Cain's Sacrifice.

[blü 2]

No one has ever come outside of their sense perceptions to see if they, the sense perceptions, bear any semblance whatsoever, to what we sense. In fact, we know for a fact that all that exists outside our sense perceptions is a bloomin buzzin confusion.

You rely on your sense perceptions even when you're asleep, to keep you safe and to achieve your purposes in the world external to you. You know that we have instruments to detect for us and to measure phenomena that our senses aren't good at, eg light frequencies above and below our evolved range. If you don't think a real world is out there, how is it that you had parents,that you breathe air, drink water, eat food, post on RF?

Or are you saying that because we know enough about reality to state with some clarity the range and limitations of our senses, this entitles us to invent entities with our imagination and then assert their reality?

Do you know of any person who has ever been "out there in reality"?

Yes, 100 % of the people I know, including you.

Unfortunately there is nothing or nowhere outside the flesh and blood between the ears. That is where all reality is.

In that case you'll have no problem holding your breath for an hour. Let me know how it goes.

 

[Elihoenai]

Why yes. Of course. Jesus of Nazareth was slain by a rather wicked abuse of the law by the interpreters and guardians of that law. The hymn says: "He could have called, ten-thousand angels, to destroy the world, and set him free; he could have called, ten-thousand angels; but he died alone, for you and me."



John

Deuteronomy 28:7

7 The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.

Acts 7:58-60

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.


Do you understand this to mean that those who Follow Truly in the Footsteps of Yeshua/Jesus will also be Slain by the Wicked One Cain?

In the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament Consistently when Israel are Obedient to the Laws of Elohim/God Israel Prevails over their Enemies Under Elohim's/God's Protection while in the Greek Scriptures/New Testament Stephen, for example, although Obedient to the Laws of Elohim/God, is given over to the hand of Murdering Cain. How do you Reconcile these Lessons?

 

[John D. Brey]

How do you Reconcile these Lessons?

They're difficult to reconcile. So when I'm depressed and confused about it, I just read Psalms 73.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . are you saying that because we know enough about reality to state with some clarity the range and limitations of our senses, this entitles us to invent entities with our imagination and then assert their reality?

Yes. Using our imagination, coupled with faith that the world we live in is contrived to a very substantial degree, we're in the process of transforming so-called reality.

It took a lot of imagination, and the belief that so-called reality is malleable, in order to get this thing off the ground.

On the other hand, there's still unimaginative peoples and tribes on the planet who, because they don't think man is the measure of all things, and don't think reality is malleable to man, take pride in spear-chucking as about as far as you can go, technologically speaking, without upsetting mother nature such that she throws you a good beating.

Today, Western Civilization sees the separation of these two kinds of peoples in the binary argumentation employed by means of two primary ideologies, Left versus Right. The Left is, to this day, terrified mother nature is going to punish us for our technological prowess by heating up the planet, or some other natural disaster (see the penultimate scene in Avatar), which they consider justified by reason of the evil technological inclinations of the Right.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes. Using our imagination, coupled with faith that the world we live in is contrived to a very substantial degree, we're in the process of transforming so-called reality.

View attachment 98581

It took a lot of imagination, and the belief that so-called reality is malleable, in order to get this thing off the ground.

View attachment 98582

On the other hand, there's still unimaginative peoples and tribes on the planet who, because they don't think man is the measure of all things, and don't think reality is malleable to man, take pride in spear-chucking as about as far as you can go, technologically speaking, without upsetting mother nature such that she throws you a good beating.

Today, Western Civilization sees the separation of these two kinds of peoples in the binary argumentation employed by means of two primary ideologies, Left versus Right. The Left is, to this day, terrified mother nature is going to punish us for our technological prowess by heating up the planet, or some other natural disaster (see the penultimate scene in Avatar), which they consider justified by reason of the evil technological inclinations of the Right.



John

Nooo, you went political!!! Why??

Here is a meme from the good men of South Park (one who is Jewish), should we consider the key words reality, senses, and 100%.

Ask and this post shall be deleted.

 

[John D. Brey]

Nooo, you went political!!! Why??

Here is a meme from the good men of South Park (one who is Jewish), should we consider the key words reality, senses, and 100%.

View attachment 98588

Ask and this post shall be deleted.

