If Jesus is God he sacrificed nothing for us.

[Deeje]

Might be the case if there actually was a 1st century Nazareth, but no such town actually existed in no record, on no map, in no archaeological find, not in the OT. All of a sudden, there are 24 mentions of it in Matthew. The historian Josephus, lived just one mile from what is present-day Nazareth in the town of Japha, and who had assembled a list of Galilean towns, none of which mentioned any such 'Nazareth'.

What is more likely is that 'Nazareth' was in reality a tent-city of thousands of people lived on the slopes of Mt. Carmel during that time, just 10 miles from present-day Nazareth. The Nazorean Essene monastery was atop the mountain, and its rules forbade any permanent dwelling to be built on it. This Essene sect was one of 3 at the time, and was a mystical sect, while the one at Qumran of Dead Sea Scrolls fame was an apocalyptic sect. The others in Greece and Egypt were Therapeutae, healers. The Nazorean sect was a family monastery, and it is reputed that Yeshua and his family lived there. Modern Essenes claim that the word 'Nazorean' is just another variation of the word 'Nazarene'.

Why would anyone refer to a group of inhabitants of Nazareth as belonging to a sect? And was it the case that all of the Nazarenes came just from Nazareth? I would guess that most of them came from the many Galilean towns.

Or this explanation may be just as valid....

"Nazʹa·reth [probably, Sprout-Town].

A city in Lower Galilee where Jesus lived most of his earthly life, along with his half brothers and half sisters. (Luke 2:51, 52; Matthew 13:54-56) Both Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth when Gabriel announced the approaching birth of Jesus. (Luke 1:26, 27; 2:4, 39) Later, after their return from Egypt, they took up residence in Nazareth again.—Matthew 2:19-23; Luke 2:39.

Location. Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee. If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just N of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the S tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It was in a mountain basin with hills rising 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft) above it. The area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns near Nazareth. Also, it is estimated that one could walk from Nazareth to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean Coast in seven hours, to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee in five hours, and to Jerusalem in three days.

On one occasion people of Nazareth sought to throw Jesus from “the brow of the mountain upon which their city had been built.” (Luke 4:29) That is not to say that Nazareth was on the very brow or edge, but that it was on a mountain having a brow from which they wanted to hurl Jesus. Some have identified it with a rocky cliff some 12 m (40 ft) high located SW of the city.

Prominence of Nazareth. It is difficult to say with certainty just how prominent Nazareth was in the first century. The most common view of commentators is that Nazareth was then a rather secluded, insignificant village. The principal Biblical statement used to support this view is what Nathanael said when he heard that Jesus was from there: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46) This has been taken by many to mean that Nazareth was looked down upon, even by people of Galilee. (John 21:2) Nazareth was near trade routes of the area but not directly on them. It was not mentioned by Josephus, though he referred to nearby Japhia as the largest fortified village of all Galilee, leading to the idea that Nazareth was eclipsed by its neighbor.

On the other hand, Nathanael may simply have been expressing surprise that Philip would claim a man from the neighborhood city of Nazareth in Galilee to be the promised Messiah, for the Scriptures had foretold that that one would come from Bethlehem in Judah. (Micah 5:2) Josephus did not mention many of the settlements in Galilee, so his not mentioning Nazareth might not be particularly significant. It is noteworthy that the Bible does not call Nazareth a village, but always a “city.” (Luke 1:26; 2:4, 39) Furthermore, close-by Sepphoris was an important, fortified city having a district court of the Sanhedrin. Nonetheless, whatever its size and prominence, Nazareth was convenient to important trade routes and main cities, and so its inhabitants would have had ready information about the social, religious, and political activities of the time.—Compare Luke 4:23.

