1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Christianity Became Pagan

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by godnotgod, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,133
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    No it didn't. Even great spiritual people still sin -- and have been doing so for the past 2000 years.
    He is humanity's savior because of the self-sacrificial love -- not the blood.
    Oh, the self-sacrifice is very real -- but it has nothing to do with the actual blood, other than the metaphoric symbol of one's life being poured out.
    Belief has nothing to do with it. Jesus came to save humanity -- not just believers.
    The New Covenant implies that old ways are no longer in force. No scapegoating was carried out, because Jesus overcame the death that is necessary to scapegoating. It began as a "play" of a scapegoating act, because that was the old sacrificial paradigm. But that paradigm shifted from one of finality to one of new life.
     
  2. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    You did not connect my two statements: the one-time blood sacrifice of Jesus made it possible for all sinners, present and future, to gain redemption and access to heaven, which was closed by the Sin of Adam and Eve. By accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior, one is saved, but Salvation was only possible by the shedding of divine blood.


    But he said it was because of the blood himself, again:

    "Drink of it, all of you: this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins."

    What do you mean, 'self-sacrificial love'? What sense does that make? The reality was that the Jewish high priests wanted him crucified because of blasphemy, while the Romans did because of sedition and treason. Jesus had no choice in the matter.


    But non-believers cannot be saved:

    "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

    That is conditional love, or in psychological terms, apparent love.

    So a Buddhist or Hindu who does not accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior is not saved, according to Christian doctrine. BTW, everyone is saved in Mahayana Buddhism, because there are no conditions as there are in Christianity. You claim salvation comes via Jesus's 'sacrificial love', but that is an oxymoron, as real love is unconditional, in which no sacrifice is necessary
    .

    You are aware, are you not, that the 'old ways', are considered prefigurements, so what I am saying is that, in essence, their intent and functions are the same as the 'new'. The Paschal Lamb sacrificed and eaten upon the Jews Exodus from Egypt is a prefigurement for Jesus, the Lamb of God, the whole point being blood sacrifice as a means of atonement. Without the shedding of blood, there can be no atonement. The goat sent away into the wilderness by the Jews is a prefigurement for Jesus being crucified and dying (ie; 'sent away') on the cross, in both cases the scapegoat carrying away sin and guilt, either sent away (to die) or destroyed as in Jesus's case.

    The fact that a covenant had to come into play is just another set of conditions for man being able to receive divine favor. The reality of this situation is further indication that men wrote the scriptures and infused human ideas into them. "I will forgive you; I will love you, if only you will do this or that, or not do this or that". That is not unconditional love. Unconditional love would have it that God would have set aside Adam and Eve's sin and forgive them unconditionally. After all, God is the one who created the scenario in the first place, the first Sting Operation, so to speak.

    In reality, what you call 'the old paradigm', and the new are still the product of ignorance and superstition, in which one believes, for whatever reason, that the shedding of blood, whether divine or animal, somehow magically washes sin and guilt away. This involves projection and transference, instead of direct confrontation and resolution by the sufferer and his own self-illumination. If no one believes that blood has this power, then it will not have this power. Belief is the key, as it also is in voodoo.

    I believe that what has happened is that the old primitive superstitions have merely been raised and refined to a new level known as 'white magic'. In other words, they have been ritualized and formalized via a kind of high class mumbo jumbo to make them appear more 'official' and 'authoritative', and even more mysterious, while at their core, they are virtually the same psychological mechanisms at play.
     