I don't understand the meme? I'm slow that way.

I went political, and then deleted the political statement (in order to not go political). I left (so to say) the ideological statement right (so to say) where it was.

Yes, ideology (left vs. right) is quasi-political. But my experience in a forum like this, as well as in the brick and mortar world, is that the left considers itself, and is often considered, apolitical, such that in the thinking of the left, the only ideology that exists is the right. In that worldview (i.e., the left), reality is leftist. Morality is leftist. Which means the left isn't even a pole on a spectrum. It's just the natural, good, element of existence itself: the ideological right, being the pimple on the arse of an otherwise pimple-less reality, that upsets the apple-cart (if you can forgive the mixed metaphor).

To the extent this is the case, ideology becomes philosophical. And where philosophy is appreciated as a hand-maiden of theology . . . well . . . here I am.




John

 

[blü 2]

Yes. Using our imagination, coupled with faith that the world we live in is contrived to a very substantial degree, we're in the process of transforming so-called reality.

That simply means that our perception and our understanding of reality alter over time and place. Reality remains the same.

So as I said at the start, we are going to disagree.

 

[GoodAttention]

I don't understand the meme? I'm slow that way.

I went political, and then deleted the political statement (in order to not go political). I left (so to say) the ideological statement right (so to say) where it was.

Yes, ideology (left vs. right) is quasi-political. But my experience in a forum like this, as well as in the brick and mortar world, is that the left considers itself, and is often considered, apolitical, such that in the thinking of the left, the only ideology that exists is the right. In that worldview (i.e., the left), reality is leftist. Morality is leftist. Which means the left isn't even a pole on a spectrum. It's just the natural, good, element of existence itself: the ideological right, being the pimple on the arse of an otherwise pimple-less reality, that upsets the apple-cart (if you can forgive the mixed metaphor).

To the extent this is the case, ideology becomes philosophical. And where philosophy is appreciated as a hand-maiden of theology . . . well . . . here I am.




John

I believe the meme shows a man, to the right of the Jewish gentleman, degrading himself by indulging in the senses of his...creative bubbles of "rightality".

Unfortunately the Jewish gentleman on the left degrades himself by watching such a degradation take place and saying...nothing

In the end, left and right are just directions on the Cain-like infinite circle-jerk know as ideologies, such that one should take care when exploring such philosophies especially when they self-proclaim the titles of "hand" and "maiden" as the right-she-is label of (Christian) theology.

 

[John D. Brey]

That simply means that our perception and our understanding of reality alter over time and place. Reality remains the same.

It seems like perception and reality go hand in hand. For instance, at one time Newtonian physics seemed like the best expression of reality we had. But then quantum physics came along and showed that Newtonian physics wasn't as comprehensive as we thought. Who's to say in the near or far future something far beyond quantum physics (so far as undermining our understanding of reality) won't come along? And then something else after that.

Key point being, aboriginal peoples know nothing about reality as it's expressed in either Newtonian physics, or quantum physics, just as we are ourselves probably like aborigines in comparison to some far future civilization whose technological prowess, and understanding of reality, we can't even begin to imagine.

Point being, beings, us, either imagine new possibilities and then make them so, so to say, or we keep grinding corn with rocks believing reality is set, and that if you tinker with it, you might unleash global warming or worse.

So as I said at the start, we are going to disagree.

Disagreement is probably good. It could mean we're not just sitting with our legs crossed around a stone bowl grinding corn smiling at one another while the lady folk fetch water in the swine-belly-membrane fashioned to stay on their head for long journeys to and from the local watering hole. You know, like our forefathers have been doing for eons and eons as guardians of the status quo nature allotted us.



John

 

[Elihoenai]

They're difficult to reconcile. So when I'm depressed and confused about it, I just read Psalms 73.



John

Philippians 4:11

11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.


Having Absolute Certainty that Elohim/God is in Charge in Every Situation Annihilates Depression and Confusion. Given that you are Totally Devoted to Elohim/God, you are Protected for the Finished Work that Elohim/God has given you to do. Stephen Completed his Work and Elohim/God Received Stephen at the time that Elohim/God Ordained.