Attitude of the People. As Jesus grew up, he progressed “in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52) He and his half brothers and half sisters were known by the people of Nazareth, and it was his “custom” to attend the local synagogue each week. (Matthew 13:55, 56; Luke 4:16) When he was about 30 years of age, Jesus left Nazareth and was baptized by John. (Mark 1:9; Luke 3:23) Some months later, near the start of his Galilean ministry, Jesus returned to Nazareth and in the synagogue read aloud Isaiah 61:1, 2, applying it to himself. The people manifested a lack of faith and attempted to kill him, “but he went through the midst of them and continued on his way,” taking up residence in Capernaum.—Luke 4:16-30; Matthew 4:13.

Over a year later, Christ again visited Nazareth. (Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6) Though some have thought this to be the same occasion as in Luke 4:16-30, the order of events in Matthew, Mark, and Luke indicates otherwise, as does the fact that Jesus’ activities and the results were somewhat different. His fame may have grown by this time so that a somewhat more hospitable reception was granted him. Though many stumbled over the fact that he was a local man, there is no mention of the people’s trying to kill him this time. He performed some powerful works, but not many, because of the people’s lack of faith. (Matthew 13:57, 58) Jesus then left and began his third circuit of Galilee.—Mark 6:6."

Nazareth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[godnotgod]

Or this explanation may be just as valid....

"Nazʹa·reth [probably, Sprout-Town].

A city in Lower Galilee where Jesus lived most of his earthly life....*SNIP*

Nazareth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Nazareth cannot have been both an insignificant little hamlet, as well as a 'city' at the same time. A city, even a town, would surely have been noted by Josephus who lived just one mile away in Japha. Were it a city, as your source cited, it would have had a city center, with government offices, but not a single public buidling, nor even residences save for a single small farmhouse have been found to date. Your source also mentions a synagogue, as does the Bible, but no such synagogue is known to have existed.

Surely by the 4th Century, the little backwater of Nazareth would have grown to be a sizeable town or even a city, but...still no Nazareth!

Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.

As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham,Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, andJeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.

Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'
*****

Getting a Name

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios' (see below). More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.

The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'

– Gospel of Philip, 47.


What we do know is that 'Nazarene' (or 'Nazorean') was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings, although ironically, Paul is himself accused of being a Nazorean in Acts of the Apostles. The reference scarcely means that Paul was a resident of Nazareth (we all know the guy hails from Tarsus!).

'For finding this man a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans.' – Acts 24.5. (Darby Translation).


The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.

– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).


The Nazarenes may have seen themselves as a 'branch from the stem of Jesse (the legendary King David's father)'. Certainly, they had their own early version of 'Matthew'. This lost text – the Gospel of the Nazarenes – can hardly be regarded as a 'Gospel of the inhabitants of Nazareth'!

It was the later Gospel of Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

– Matthew 2.23.


With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:


"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazariteunto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

– Judges 13.5.


Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for his fictitious hero.

So how did the village get its name?

It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – ‘the Poor’ (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – ‘The Gospel to the Hebrews’. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!

In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)

Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.

"Blessed are the Poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

– Matthew 5,3.


The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

 

[Etritonakin]

I assume by 'what he did' you must mean that he shed his blood as a means of redemption of sin. How does the shedding of blood wash away sin?

Sin leads to death -one way or another. Sin is transgression of the law, and keeping the law maintains the creation. There is no point in making many "gods" or "children of God" unless they can become perfectly law-abiding.
Being "saved" is being freed from death and/or the misery of sin.
Beings with creativity and choice require time, experience and guidance to become perfect and accept obedience to the law by choice -which means that there is a time between their initial awareness and perfection in which many things go wrong. As humans lack the ability to effectively self-govern and self-guide for many reasons, their end would be self-destruction if not helped toward perfection -and then eternal life. Living eternally in a miserable state would be worse than death -so perfection is before the granting of eternal life.

Technically, the spilling of his blood did not do anything in and of itself. His becoming human -living and dying as such -proved his worthiness to have all things become subject to him (as he was tempted and did not fail) -which is the beginning of a government which will bring righteousness and peace to the entire universe -which will be inhabited, made him a better intercessor for us with God in the process of making us perfect, because he literally knows what it is like to be us, proved that he loved us and was willing to suffer and die by us, gave a perfect example of such, etc... I will try to discuss it in more detail later.