    #62 godnotgod, Oct 23, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
  3. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,133
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Tell me: What blood was shed in the Incarnation? Because that's when humanity was reconciled to God.
    Ah! But he did have a choice. He could have shut up, gone into hiding, and lived a loooong life. He didn't have to go to Jerusalem. In fact, the gospel story tells us that "he set his face toward Jerusalem." He chose to put himself in harm's way, because he loved us.
    Right! And "through me" happened in the Incarnation.
    Nope. The love that Jesus exemplified in God-With-Us is available to all humanity.
    As I've just pointed out, the sacrifice wasn't necessary. It was a choice.
    No it isn't. Just ask any Jew, and they'll tell you that. The lamb eaten by the exodus Jews was in no way intended as a prefigurement for Jesus. We see it that way, because it helps us to connect with our roots, but that's not what was intended.
    Substitutionary atonement is not the only legitimate theology -- and I certainly don't buy it.
    See above. There is no "prefigurement" of Jesus in the OT.
    The new covenant isn't a condition for Divine favor, it is the effect of Divine favor, or grace.
    You're not saying anything new or earth-shattering here. Of course human beings wrote the texts. Do you think they fell out of the sky??? Of course they're full of human ideas. Theology is a human endeavor.
    Ah! But that's not what it says. What it says is that the Father waits for the lost son until he is found, and that the shepherd will search for the lost sheep until it is found. God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." The Psalmist says, "Where can I hide from [God]?" Paul says that nothing can separate us from the love of God.
    If you remember, God did mitigate the penalty of immediate death. But there are always consequences for our actions.
    Only for those who choose to believe in Substitutionary Atonement -- which I do not.
    Or, God is the key, just as God was the key in the beginning.
    Opinions vary. Mine is that we were created in love, and love is the operative paradigm for the world. What we need "saved" from is our own illusions of who we are that cause us to live in states of sin.
     
  4. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    If that were true, the Crucifixion would not have been necessary. It was the blood sacrifice of the Crucifixion that appeased the insatiably angry Yaweh over the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, who represented all of mankind, and which at last re-opened the Gates of Paradise. No sacrifice had been acceptable in the eyes of God other than his very own son, a sacrifice planned from the very beginning.

    But he had no prior knowledge that he was to be crucified.

    Not. It happened in the blood sacrifice of the Crucifixion:

    "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

    ....'through me', being 'through my blood', that man is saved/reconciled.

    If that were true, Jesus would not create a condition for such salvation:

    "..no man goes to the Father but through me."

    Once a condition is set, Christian doctrine has been accepted. In so accepting, one is now converted to being a Christian. A Buddhist cannot be saved without satisfying such conditions. Because of the condition being set, it renders Christianity not a universal love, but a love available to only the select who satisfy the condition.


    If the sacrifice was'nt necessary, why was it necessary? If God 'gave his only begotten Son', it was planned right from the beginning, making it necessary.


    To be continued...:)
     
    #64 godnotgod, Oct 28, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2012
  5. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    Jesus's alleged words from the cross:

    "Father, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    are the words of someone lost, who has no idea what is going on, nor why. These are not the words of someone who knew he was to be crucified.

    If we look at these words spoken in Aramaic and translated by the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross who spoke Hebrew, they become:

    "For this I was saved"

    ..which are the words of someone who suddenly realizes why he is in the position he is in; not by someone who knew what was going to occur.
     
  6. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    You're missing the point: human beings wrote the texts through the human mind, not through the way the divine sees reality. In other words, humans first project what the divine nature might be like onto some 'other', and then put words in his mouth, all via of human views of reality.

    Theology may be a human endeavor, but spirituality is divine, in which the human mind becomes completely transformed, and reality is no longer seen in limited human terms.
     
  7. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,133
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    That's true only if one buys into Substitutionary Atonement and Original Sin, which I think are both crap. The crucifixion was unnecessary.
    Yes, he did.
    Nope. Wine, not human blood, is the "blood" of the new covenant -- which is partly what distinguishes it from the old covenant, in which a blood sacrifice was necessary. In other words, it's the fellowship and community wrought in the ritual meal of the symposion, which is a type for the fellowship and community God established with humanity by becoming Incarnate, that is efficacious.
    A deeper theological reading of the texts reveals that the disciples were concerned about ultimate separation. But they were with Jesus, and knew Jesus -- and were in communion with Jesus. When Jesus said (in answer to "we don't know the way") "I am the way ... not one comes..." he was saying that the disciples were not ultimately separated from God, but that they (through Jesus in the Incarnation) were reconciled to God.
    So... "emptying" one's self isn't a sacrifice??? That sacrifice was necessary, but the crucifixion? Nope. It's useful as a type, but not of itself efficacious.
     
  8. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,133
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, which uses that precise phrase. i wonder why the gospel writer would have Jesus say that?
     
  9. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    As it turns out, the connection to Psalm 22 is to push the envelope by Christian apologists in order to claim prophecy and to therefore gain more 'credible' ground for their doctrine.

    It should have been realized that, if Jesus really knew what was going on; why he was being 'sacrificed', that he was shortly to return to the Father and Paradise, he would never have thought of himself as 'forsaken' in the least. More likely he would have been in ecstatic trance in anticipation of what he was about to experience.

