Cain's Sacrifice.

[John D. Brey]

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 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.

Excellent point. Which segues into the nature of Adam and Eve's need for redemption? Their redemption is required because of the original sin, which is the conception of Cain. Since Cain is the first born-sinner (i.e., his conception is the original sin), he's the first of the "nephilim" נפלים, or "fallen ones." As the Talmud tells us, his actual father isn't the first human, but the angelic serpent. From strict exegesis of the Hebrew text we can know that Cain's father is the angelic serpent, and that his brother, Abel, is already in Eve's womb from the time she's cloned from the first human (think of a latter-day woman conceived already pregnant such that her firstborn is in the bedchamber of her temple prior to the entrance of the flesh created in the serpent's image).

Since Abel is in Eve's womb from the get-go, if Abel is born before the membrane on Eve's temple is torn by the serpent (contaminating her temple), Abel would be qualified to redeem Adam and Eve. Except that then, ironically, they wouldn't need redemption since Abel would have been born as the firstborn of creation prior to the fall that is the serpentine conception of Cain. Cain is conceived with the seed of Abel already in Eve's womb. They're thus born as twin brothers. One is virgin conceived, and the other is the first human conceived by the serpent. Cain usurps Abel's birth and is thus reckoned the messianic-firstborn (Colossians 1:16) when in fact he's a perfect analogue not of Christ, but of anti-Christ (his father).

Cain comes to understand the sacerdotal elements of all of this and is literally told (where the Hebrew is properly exegeted) that the sacrifice of Abel is the means whereby salvation can be obtained. When Abel is sacrificed, God takes the blood of the sacrifice and puts a mark on Cain just as Moses marked every Jew with the blood of the sacrifice in Exodus. It's the blood of Abel, like the blood of animal sacrifices thereafter, that symbolize the true salvation that will come (and be applied retroactively) when a child is found out in the womb of a virgin such that he opens the veil of his mother's temple from the inside out (as was the design for Abel) rather than the serpentine flesh of his father opening it from the outside in, ala the conception of Cain and sin.

Naturally these things are all well-known on some level since no flesh has been more demonized, and covered up, in shame (even Hollywood, that is, modern Sodom and Gomorrah, won't uncover it on the screen). And when God chooses Abraham to reinstate the original covenant that would have resulted in the virgin birth of Abel, he has Abraham symbolize the renewal of that covenant by taking a knife and stabbing it, to the point of bleeding, thereby leaving a large scar, on the organ created in the image of Cain's father. Isaac is analogue of Abel had he (Abel) been born before the serpent opened the membrane or veil on his (Abel's) mother's temple. By ritually removing the offensive flesh, Abraham renders Isaac, at least ritually speaking, an analogue of what Abel was intended to be prior to the serpent forcing himself into the fore skene of the original story.



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 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.

Excellent point. Which segues into the nature of Adam and Eve's need for redemption? Their redemption is required because of the original sin, which is the conception of Cain. Since Cain is the first born-sinner (i.e., his conception is the original sin), he's the first of the "nephilim" נפלים, or "fallen ones." As the Talmud tells us, his actual father isn't the first human, but the angelic serpent. From strict exegesis of the Hebrew text we can know that Cain's father is the angelic serpent, and that his brother, Abel, is already in Eve's womb from the time she's cloned from the first human (think of a latter-day woman conceived already pregnant such that her firstborn is in the bedchamber of her temple prior to the entrance of the flesh created in the serpent's image).

Since Abel is in Eve's womb from the get-go, if Abel is born before the membrane on Eve's temple is torn by the serpent (contaminating her temple), Abel would be qualified to redeem Adam and Eve. Except that then, ironically, they wouldn't need redemption since Abel would have been born as the firstborn of creation prior to the fall that is the serpentine conception of Cain. Cain is conceived with the seed of Abel already in Eve's womb. They're thus born as twin brothers. One is virgin conceived, and the other is the first human conceived by the serpent. Cain usurps Abel's birth and is thus reckoned the messianic-firstborn (Colossians 1:16) when in fact he's a perfect analogue not of Christ, but of anti-Christ (his father).

Cain comes to understand the sacerdotal elements of all of this and is literally told (where the Hebrew is properly exegeted) that the sacrifice of Abel is the means whereby salvation can be obtained. When Abel is sacrificed, God takes the blood of the sacrifice and puts a mark on Cain just as Moses marked every Jew with the blood of the sacrifice in Exodus. It's the blood of Abel, like the blood of animal sacrifices thereafter, that symbolize the true salvation that will come (and be applied retroactively) when a child is found out in the womb of a virgin such that he opens the veil of his mother's temple from the inside out (as was the design for Abel) rather than the serpentine flesh of his father opening it from the outside in, ala the conception of Cain and sin.