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

[godnotgod]

Sin leads to death -one way or another. Sin is transgression of the law, and keeping the law maintains the creation. There is no point in making many "gods" or "children of God" unless they can become perfectly law-abiding.
Being "saved" is being freed from death and/or the misery of sin.
Beings with creativity and choice require time, experience and guidance to become perfect and accept obedience to the law by choice -which means that there is a time between their initial awareness and perfection in which many things go wrong. As humans lack the ability to effectively self-govern and self-guide for many reasons, their end would be self-destruction if not helped toward perfection -and then eternal life. Living eternally in a miserable state would be worse than death -so perfection is before the granting of eternal life.

Technically, the spilling of his blood did not do anything in and of itself. His becoming human -living and dying as such -proved his worthiness to have all things become subject to him (as he was tempted and did not fail) -which is the beginning of a government which will bring righteousness and peace to the entire universe -which will be inhabited, made him a better intercessor for us with God in the process of making us perfect, because he literally knows what it is like to be us, proved that he loved us and was willing to suffer and die by us, gave a perfect example of such, etc... I will try to discuss it in more detail later.

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

I don't think you answered the question:

How does the shedding of blood wash away sin?

You said: "Technically, the spilling of his blood did not do anything in and of itself."

At the Last Supper, Jesus said:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matt 26:28

Jesus is saying that the shedding of his blood has the power to wash away all of man's sins, so yes, the spilling of his blood accomplished a tremedous feat. But how?

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't think you answered the question:

How does the shedding of blood wash away sin?

You said: "Technically, the spilling of his blood did not do anything in and of itself."

At the Last Supper, Jesus said:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matt 26:28

Jesus is saying that the shedding of his blood has the power to wash away all of man's sins, so yes, the spilling of his blood accomplished a tremedous feat. But how?

I did answer the question -but did not and do not have time to go into great detail.
When I said technically, I meant that the actual blood leaving his body did not literally wash anything away in a physical sense.
Christ said the wine was his blood, but that was not completely literal, either.

 

[Blackdog22]

I believe that Jesus suffered eternal pain in the atonement, more pain and suffering than can be attributed to a physical crucifixion. His Father withdrew his mitigating or strengthening influence and turned his Son over to the full pains of eternal hell. This went far beyond the pain of the cross and nails, as painful as those were. I believe that it was a sacrifice for the God of heaven, who has all power, to go far beyond anything any person has or will suffer, in order to pay Justice her dues for our sins.

My biggest problem with this is he didn't pay for any dues that even matter to anyone on earth. We still suffer the effects of sin as if he never came, as if he never actually changed anything at all. Somehow, through some really special method that no one can explain, we are supposed to believe that there is some place that we cannot prove, feel, see, touch that exists where we can go to and THAT is why Jesus died. Oh, well, thanks....He died so I can go to an imaginary place, how swell. Next time die for something that actually helps the people who are present at that time and will be present for thousands(millions?) of years after. Thanks God/human/spirit guy whos existence makes no logical sense...Thanks a ton...

Oh and drop some manna for the starving kids around the world. You had no problems with it in the past, perhaps you simply dont care, perhaps you died, perhaps you have no power and they were all just stories. Literally any of these possibilities make sense over the Christian view given the current world we live in, yet, illogical beliefs still exist to preserve the mentalities of those who need such beliefs. Selfishness is the root of religion, always will be.

 

[Scott C.]

My biggest problem with this is he didn't pay for any dues that even matter to anyone on earth. We still suffer the effects of sin as if he never came, as if he never actually changed anything at all. Somehow, through some really special method that no one can explain, we are supposed to believe that there is some place that we cannot prove, feel, see, touch that exists where we can go to and THAT is why Jesus died. Oh, well, thanks....He died so I can go to an imaginary place, how swell. Next time die for something that actually helps the people who are present at that time and will be present for thousands(millions?) of years after. Thanks God/human/spirit guy whos existence makes no logical sense...Thanks a ton...

