists and Christian heretics (but I repeat myself) have a problem with a God that punishes wrongdoing, but that's their problem not his. It still happens today, which is to say, God's collective punishment on whole nations, such as Haiti.
Your changing the topic because you were called out for being wrong. I'm a Buddhist, I think all gods are bastards and choose to not worship any of them, the Bible's ripoff of Sumer's Enlil included.
Many religious have sacred animals, the Romans had sacred geese, Hindus have cows, etc. I could do more research, but you get the point.
The Bible is a lot of things, and some part even share commonality with other Middle Eastern mythology, but what it is not, is a "ripoff".
Enjoy your Buddhism, because however far you are down that path, you have some serious attachment issues showing up in your anger here. You're as far away from Nirvana as a fat guy at a buffet is from fitness.
Sacred animals are not gods. Again, have knowledge before you speak. As far as my anger, excuse me if i didn't take your opinion over my teachers' and my own. Amituofo.
If you trample a American flag, or slaughter a sacred cow, what does that act represent? Same with sacrificing a bull, which the Israealites did, and a bull was the sacred animal of moloch. He's even depicted as a bull headed god.
Have knowledge before you speak.
Interesting to see you pretend to have some sort of zen calm right now, but it's to late here, I saw through you on this topic like a window pane.
Follow your teacher, please, yes. Buddha came to at least a partial truth about suffering and attachment.
You're still changing the goal posts. You said gods were depicted as animals. The only source of moloch as a bull is a roval warring tribe, one of the least historically valuable testimonies in that they have great reason to lie and distort.
Yahweh/hawah/hayah - "was" aka that which was (perceivable) before that which is (suggested). Ones consent to any suggestion implies a sacrifice within perceivable.
Not sacrificing "animals", but "anima/animation"...hence ignoring fluid (perceivable) when holding onto solid (suggested).
Your dissection was fairly astute, in that it recognized that sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding.
Since you've decided that's your special power :) take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
Words divide by de-fin-ition. Unfortunately we use them to commune.
So I'll never downdoot you, because you serve a purpose here that others won't provide.You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
That said (oh oh):
In the beginning was The Word aka Logos (all contained in all words aka Google) plus one.
Through lower division we get wordS.
Involution/Evolution. Always return to the source: That is, put them back together as one. Then we may learn what something is, as opposed to what it is not, based off it's opposite. I'm not an ant-semantite, I just know it's limitations.
When the 'law' and the 'will' become one thing, this 'will' becomes extraneous.
Until then it leads to error.
Your analytical bent would help, should you venture a little higher and look at what is behind Gematria and in fact, words, letters and number..........as ratios of ONE.
sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding
a) EXO (inception towards death) towards ESO (life) implies sacrifice aka whole (motion) establishing a place for each partial (matter) by internal separation (momentum).
b) Material-ist implies ones consent to suggested material-ism, hence matter/material holding onto other matter.
take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
a) ONE...it doesn't matter which letters are suggested; only ones consent LETTING another shape words with it.
b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials) by setting each apart from one another. The foundation for wholeness and apartheid implies ONE...for all is one in energy.
c) Words (suggested information) can only be shaped within sound (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
special power
Power (inception towards death) generates specials (life).
Words divide by de-fin-ition.
Ones consent to a suggested definition implies one to be a DEAF PHONECTICIAN aka one who ignores to discern self as divine (partial) within holy (whole) of perceivable sound.
The difference between division (being against) and separation (being within) can only be discerned by self...not by consenting to the suggestions of others; which tempt one into a conflict of reason aka into division aka into ignoring self for another.
One cannot choose among suggested choices without ignoring to be choice within perceivable.
Unfortunately we use them to commune.
a) Few suggest chance (fortune) to tempt many to ignore choice.
b) Few suggest pluralism (we) to tempt each singular (one) to ignore self for others.
c) Few suggest commune-ism to tempt each consenting one to become part of a collectivist many.
There's no "many" in nature unless one counts other ones as many. Each one within nature is distinct; different; apart from one another. Instead of looking for difference in alike behavior...notice that each one exists at a different position from one another.
You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
Which I try to break down within perceivable solution; like that interpretation aka interpreting action implies ones reaction to suggest an interpretation of perceivable action.
Interpreting perceivable inspiration as suggested information corrupts the one consenting to it; because then one holds onto words instead of adapting to being moved within sound.
Both answers and questions implies suggestion; only solution implies perception, hence being problem (life) within solution (inception towards death).
In the beginning was The Word...