    Personally, I tend to put more credibility on the Aramaic argument, that Yeshu had no prior knowledge of his 'planned' crucifixion, that his punishment was purely a matter of condemnation by the Jewish high priests on the one hand for blasphemy, and sedition and treason on the other by the Romans, the doctrines of 'blood sacrifice' for sin redemption, bodily resurrection, and eternal life, having been overwritten onto the teachings of Yeshu by Rome for mass appeal, something the more difficult spiritual practices called for by Yeshua and his Essenes failed to provide via simple belief.

    Therefore, for Yeshua to profess: 'For this I was saved', is to suddenly realize the true reality of his experience.
     
  10. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    In reality it was, but that does nothing for the millions who believe otherwise. REAL blood had to be shed; REAL death and then resurrection had to be witnessed for the belief to galvanize and take hold. It's like when a Mexican used to bite a gold piece to verify that it really was gold.

    Otherwise, how are the masses, who are told to believe, to 'know' that a divine sacrifice had actually taken place, if only a kenosis had been claimed?

    In fact, it was the extreme suffering and agony experienced during the Crucifixion that is cause for kenosis.

    Superficially, the spectacle of the Crucifixion was necessary for the masses to 'know' that such a sacrifice had actually occurred. After all, one's eternal destiny was at stake. One had to visually witness the spectacle of the Crucifixion in order to believe.
     
    #70 godnotgod, Oct 30, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
  11. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    But what significance for sin redemption does wine have?

    I think you misunderstand that wine is merely symbolic of blood, the blood possessing the real power. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said:

    "Drink [of this wine], for this is my blood...."

    Catholics go so far as to claim that the wine served in the Mass is actually and literally transformed into the blood of Jesus, something called transubstantiation. You may call it crap, but millions of Catholics believe this to be real.

    Even in the pagan Mithraic practices, an initiate literally washed himself in the cleansing power of the blood of the sacrificial bull. In their Eucharistic rituals, they literally ate the flesh and drank the blood of the slaughtered bull.
     
    #71 godnotgod, Oct 30, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
  12. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    12,025
    Ratings:
    +1,646
    By age 12 Jesus was already well educated in the Hebrew OT Scriptures, so by age 30 Jesus would have known the prophecies regarding himself.

    Please notice at the beginning of Jesus ministry [ John 2 v 4 ] that Jesus mentions that his 'hour' has not yet come. Jesus knew his 'hour' was coming [future]

    Later at John [ 7 v 6 ] Jesus mentions his 'time' has not yet come [ be future]

    Even later at John [12 v 23 ] then Jesus announces that his 'hour has come' [present]
    Please notice what sort of death mentioned at John [ 12 vs 27,28,33 ]
    -Isaiah 53 vs 3,5

    At Matthew [ 26 v 2 ] Jesus knowingly says he is to be betrayed and impaled.

    So, Jesus knew he was going to die for us. Die of his own free-will choice for us.
    Being 'forsaken' would show being abandoned or released into enemy hands.
    God was not comforting Jesus to remain faithful. Jesus would remain faithful of his own accord for us.
     
  13. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    18,858
    Ratings:
    +961
    Or maybe he just actually asked God why did he forsaken him.

    You know, cause he was in a cross bleeding to death.

    Just a thought.
     
  14. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    But why would he ask such a question, since he already knew he was about to enter Paradise? He even told one of the other men on the cross next to him that he would be in Paradise on that very day. He would have been jumping for joy (were it not for those dammed nails) in a state of pure ecstasy!

    "Me, forsaken? Are you kidding? Why, I'm on my way to Paradise, buddy, and if it weren't for that nine-inch nail through both my feet, why, I'd be clicking my heels together at the prospect! Forsaken? Ha! Not a chance!":angel2:

    Just a thought.....
    :D

    (Uh...you don't suppose someone was putting words in good old Jesus's mouth, now...do you?.....naaaah!)
     
    #74 godnotgod, Oct 31, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  15. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    Religion:
    Ludditism

    To jump to the conclusion that 'Jesus knew he was going to die for us' is a stretch, as much of Christian apologetics are, and the passage from Matt 26:2 is strangely suspicious, as are the other passages from Matthew pointing to a non-existent 'Nazareth', it never having been mentioned in the OT or the Talmud, and for which virtually no archaeological evidence exists. In other words, I suspect these passages were back-written into the Bible to lend credibility to the so-called 'prophecy'.