Oh and drop some manna for the starving kids around the world. You had no problems with it in the past, perhaps you simply dont care, perhaps you died, perhaps you have no power and they were all just stories. Literally any of these possibilities make sense over the Christian view given the current world we live in, yet, illogical beliefs still exist to preserve the mentalities of those who need such beliefs. Selfishness is the root of religion, always will be.

Well that was a downer.

 

[godnotgod]

I did answer the question -but did not and do not have time to go into great detail.
When I said technically, I meant that the actual blood leaving his body did not literally wash anything away in a physical sense.
Christ said the wine was his blood, but that was not completely literal, either.

Sorry, but not only did you not answer the question, you did not understand it. It's quite simple: Jesus claimed that his blood would be shed for the remission of sin. This means his blood has the power to do so. I was just asking how it has this power. Obviously, you don't know, and conveniently quit the discussion as a result of not having an answer. That is OK, because there is no answer. Blood does not have this power. It is a pagan, superstitious belief adopted by Christianity from Mithraism.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, actually, Jesus didn't say that the kingdom was "within" the people he was addressing. There is not one mention in the Bible of Jesus being either an Essene or a mystic.
He identified himself as "the son of God" and "the son of man". He was sent from heaven on a mission which ended in his death as a human. (son of man) He said quite plainly that he was from the realms above, which is heaven. (John 8:22-23)

The scripture you refer to is Luke 17:20-21, which reads.....
"Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

....

Entos means inside, within. It is from ev en, which can mean position and among.

Entos is only used twice and means inside/within.

The other verse is -

Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

*

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry, but not only did you not answer the question, you did not understand it. It's quite simple: Jesus claimed that his blood would be shed for the remission of sin. This means his blood has the power to do so. I was just asking how it has this power. Obviously, you don't know, and conveniently quit the discussion as a result of not having an answer. That is OK, because there is no answer. Blood does not have this power. It is a pagan, superstitious belief adopted by Christianity from Mithraism.

Well, if you think it's like a can of liquid Schwartz or something... That's completely up to you.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, if you think it's like a can of liquid Schwartz or something... That's completely up to you.

No. I don't think that at all. IOW, I do not think the idea is a PHYSICAL washing away of sin by blood, nor even a symbolic idea, but a spiritual one. But it is just a belief based on superstition and fear with its roots in ignorance.

BTW, are you at all aware that an initiate in the Mithraic rites would strip naked and enter a pit, over which a bull was slain, and its blood allowed to drip down over the initiate's body as a means of cleansing, something akin to the Christian notion of 'washing in the blood of Jesus'? Ever wonder where that idea came from? Well, there you have it.

Additionally, Mithraism had a eucharistic rite, in which a bull was slain, it's body eaten, and it's blood drunk, as a means of communion with the divine nature. Sound familiar?

 

[godnotgod]

I did answer the question -but did not and do not have time to go into great detail.
When I said technically, I meant that the actual blood leaving his body did not literally wash anything away in a physical sense.
Christ said the wine was his blood, but that was not completely literal, either.

No, it was symbolic of the actual shedding of blood. ie: 'Do this in remembrance of me'.

But Christian doctrine still maintains that the actual shedding of blood was the key to remission of man's sin. I just challenge that as being superstitious and pagan, since it was inherited from pagan Mithraism. Yeshua's original Nazarene teachings did NOT include any kind of blood sacrifice, virgin birth, nor bodily resurrection. These came from Paul, who was steeped in the mystery religions since childhood.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus claimed that his blood would be shed for the remission of sin. This means his blood has the power to do so. I was just asking how it has this power.
.........That is OK, because there is no answer. Blood does not have this power. It is a pagan, superstitious belief adopted by Christianity from Mithraism.

Huh? Seriously......the blood of Christ is very symbolic. Blood represents life.