...which you contradicted with "the word is formed letter-by-letter". I simply describe that contradicts by taking apart both words and letters, while trying to describe SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken".
Only within whole can partials (life) have beginning (inception) and end (death).
plus one
That implies lacking self discernment of being one (partial) within oneness (whole) by trying to add to whole.
In reality...addition of one implies inception; subtraction of one implies death; multiplication of one implies intercourse for off-spring through one another, and division of one implies separation of oneness into ones.
Consenting to monotheism implies one consenting to another ones suggestion aka 1+1=2...that contradicts MONO (single; one and only).
Perception implies one; suggestion implies plus one...if one consents to it.
Through lower division we get wordS.
a) Sound remains whole; while each partial instrument within choose to put words together by LETTING each other suggest definitions for them.
b) Others suggest one to get (suggestion) so that one ignores what one got (perception). One cannot get more than reality already offers...endlessly trying to get fiction "gets one got".
Always return to the source
The trick here is "turning"...transmuting ingredients in and out of base doesn't turn, it moves differently within (life) same direction (inception towards death).
Law (need) coming to be will (want) aka want (life) struggling to resist temptation within need (inception towards death).
Each ones free WILL of choice within oneness of natural LAW aka balancing on land; breathing air and being solid within fluid of water.
I'll never downdoot you
It's logos/logic aka a conflict of reason (updoot vs downdoot)...no matter which side one chooses. Only implication (if/then aka if oneness; then ones) prevents conflicts among one another.
a) Free will of choice can only exist at center of balance...others suggest agree vs disagree (imbalance) to tempt ones choice to incline towards a side, hence balancing self.
b) Ones will (life) can only exist within all way (inception towards death).
c) Does life agreeing or disagreeing with the process of dying change outcome?
Rincewind: "But...what if I really; really hardly disagree with dying?"
Human sacrifice was a norm before it switched to animals. The story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac was all about it. Then it was animals and doves in the church. Now it's a monetary tithe in its place in the orthodox. Still 'sacrifice' of material things not self.
We still have a long way to go.
Sacrificing material is a hell of a lot better than sacrificing life. Besides, how else do you think the priest is going to afford his CLK55
That's correct. Doves are 20 bucks, two for 50, now move along.
Wrong, that's what the jews do.
Christ (God) offered Himself as a sacrifice and instantiated the eucharist where material things (wine and bread) are transubstantiated into His body and blood via the Holy Spirit. The living God is being sacrificed every Sunday.
One is 'real', one is imitation of the same act.
It's the temptor/self that is to be sacrificed.
The ritual fails to convey the actual message, that's why it was stopped.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
It was never stopped. It continues to be practiced practically unchanged for 2000 years.
Using Christ's words to contradict His Church's practices, which He personally instantiated and later sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and the apostles is ignorant.
Disproof:
First men, then animals, then God/Jesus, then doves, now tithes and 'the eucharist'.
CHANGE
You said: "Using Christ's words to contradict His Church's practices, which He personally instantiated and later sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and the apostles is ignorant."
Mistaking man's constantly changing interpretation for God's WORD (truth) is what leads to error.
You probably don't realize how each book of the old testament is testament to the failure of the time's religion to come to ultimate truth and so was doomed to CHANGE.
Ignorant. One of us understands what the other is saying. One does not and ignores.
Read the source of what you believe you believe and find the error.
You know......that link you will definitely ignore.
Here it is again:
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Truths can't be disproven. And only Truth is eternally unchangeable.
Christ is what is left after the sacrifice is made.
And you have no lock on quotes or interpretation, know that.
Good luck on your reading.
Early Christians did that? Where do you get that from? It was the eucharist all the way till today. Tithe is nothing to do with sacrifice - it's a duty for every Christian to be charitable and help the Church but no one is forced to give back.
Again, it's not constantly changing. If it were the case, what makes your interpretation not subject to said constant change? Suppose your interpretation is correct, how do we know it will still be valid tomorrow? This leads to epistemological nihilism - the inability to have knowledge of the thing in question at all.
This is your gnostic interpretation of the text which you base on your gnostic worldview and its ruling presuppositions. The Christian interpretation shows perfect continuity in both the OT and the NT. What is the "ultimate truth" in your worldview, do we have access to it and if so, how? Where do you get the standard for truth?
Then why was God not happy when Cain offered some of his animals, and rejected that, which led to Cain murdering his brother?
It think its all about intention.