    That there is virtual silence about Jesus from age 12 until he burst upon the world at age 30 is exceedingly strange, being that he was God in the flesh, and that we have more about him from Eastern writings than from his own camp. When all of these anomalies are added up, they begin to look very much like myth, rather than reality.

    What do you have from the OT that points to a prophesied Crucifixion, other than Psalm 22, which is not about Jesus, but about David.
    *****

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. He regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term, i.e. a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of God,) for the whole world. Jesus believed himself to be the figure prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things. He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans, since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. This miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah. When this miracle did not occur, his mission had failed. He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice. He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten Commandments."


    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Perhaps the reference to 'my hour has not yet come' has to do with the scenario given above, rather than that of any 'crucifixion'.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    *****

    [/FONT]

    Jesus did not come to die

    The Jews of Palestine expected the arrival of a Prophet who’d overthrow the Roman government and destroy the occupation, not to be crucified by them! Jesus made it clear that the purpose of his mission was to preach the Law and the Gospel (only) to the Children of Israel:

    Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:38)

    But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." (Luke 4:43)

    For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11, KJV only)

    For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10)

    But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13)

    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)




    http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_crucifixion_hoax_1.htm
     
    #75 godnotgod, Oct 31, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  16. Amechania

    Amechania Daimona of the Helpless

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,450
    Ratings:
    +282
    It's just a literary device used by the author of Matthew to remind readers of the 22nd Psalm with the intention of portraying Jesus as Messiah.
     
  17. Ingledsva

    Ingledsva HEATHEN ALASKAN

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,391
    Ratings:
    +2,485
    Actually the Hebrew originally had human sacrifice.

    EZEKIEL 20:25-26 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and ordinances whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that openeth the womb (First Born), that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

    Exodus 22: 29 –Thou shalt not delay TO OFFER the FIRST of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: THE FIRSTBORN OF THY SONS SHALT THOU GIVE UNTO ME.

    Leviticus 27: 28, 29 Notwithstanding NO devoted thing, that a man
    shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, BOTH OF "MAN"
    and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed:
    every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.
    29 - None devoted, which shall be devoted of men shall be redeemed;
    BUT SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.

    Read - The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son - The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity - Jon D. Levenson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Divinity School and the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University
     
  18. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    12,025
    Ratings:
    +1,646
    No. Not a 'literal' human sacrifice, just animals were sacrificed.

    Ezekiel 20 vs 25,26 is in connection to God's judgment against Israel. It was the Israelites that were proving false to God in verse 24 by literally sacrificing their children.
    Such a literal burning was forbidden. see Ezekiel 16 vs 20 - 23.

    See also:
    Leviticus 18 v 21; 2nd Kings 16 v 3; 17 v 17; 21 v 6; 2nd Chronicles 28 v 3; 33 v 6; Jeremiah 7 v 31; 19 v 5; 32 v 35.

    The 'human sacrifice' under the Constitution of the Mosaic law was the sacrificing of one's self in the giving up one's self in the service of another.
    Even today a person might sacrifice some comfort in order to help another.
    Animal sacrifices could not cover our sins, so that could not ransom us from our sins.
    Jesus sacrificial death was a 'ransom sacrifice' for us.
    - Matt 20 v 28; Hebrews 9 vs 26-28; 10 vs 10,12
     
  19. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    12,025
    Ratings:
    +1,646
    Matthew 20 v 28....to give his life a ransom for many
    Mark 10 v 45...to give his life a ransom for many
    Romans 3 v 24...through the ransom paid by Christ Jesus
    Colossians 1 v 14 In whom we have our release by ransom...
    1st Timothy 2 v 6...Jesus gave himself a ransom for all.....
    Hebrews 9 v 15...that by means of Jesus' death for the ransom...[our release from sins]
     
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,133
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Godnotgod:
    Hmmm. Well, it is a direct quotation of Psalm 22. As to why the gospel writer would put that quotation in Jesus' mouth is up for debate.

    Godnotgod:
    and yet, the gospels are clear that Jesus did know -- and since they are the only record we have of Jesus, that's the assumption that we have to go with. Anything else is pure conjecture.
     
Loading...