Leviticus 17:14;
"For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it"

Adam lost his perfect sinless life through one act of disobedience.....Jesus paid the debt that Adam left for his children by offering his life for ours. There is nothing pagan about that. God's law to Israel was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life".
The Law required equivalency and Jesus' sinless life was the equivalent of Adam's. The debt Adam left was paid and mankind were released from sin and its inevitable consequence......death. That guarantees that no one who dies will need to remain in the grave forever, swallowed up by an enemy whose clutches we cannot escape.

"So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous." (Acts 5:18-19)

That's how it works.

 

[godnotgod]

Huh? Seriously......the blood of Christ is very symbolic. Blood represents life.

Leviticus 17:14;
"For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it"

Adam lost his perfect sinless life through one act of disobedience.....Jesus paid the debt that Adam left for his children by offering his life for ours. There is nothing pagan about that. God's law to Israel was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life".
The Law required equivalency and Jesus' sinless life was the equivalent of Adam's. The debt Adam left was paid and mankind were released from sin and its inevitable consequence......death. That guarantees that no one who dies will need to remain in the grave forever, swallowed up by an enemy whose clutches we cannot escape.

"So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous." (Acts 5:18-19)

That's how it works.

That's what you believe. But there is no basis in fact for such a belief. However, even if it were true (that blood represents life), the question still remains: how does this blood, which 'represents life', have the power to wash away all of man's sins?

Fact of the matter is that it is only assumed that blood is the life-force. One certainly will die without it, and when the ancients saw a man bleeding to death, they naturally assumed blood was the stuff of life. But, as we now know, blood cannot do what it needs to do without oxygen, via the breath. So breath is necessary to blood. And as it turns out, it is breath that is the life-force in the East, not blood. Every single Eastern religious and spiritual practice involves the breath as central. This extends into all of the martial arts as well. In fact, the Greeks regarded air, or pneuma, as a living spirit, and idea they most likely inherited from exposure to Eastern wisdom brought to them along the Silk Trade Route. Today, the word has been eviscerated by science of its original meaning to signify dead air, as in pneumatic, and pneumonia, etc. Focus on the breath during meditation is the pathway to higher consciousness and ultimately to the experience of Enlightenment. So, you see, the practice involving breath is not a belief or doctrine, but a direct experiential practiice.

All that stuff about Adam and Jesus and sin and sacrifice is just so much mumbo-jumbo, and cannot be verified in any real way except to say that it is all a reflection of ancient Jewish value systems. It's just a belief system, based on...what?

The efficacy of breath, however, can be directly verified here and now by anyone, and personally, I can testify to the fact that, via breath control and meditation, it has a completely transformative effect on one's spiritual well-being. When people are confused, in pain, or upset, these states are reflected in how they are breathing, usually shallow and rapid. I have been there many times, and although it seems impossible to get things back in balance, within several minutes of breath excercises, one feels completely refreshed and back in tune. On top of that, the heart rate slows down and becomes steady and the breath regular and calmer. Blood pressure drops. etc. etc, etc.

 

[Deeje]

how does this blood, which 'represents life', have the power to wash away all of man's sins?

Redemption was well understood by the Jews. It was part of their law.
A person could sell themselves or a family member into slavery (servitude) to pay a debt. Once the debt was paid, the slave was released.

Adam incurred a debt for his children, virtually selling them into slavery to sin and death. (Romans 5:12) Jesus came to pay "a life for a life" to release Adam's children from that debt. He did it willingly. (John 3:16)

Fact of the matter is that it is only assumed that blood is the life-force. One certainly will die without it, and when the ancients saw a man bleeding to death, they naturally assumed blood was the stuff of life. But, as we now know, blood cannot do what it needs to do without oxygen, via the breath. So breath is necessary to blood.

The breath of life is what animated Adam after his creation. He could not live without it. This is the spirit (pneuma) that oxygenates the blood so that humans can live. Once the spirit is extinguished, the soul dies. (Psalm 146:4; Ezekiel 18:4)

the Greeks regarded air, or pneuma, as a living spirit,

Exactly. There is no immortal soul, and the spirit is the breath that keeps us alive. We are a soul and we have "breath" (spirit) that keeps the soul alive.

the practice involving breath is not a belief or doctrine, but a direct experiential practice.