He supposedly offered imperfect animals, but it's an analogy of how the hunter/gatherer stage of civilization practiced human/animal sacrifice in the past. Wine as blood and bread as flesh of a god is sacrifice-by-proxy as is the sacrifice by God of his son to the literalist who needs such analogy. To understand and raise above the ritual would do away with its need. Some need signs, signals, and commandments (the 99), and some don't. It's nothing to brag on.
So was Cain really just envious of Abel because God accepted his brother's sacrifice and rejected his own, and then killed him out of a jealousy?
Or was it his foolish, ill-conceived attempt to please God with one more worthy that he would accept after being previously rejected, thinking God preferred human sacrifice over animal? 🤔
Interesting possibility. Who knows what Cain was really thinking or if Satan planted the idea in his mind? 🤷♂️
No, he wanted something out of it, that was with good intension.
God knew that, but he had to let free will in honor. He couldnt tell that he knew because that would interfere with free will.
So to Cain know in the most nrutral way he wasnt pleased with the intensions, Able got favored and that pissed Cain of so bad, he actually killed his brother over it.
I think he didnt do it to try best his brother by killing him.
Else he wouldnt have snarled back not being his brothers keeper
Cain and Abel are analogous characters for Agriculture taking over the Hunter-Gathering stage of civilization. This is known in higher circles.
All scripture was written by man.
You should try reading instead of “talking” to chat bots sometime then:
Genesis 3:21
Genesis 4:3
Those are just in the first few dozen pages...
Genesis 3:21 refers to Adam and Eve being given their fallen corporal bodies (they were angel-like pre-fall). God doesn't sacrifice to Himself, that's ridiculous.
But I guess it doesn't matter in free Bible interpretation class. "It's just me and muh Bible, boy". I've always said the sola scriptura protestant approach is an atheist-making machine.
Since this god is certainly said to sacrifice his "only BEGOTTEN' (which means things).....who did he sacrifice him to?
If god doesn’t sacrifice to himself then to whom did he give Jesus?
Who was Jesus sacrificed to?
God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is. Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
Comparative religion Arguments are for people who don't know what they are comparing with, to, or from without this understanding of source.
Actual comparitive religion will discover similarities leading to ultimate truths they share but don't own. I've done it my whole life. I don't suggest it lightly.
Until the true source is found, It becomes 'wise men in the dark' trying to describe an elephant.
Or as the sufic sage might say, "Like spittle from the mouths of fish on dry land."
Creation is made from Ideation first. All things.
Symbols are ideation.
To mistake the symbol for the ideation behind is 'looking at the finger pointing at the moon.'
You know what an argument between the true gnostics of every religion would sound like? Me either because there would be nothing to argue about. There would be a glorious silence instead.
Many paths, one source/destination. Many boats, one shoreline.
Once the shore is reached, one needs to get out of the boat.
See Christ calming The Storm while disciples ride it out in a boat.
Only Divine Inspiration can explain one's attempt to find the highest truths and the proof is in the pudding itself. Not its symbol.
Another proposition. What's the source of ideation? How do you have knowledge of the ultimate truth behind the interpretations and various takes? What makes universal metaphysical concepts like knowledge and truth at all possible in your worldview and where are they located?
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?
You’ll need to put some meat on the bones of that final analogy. In what context could you sacrifice yourself for you Loved one’s? Like, throwing yourself in front of a hail of bullets that were otherwise destined for them?
In that case, no you wouldn’t be sacrificing yourself to a god.
However, the Jesus story is fundamentally not that.
Christ doesn’t sacrifice HIMSELF at all. His sacrifice is ordained by his father. Remember, ‘for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son’ and ‘Father, father, why have you forsaken me’ and
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Here, you can see that Jesus was given as a sacrifice TO God.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here, you can see that he was a sacrifice FROM god.
So, God gives his son as a sacrifice to himself for the forgiveness of the world’s sins.
Why not just forgive the sins directly?
Christianity is dumb my man. The mental gymnastics you need to go through to make this retarded concept work is astonishing. And yet, you will impute all manner of nonsense reasoning to do so.
Would you sacrifice your own son to yourself to forgive the sins of your nieces and nephews when it is solely in your gift to forgive anyway? Of course you wouldn’t as that would be insane.
Christ didn't sacrifice himself. Now you aren't showing continuity. He was sacrificed by God's plan in literal interpretation, and then man blamed. If you don't offer your SELF to the God of All for its own Reason, magic and its motives won't matter.
If the Christos becomes the Christ and then Jesus Christ who absolves you from both sacrifice of self and sin, the original concept of the Christos and the Chrism are forsaken. During the time of modern Christianity's conception in Rome (Tarsus), gnostic christians called literalists "Seekers after smooth things." Meaning they miss the point by over-simplification.