The Realisation that Elohim/God is in Charge in Every Situation Is Freedom!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

oops

 

[BrokenBread]

The larger fractal pattern for which the story of Cain's sacrifice is a smaller, self-similar motif, is the heathen cult-sacrifice of children (Isaiah 57:5) which acts as the lead up to the eventual sacrifice of a righteous adult as an apotropaic, totemic, offering to a tribal deity (Genesis 4:7).


John

We can see that God has taken everything that the heathen carnal mind has come up with and turned it on it's head.
For instance Isaac was no helpless child Abraham's advanced age required that he have Isaac carry the wood.

Gen 22:6
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

No child of the heathen ever went willingly into the fire red hot glowing arms of the god Moloch
Abraham was not the only one with faith in the matter, Isaac willingly with faith in God submitted .
Additionally "the eventual sacrifice of a righteous adult as an apotropaic," was not what the sacrifice of Isaac was leading to.
Abraham was already assured the promise of God:
But what did God promise Abraham?
Genesis 12:1-3. It reads:
“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
In fact the way I understand it if Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac God who cannot lie would have still been obligated to fulfill the promise since Abraham had already kept his inherent obligation with the confines of the promise
The sacrifice to moloch was not "apotropaic" in nature to begin with either.
Not to assuage sin or evil , but motivated by their sin and evil.

Not a sacrifice for sufficient provision, but for greed to have more & more:

WORSHIPING MOLOCH – The human sacrifice of children to assure prosperity.​

 

[John D. Brey]

We can see that God has taken everything that the heathen carnal mind has come up with and turned it on it's head.
For instance Isaac was no helpless child Abraham's advanced age required that he have Isaac carry the wood.

One of the primary ideas in the thread is that Cain's offering to God wasn't actually agricultural but was in fact child-sacrifice. In that sense, Cain was offering his offspring in the hope that it would appease God in some way for the nature of his own sinful conception and birth. When that failed, the text implies that Cain offered his brother at the behest of the one to whom he was previously offering his offspring.



John

 

[BrokenBread]

One of the primary ideas in the thread is that Cain's offering to God wasn't actually agricultural but was in fact child-sacrifice. In that sense, Cain was offering his offspring in the hope that it would appease God in some way for the nature of his own sinful conception and birth. When that failed, the text implies that Cain offered his brother at the behest of the one to whom he was previously offering his offspring.



John

Yes the spirit of Cain's sacrifice was more in keeping with the heathen spirit of sacrifice but I don't think that Cain or the people offering up their children to Moloch felt they had done anything sinful they needed to apologize for.
I believe that much like the heathen worshippers expecting prosperity for their sacrifice, Cain expected to get a pat on the head and rewarded for being such a good boy.
As far as his killing Abel goes for me the text implies it was not sacrificial in nature, but out of jealousy due to the fact that Abel received the pat on the head from God that Cain thought he was deserving of.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes the spirit of Cain's sacrifice was more in keeping with the heathen spirit of sacrifice but I don't think that Cain or the people offering up their children to Moloch felt they had done anything sinful they needed to apologize for.
I believe that much like the heathen worshippers expecting prosperity for their sacrifice, Cain expected to get a pat on the head and rewarded for being such a good boy.
As far as his killing Abel goes for me the text implies it was not sacrificial in nature, but out of jealousy due to the fact that Abel received the pat on the head from God that Cain thought he was deserving of.

I think we agree for the most part. We here (this forum) did some exegesis on these things quite a while ago in a thread called Cain's Sanctification (which was edited into an essay). This current thread is based on some of the exegesis done there, which showed that in the Hebrew text, Cain's sacrifice of Abel is not only sacrificial, but that he's told to sacrifice Abel by God, for his (Cain's) own redemption.

This thread builds on the sacerdotal nature of the sacrifice of a relative for salvific purposes by noting that in Judaism's own words, brit milah (ritual circumcision) symbolizes child-sacrifice. When, in the first century of the current era, brit milah failed to engender God's providence and protection against the Romans, Israel, as a corporate type of Cain, sacrifice one of their own brothers under the spoken (by the high priest Caiaphas) belief that the death of the sacrificial offering would spare Israel from a death-sentence come from Rome.

The primary point of this thread was to compare Cain's offering of his offspring (potentially an archetype of brit milah), with the self-same results that occurred in the first century of the current era when brit milah failed to appease God such that the offering of an adult brother upped the ante.