Yes, I agree. None of us would be alive without it.

All that stuff about Adam and Jesus and sin and sacrifice is just so much mumbo-jumbo, and cannot be verified in any real way except to say that it is all a reflection of ancient Jewish value systems. It's just a belief system, based on...what?

All that stuff about Adam is verified by Jesus Christ, whom I accept as the son of God. It is a belief system based on the Bible.

No one is forcing you to believe it....not even God.

 

[godnotgod]

Redemption was well understood by the Jews. It was part of their law.
A person could sell themselves or a family member into slavery (servitude) to pay a debt. Once the debt was paid, the slave was released.

Adam incurred a debt for his children, virtually selling them into slavery to sin and death. (Romans 5:12) Jesus came to pay "a life for a life" to release Adam's children from that debt. He did it willingly. (John 3:16)



The breath of life is what animated Adam after his creation. He could not live without it. This is the spirit (pneuma) that oxygenates the blood so that humans can live. Once the spirit is extinguished, the soul dies. (Psalm 146:4; Ezekiel 18:4)



Exactly. There is no immortal soul, and the spirit is the breath that keeps us alive. We are a soul and we have "breath" (spirit) that keeps the soul alive.



Yes, I agree. None of us would be alive without it.



All that stuff about Adam is verified by Jesus Christ, whom I accept as the son of God. It is a belief system based on the Bible.

No one is forcing you to believe it....not even God.

Thank you. Yes, it is a BELIEF system, and as such, cannot be demonstrated to be universally true. Your belief makes it true only in your head.

Not saying I am being forced to believe anything; I don't operate within the sphere of beliefs; but you still have not answered the question: how does blood possess the power to wash sin away?

hint: it doesn't actually...but you believing it makes it true in your head, and that's because, as you admitted, it is a BELIEF system.

Humans tend to believe things that relieve them of metaphysical anxiety. For example, man is born into this life not remembering where he came from, what he is doing here, or where he is going after death. Belief in a savior fixes that, because the savior is connected to that which the believer sees as eternal. His earthly parents offer some comfort, but they die and someday are gone. A savior represents a permanent parent/authority figure he sees as being there through life and especially the frightening experience of death, and is a go-between in human form to what he considers to be his creator.

So what is the origin of this friendly visitor from a heavenly realm come to save mankind?

You might find it of interest to know a bit about a 4000 year old Indo-Iranian Sun divinity known as Mitra:

Both Vedic Mitra and Avestan Mithra derive from an Indo-Iranian common noun *mitra-, generally reconstructed to have meant "covenant, treaty, agreement, promise." This meaning is preserved in Avestan miθra "covenant." In Sanskrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages, mitra means "friend," one of the aspects of bonding and alliance.

Vedic Mitra is a prominent deity of the Rigveda distinguished by a relationship to Varuna, the protector of rta. Together with Varuna, he counted among the Adityas, a group of solar deities, also in later Vedic texts. Vedic Mitra is the patron divinity of honesty, friendship, contracts and meetings.

Mitra - Wikipedia

...who was later transformed into the Greek and Roman god named Mithra, whose attributes and doctrines became the basis of modern Chrisitianity.

1. Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"
2. Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.
3. Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
4. Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
5. Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
6. Mithras performed miracles.
7. Mithras' followers were baptized.
8. Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
9. Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)
10. Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
11. Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.
12. Mithras' followers were promised immortality.
13. Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
14. Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”
15. On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.
16. Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion. Yeshua's sacred day was changed from the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, to match Mithras' day.
17. Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
18. Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
19. On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

Paul and the Mystery Religions

 

[Etritonakin]

No, it was symbolic of the actual shedding of blood. ie: 'Do this in remembrance of me'.