They had a saying: "If you think heaven is in the sky, the birds in the sky will get there before you."
I've read that book many times over, gaining deeper understanding each time. Now read the one I sent the link to. I predict you won't. That would be a lot simpler.
Dude, Christ is God. He is the second person of the Trinity and He shares the same will as God the Father.
I'm sure you have the correct interpretation and you're getting deep into that hidden knowledge and meaning only the initiated can achieve, my gnostic friend. But that's not Christianity, you're doing your own thing based on the Bible and the Christian concepts. The fullness of the faith is the historic Church, which is the body of Christ - it includes the Bible, tradition, the apostles, the saints, the believers, the canons etc. and Christ is the sole head of that body. There is a very strict hierarchy. Christianity is not an esoteric occult religion - it is open to anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and seeks unity with God.
You'd be surprised to learn that every culture at the time (and much later) did animal sacrifices. Did you think the Ancient Greeks or Romans didn't sacrifice? The main crime Christians were convicted for in Rome was refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
Singling out the OT is grasping at straws. If anything, God forbid idolatry and human sacrifices the Canaanites and other people brought to Baal/Moloch.
Technically when God helps the Jews take an enemy city. The Jews are to totally destroy it and present it as an offering to God.
Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” (Numbers 21:2)
Do you the primary reason God asked people to sacrifice animals? Because pagan gods were often visualized as animals.
No it's because "god" is a bloodthirsty tyrant the same as every other deity. With the exception of Egypt and Ganesha in India, gods were depicted as human. Don't talk on matters you dont know about.
Ahem: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-gods-of-Egypt-depicted-from-the-embodiment-of-animals
You're right, to the extent that the God of the Bible punished those who engaged in human sacrifice. The child sacrificing cananites were punished by the Israelites taking their land and putting them to the sword. God will continue to punish those who sacrifice to demons those who kill those created in his image.
Don't talk on matters you don't now about.
But the Israelites murdered the Canaanite children themselves in the orders of god
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
Jos 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Yes, the Israelites put the demon worshiping child sacrificers to to the sword on orders. Just like when Israel fell into worshiping pagan gods, the Assyrians might swing by to punish them...of course they repent and say it won't happen again...but of course it does.
A lot of modernists and Christian heretics (but I repeat myself) have a problem with a God that punishes wrongdoing, but that's their problem not his. It still happens today, which is to say, God's collective punishment on whole nations, such as Haiti.
You are honestly a vile human. But that’s what belief in the genocidal, egomaniacal lord god of Israel does to a person
God is tough love sometimes, like all parents. If that offends, them I'm sorry.
It’s not tough love. The god of the Bible isn’t the god of humanity but exclusively the lord god of Israel.
He is a racial supremacist god who encouraged ‘his people’ To commit genocide.
Your changing the topic because you were called out for being wrong. I'm a Buddhist, I think all gods are bastards and choose to not worship any of them, the Bible's ripoff of Sumer's Enlil included.
Many religious have sacred animals, the Romans had sacred geese, Hindus have cows, etc. I could do more research, but you get the point.
The Bible is a lot of things, and some part even share commonality with other Middle Eastern mythology, but what it is not, is a "ripoff".
Enjoy your Buddhism, because however far you are down that path, you have some serious attachment issues showing up in your anger here. You're as far away from Nirvana as a fat guy at a buffet is from fitness.
Sacred animals are not gods. Again, have knowledge before you speak. As far as my anger, excuse me if i didn't take your opinion over my teachers' and my own. Amituofo.
If you trample a American flag, or slaughter a sacred cow, what does that act represent? Same with sacrificing a bull, which the Israealites did, and a bull was the sacred animal of moloch. He's even depicted as a bull headed god.
Have knowledge before you speak.
Interesting to see you pretend to have some sort of zen calm right now, but it's to late here, I saw through you on this topic like a window pane.
Follow your teacher, please, yes. Buddha came to at least a partial truth about suffering and attachment.
You're still changing the goal posts. You said gods were depicted as animals. The only source of moloch as a bull is a roval warring tribe, one of the least historically valuable testimonies in that they have great reason to lie and distort.
Yahweh/hawah/hayah - "was" aka that which was (perceivable) before that which is (suggested). Ones consent to any suggestion implies a sacrifice within perceivable.
Not sacrificing "animals", but "anima/animation"...hence ignoring fluid (perceivable) when holding onto solid (suggested).