Naturally these things are all well-known on some level since no flesh has been more demonized, and covered up, in shame (even Hollywood, that is, modern Sodom and Gomorrah, won't uncover it on the screen). And when God chooses Abraham to reinstate the original covenant that would have resulted in the virgin birth of Abel, he has Abraham symbolize the renewal of that covenant by taking a knife and stabbing it, to the point of bleeding, thereby leaving a large scar, on the organ created in the image of Cain's father. Isaac is analogue of Abel had he (Abel) been born before the serpent opened the membrane or veil on his (Abel's) mother's temple. By ritually removing the offensive flesh, Abraham renders Isaac, at least ritually speaking, an analogue of what Abel was intended to be prior to the serpent forcing himself into the fore skene of the original story.



John

One thing that I am curious about all this is I have a couple of devout Jewish friends who I see pretty regularly who I have always tread lighty around when discussing my faith and even more so their faith.
Do you think they would be aware of this interpretation if I were to mention it ?
I would love to get their take on it if they have knowledge of it .
By the way are you Jewish yourself ?

KInd Regards

 

[GoodAttention]

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

Relationship between Cain and Tupul-Cain?

 

[John D. Brey]

One thing that I am curious about all this is I have a couple of devout Jewish friends who I see pretty regularly who I have always tread lighty around when discussing my faith and even more so their faith.
Do you think they would be aware of this interpretation if I were to mention it ?
I would love to get their take on it if they have knowledge of it .

Most of this is an amalgamation of Jewish and Christian thought. Some of it will be familiar to Jews, and some to Christians, but the unification isn't likely to be familiar, nor appeal to, Jews or Christians. That's pretty much been borne out in this forum over the years.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Relationship between Cain and Tupul-Cain?

. . . Why do you ask?



John?

 

[GoodAttention]

. . . Why do you ask?



John?

Following the thought process of symmetry, especially given the namesake.

 

[GoodAttention]

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

Interesting points you raised, and I will do my best to be Cain’s defence attorney if I may

The killing of Abel by Cain was to seek favour from God who, confusingly, did not recognise Cain’s initial sacrifice. If one compares to toil of farming with the raising of animals, we could understand Cain’s frustration.

Secondly, if the spilling of blood did indeed get God’s favour, then why not make the greatest sacrifice one can? Abel was favoured by God, so he must also hold value.

Third, Cain knew Abel, whose name could translate to Father of El, to be a source of future rivalry for God himself. Perhaps God favoured him by his name alone, and this was a source of Cain’s jealousy. I could say Cain believed he was doing God a favour.

When questioned by God, Cain answers truthfully, or perhaps could have said “isn’t he with you?” adding “I am not my brother’s keeper” to mean I am not Abel’s God, with a hint of “you are” thrown in.

God of course sets him straight, “if you had indeed sacrificed your brother upon me his blood would not be crying out”, settling the argument that, no matter how much spin you put for Cain, he had erred.

But this then leads to a question for Cain, which is, how should I have sacrificed Abel?

 

[BrokenBread]

But this then leads to a question for Cain, which is, how should I have sacrificed Abel?

It's not about what Cain pro-actively should have done to achieve what is being posited.
The Rock of God's redemption has never been about sacrifice, it is all about self-sacrifice .
According to God's never changing take on sacrifice which turns the concept of it developed by the carnal mind on it's head, Such an attempt as has been described here undertaken by Cain would be profitless in the eyes of God.
By God's method The sacrifice would have had to been based on what Abel pro-actively determined to do .
It would not have been about Cain at all at that point in the eyes of God.
Only by the initial pro-active faithfullness of Abel out of his deep love for his brother could any sacrificial transaction willingly submitted to by Abel for the sake of His brother merit God's approval for Cain.

Genesis 44:33
Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren.

 

[GoodAttention]

It's not about what Cain pro-actively should have done to achieve what is being posited.
The Rock of God's redemption has never been about sacrifice, it is all about self-sacrifice .
According to God's never changing take on sacrifice which turns the concept of it developed by the carnal mind on it's head, Such an attempt as has been described here undertaken by Cain would be profitless in the eyes of God.
By God's method The sacrifice would have had to been based on what Abel pro-actively determined to do .
It would not have been about Cain at all at that point in the eyes of God.
Only by the initial pro-active faithfullness of Abel out of his deep love for his brother could any sacrificial transaction willingly submitted to by Abel for the sake of His brother merit God's approval for Cain.