John

 

[BrokenBread]

I think we agree for the most part. We here (this forum) did some exegesis on these things quite a while ago in a thread called Cain's Sanctification (which was edited into an essay). This current thread is based on some of the exegesis done there, which showed that in the Hebrew text, Cain's sacrifice of Abel is not only sacrificial, but that he's told to sacrifice Abel by God, for his (Cain's) own redemption.

That seems a highly unlikely scenario to me in that with already knowing a little about Cains character in connection with his initial offering, if He was going to do anything thereafter make nice with God, He would more likely be proud of sacrificing Abel rather than concealing and saying nothing about the good thing he had done for God ?
Gen 4:9
¶
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not:

 

[John D. Brey]

That seems a highly unlikely scenario to me in that with already knowing a little about Cains character in connection with his initial offering, if He was going to do anything thereafter make nice with God, He would more likely be proud of sacrificing Abel rather than concealing and saying nothing about the good thing he had done for God ?
Gen 4:9
¶
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not:

Absolutely. That is, until we look at the Hebrew text and find out that the Masoretic Text is a textbook case of a Jewish prejudice being used, literally overlaid, over the sacred (unpointed Hebrew text) in order to interpret in a manner that's consistent with the same Jewish interpretation that existed in Jesus' day, and which got Jesus in hot water for correcting it.

Correcting the Hebrew text requires some really careful and exacting exegesis. Some of that is provided at the link provided in the previous message. Admittedly it's a pretty wholesale reinterpretation of the traditional understanding of the text. To which I would merely say that the truth is truly stranger than fiction, and that leaving the orthodox traditions is not for the weak at heart of the weekend warrior. If a person were abel, so to say, to sacrifice themselves so far as their existing prejudices are concerned, it's probably true that Cain's Sanctification gives enough context and exegesis for a fair-minded god-fearer to determine whether this is all just conspiracy-theory inspired peeing in the wind, or a serious examination that throws off millennia of dust, dirt, and prejudice, to get to the spirit of things. Which is to point out that the arguments in this thread grow out of the exegesis of that thread.



John

 

[BrokenBread]

Absolutely. That is, until we look at the Hebrew text and find out that the Masoretic Text is a textbook case of a Jewish prejudice being used, literally overlaid, over the sacred (unpointed Hebrew text) in order to interpret in a manner that's consistent with the same Jewish interpretation that existed in Jesus' day, and which got Jesus in hot water for correcting it.

Correcting the Hebrew text requires some really careful and exacting exegesis. Some of that is provided at the link provided in the previous message. Admittedly it's a pretty wholesale reinterpretation of the traditional understanding of the text. To which I would merely say that the truth is truly stranger than fiction, and that leaving the orthodox traditions is not for the weak at heart of the weekend warrior. If a person were abel, so to say, to sacrifice themselves so far as their existing prejudices are concerned, it's probably true that Cain's Sanctification gives enough context and exegesis for a fair-minded god-fearer to determine whether this is all just conspiracy-theory inspired peeing in the wind, or a serious examination that throws off millennia of dust, dirt, and prejudice, to get to the spirit of things. Which is to point out that the arguments in this thread grow out of the exegesis of that thread.



John

So if what you say is true, would not the repercussions go far beyond the book of Genesis where other references to Abel & Cain are made, which would in turn have further repercussions in regard to those figures making said references & on & on it goes ?

 

[John D. Brey]

So if what you say is true, would not the repercussions go far beyond the book of Genesis where other references to Abel & Cain are made, which would in turn have further repercussions in regard to those figures making said references & on & on it goes ?

Yes. There would have to be perfect symmetry throughout the scripture. I think there is. Can you think of a place that would cause a problem?




John

 

[BrokenBread]

Yes. There would have to be perfect symmetry throughout the scripture. I think there is. Can you think of a place that would cause a problem?




John

Yes, even before the sacrificing of Abel by Cain.
Following this never before heard version of redemption for Cain, and attempting to think in harmony along with it combined the prior references to child sacrifice fresh in my mind, taking it all into account I cannot see why it would not have been just as pleasing to God for Him to tell Adam & Eve to sacrifice Abel or Cain, or both of them for their redemption as well ?
After all they both were first humans in line in need of redemption.