Your dissection was fairly astute, in that it recognized that sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding.
Since you've decided that's your special power :) take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
Words divide by de-fin-ition. Unfortunately we use them to commune.
So I'll never downdoot you, because you serve a purpose here that others won't provide.You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
That said (oh oh):
In the beginning was The Word aka Logos (all contained in all words aka Google) plus one.
Through lower division we get wordS.
Involution/Evolution. Always return to the source: That is, put them back together as one. Then we may learn what something is, as opposed to what it is not, based off it's opposite. I'm not an ant-semantite, I just know it's limitations.
When the 'law' and the 'will' become one thing, this 'will' becomes extraneous. Until then it leads to error.
Your analytical bent would help, should you venture a little higher and look at what is behind Gematria and in fact, words, letters and number..........as ratios of ONE.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Word
a) EXO (inception towards death) towards ESO (life) implies sacrifice aka whole (motion) establishing a place for each partial (matter) by internal separation (momentum).
b) Material-ist implies ones consent to suggested material-ism, hence matter/material holding onto other matter.
a) ONE...it doesn't matter which letters are suggested; only ones consent LETTING another shape words with it.
b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials) by setting each apart from one another. The foundation for wholeness and apartheid implies ONE...for all is one in energy.
c) Words (suggested information) can only be shaped within sound (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
Power (inception towards death) generates specials (life).
Ones consent to a suggested definition implies one to be a DEAF PHONECTICIAN aka one who ignores to discern self as divine (partial) within holy (whole) of perceivable sound.
The difference between division (being against) and separation (being within) can only be discerned by self...not by consenting to the suggestions of others; which tempt one into a conflict of reason aka into division aka into ignoring self for another.
One cannot choose among suggested choices without ignoring to be choice within perceivable.
a) Few suggest chance (fortune) to tempt many to ignore choice.
b) Few suggest pluralism (we) to tempt each singular (one) to ignore self for others.
c) Few suggest commune-ism to tempt each consenting one to become part of a collectivist many.
There's no "many" in nature unless one counts other ones as many. Each one within nature is distinct; different; apart from one another. Instead of looking for difference in alike behavior...notice that each one exists at a different position from one another.
Which I try to break down within perceivable solution; like that interpretation aka interpreting action implies ones reaction to suggest an interpretation of perceivable action.
Interpreting perceivable inspiration as suggested information corrupts the one consenting to it; because then one holds onto words instead of adapting to being moved within sound.
Both answers and questions implies suggestion; only solution implies perception, hence being problem (life) within solution (inception towards death).
...which you contradicted with "the word is formed letter-by-letter". I simply describe that contradicts by taking apart both words and letters, while trying to describe SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken".
Only within whole can partials (life) have beginning (inception) and end (death).
That implies lacking self discernment of being one (partial) within oneness (whole) by trying to add to whole.
In reality...addition of one implies inception; subtraction of one implies death; multiplication of one implies intercourse for off-spring through one another, and division of one implies separation of oneness into ones.
Consenting to monotheism implies one consenting to another ones suggestion aka 1+1=2...that contradicts MONO (single; one and only).
Perception implies one; suggestion implies plus one...if one consents to it.
a) Sound remains whole; while each partial instrument within choose to put words together by LETTING each other suggest definitions for them.
b) Others suggest one to get (suggestion) so that one ignores what one got (perception). One cannot get more than reality already offers...endlessly trying to get fiction "gets one got".
The trick here is "turning"...transmuting ingredients in and out of base doesn't turn, it moves differently within (life) same direction (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "Turn around...Every now and then I get a little bit lonely...And you never coming 'round"... https://genius.com/Bonnie-tyler-total-eclipse-of-the-heart-lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo ...over one billion views yet seldom one with sight.
Law (need) coming to be will (want) aka want (life) struggling to resist temptation within need (inception towards death).
Each ones free WILL of choice within oneness of natural LAW aka balancing on land; breathing air and being solid within fluid of water.
It's logos/logic aka a conflict of reason (updoot vs downdoot)...no matter which side one chooses. Only implication (if/then aka if oneness; then ones) prevents conflicts among one another.
So you agree you will always disagree.
We're making progress already.
kek
a) Free will of choice can only exist at center of balance...others suggest agree vs disagree (imbalance) to tempt ones choice to incline towards a side, hence balancing self.
b) Ones will (life) can only exist within all way (inception towards death).
c) Does life agreeing or disagreeing with the process of dying change outcome?
Progression "makes" each one within apart from one another; those consenting to suggested pluralism (we) ignore to re-make self.