Genesis 44:33
Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren.

I don’t follow what you are saying, sorry, but so you are aware I’m not a Christian.

 

[John D. Brey]

The killing of Abel by Cain was to seek favour from God who, confusingly, did not recognise Cain’s initial sacrifice. If one compares to toil of farming with the raising of animals, we could understand Cain’s frustration.

A large problem with discussing this topic "intelligently," is the fact that the Hebrew text has been already chewed and digested for us by the Masoretes. What the English text makes us believe is going on is horribly distorted by the fact that our English "Old Testament" is really just a translation of the Masoretic Text (not a translation of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew). The Masoretic Text is a Jewish interpretation of the sacred Hebrew text that often rides roughshod over typological and mythological nuances. All of our modern English "Old Testaments" are merely English translations of the Masoretic Text.

When the text says Adam will have to till the soil for his daily bread, it's playing on the nuance that his and Eve's bodies are constructed of soil (his name is associated with soil, adamah) such that Adam will also have to till Eve's soil to produce offspring. Furthermore, producing offspring is called being "fruitful" and multiplying.

When the text then notes that Cain offers the "fruit" of the "adamah" (ground), it's speaking, typologically and mythologically, of the "fruit" he produces when he's made fruitful by tilling his wife or wives:

The Austroasiatic cultivator who uses the same word, "lak," to designate phallus and spade . . . knows perfectly well that his spade is an instrument . . . and that in tilling his field he performs agricultural work . . ..​

​

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 166-167.​

Secondly, if the spilling of blood did indeed get God’s favour, then why not make the greatest sacrifice one can? Abel was favoured by God, so he must also hold value.

Agreed.

Third, Cain knew Abel, whose name could translate to Father of El, to be a source of future rivalry for God himself. Perhaps God favoured him by his name alone, and this was a source of Cain’s jealousy. I could say Cain believed he was doing God a favour.

This statement mixes truths with falsehoods much like the Masoretic Text. You're perceptive note that "ab" "el" would mean "father" to "El" (think of Jesus saying he and the Father are one) is based on the English transliteration not the actual Hebrew where "Abel" is actually "Hebel," since the consonants are heh-beit-lamed הבל. Taken literally the name means "the nothing." Hebel's life will be thought, like a latter-day sacrifice, to amount to nothing. Whatever messianic-pedigree Hebel might have possessed had the serpent not conceived his brother Cain (therein confusing and contaminating Abel's conception and birth) seems to come to nothing once his life is sacrificed.

When questioned by God, Cain answers truthfully, or perhaps could have said “isn’t he with you?” adding “I am not my brother’s keeper” to mean I am not Abel’s God, with a hint of “you are” thrown in.

God of course sets him straight, “if you had indeed sacrificed your brother upon me his blood would not be crying out”, settling the argument that, no matter how much spin you put for Cain, he had erred.

But this then leads to a question for Cain, which is, how should I have sacrificed Abel?

The English bolixes this up so badly it would take too much time here to correct it as it's corrected in the essay linked to earlier in the thread.

In a nutshell, though Cain and Abel are quasi-twin-brothers, they look nothing alike. When God rejects Cain's offering Cain is made to understand that his offering is rejected because he is one of the so-called "nephilim" (the fallen ones) who are conceived by angelic beings copulating (ala Genesis chapter 6) with human females. Cain's father is the angelic serpent, while Abel is human through and through. They look completely different.

God tells Cain that only the blood of a righteous human (who is not one of the nephilim) can sanctify his sinful birth such that he will be redeemed from the original sin that's his very conception.

Contrary to the Masoretic malfeasance found in the "Old Testament," after Cain sacrifices Abel, he doesn't respond to God's querry with "Am I now my brother's keeper." In the Hebrew he asks if he is now like his brother now that he's sacrificed a righteous, innocent, son of God? God takes some of Abel's blood and places a mark on Cain, just as Moses sacrifices an innocent animal and marks the Israelites with the blood. God then says, Now, because you're sanctified by the blood of the lame, no one will kill you in vengence without dealing with me. Yes, you're now Saved.

Once again the Masoretes mangle the text by claiming Cain thereafter leaves the presence of God, when in context, and in the Hebrew, the text says that after God marks Cain with the blood of the lame, Cain leaves with the presence of God on him, marking him, guarding him, against being killed for being a born sinner and a murderer. Abel's blood is very much a prototype of the apotropaic blood of another human sacrifice, come from another mother, and that much later in the story. To this very day, the blood of that latter-day son of God, come, from another mother, marks, hangs, dangling between the breast, of billions of redemption-seekers from one end of the planet to the other.



John