But Christian doctrine still maintains that the actual shedding of blood was the key to remission of man's sin. I just challenge that as being superstitious and pagan, since it was inherited from pagan Mithraism. Yeshua's original Nazarene teachings did NOT include any kind of blood sacrifice, virgin birth, nor bodily resurrection. These came from Paul, who was steeped in the mystery religions since childhood.

It was symbolic of the actual shedding of Christ's blood which the Jesus of Nazareth was discussing with them -or originally teaching them about -before his blood was shed.
You can't say Jesus didn't teach it and then acknowledge that example of Jesus teaching it.

What all Israelites -of the house of Judah or of the house of Israel -were steeped in was over a thousand years of observing old testament sacrificial law -the spilling of blood of animals, etc., to represent a desire to be forgiven, etc. -all of which foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice from the time of the first Passover -and even as far back as God providing a sacrifice in place of Abraham's son.

When animals were sacrificed, their actual blood and the spilling thereof had no power in and of itself. It was a representation of willingness and an activity which God required at that time to precede forgiveness of sin -so that power was associated or assigned. God never desired those things, but they accomplished something -which was to prepare the minds of a people for a sacrifice which would accomplish something far greater.
Similarly, baptism is for the remission of sin, but the water pretty much just gets you wet. It is God forgiving one at that time -after doing something symbolic of that which God would do -which removed guilt by his decree.
God has always been willing to forgive, but what was necessary was a way to remove sin itself -so that we might eventually not need forgiveness.
Otherwise -why not just continue with animals?
When it is said that the shedding of Christ's blood had the power to do that, it is not the same as saying there was something unusual about his actual blood.
It is also not as though if he died without a drop of blood spilled (would have been difficult) then sins could not be forgiven, and sin could not be removed. It just so happened his blood was spilled literally -but the phrase really just means he was killed.
You really have to get past the whole blood thing and see what his particular death (who he was, the circumstances surrounding his death, at whose hands, the timing thereof, what it worked in him, what it worked in us, psychological effect, what he would do later, etc.) could accomplish, which the death of others could not.

One thing it did was show that he was willing to go through that which is required of us -another was to give him firsthand knowledge of the human experience -both of which are parts of how sin (transgression of the law which -by extension -will maintain peace and happiness eternally) will be completely removed -but there are many others. As you don't seem very interested, I'll leave it at that, but I hope you consider it seriously at some point.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course he sacrificed nothing, he was just a man like all other men, he only had a belief that he tried to share with those who would swallow it, and that's it, well that is what I believe.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How do you know that?

How can something as quaint as hell really bother God?

To me, for the Passion to have any meaning at all, there had to be a very real possibility that Death would win, that he would be unable to rise again.

The problem is that sacrificial tropes and resurrection tropes are opposites. If he conquers death by resurrecting, then he also didn't die in any sacrificial way. Sacrifices are supposed to STAY dead.

Then again, Jesus would be in Hell anyway. He said we are judged by how we judge others. He also said anyone who calls someone a fool will burn in hell. He called people foolish, so ...

He voluntarily submitted to the suffering. That's partly what made it such a sacrifice.

No, the fact he could stop it at any time makes it offensive to everyone else who doesn't get options in suffering.

It's like a politician with lots of money going to a food bank and washing clean dishes for a photo op.

The "but how can a bullet hurt Superman?" argument does not sway me.

You just need a kryptonite bullet. Problem solved. However, God is supposedly much more epic than Supes, though Youtube tells me Supes is practically god-like now anyways. He apparently can survive in space now because he realized he was just conditioned by living with humans to think he couldn't live without a space suit.

The resurrection is God's guarantee that death is not permanent.

Other people rose from the dead. It wasn't permanent anyway.

Jesus was raised to show God's power over death.

Enoch and Elijah skip death entirely, but we don't say they showed power over death for some reason.

He is not mortal if he cannot die. Mortal means you can die.

And immortality only means no one's figured out how to kill you yet.

I had an epiphany watching Nightmare on Elm Street 4: as the sixth movie shows Freddy gets his immortality from dream demons, just kill the demons and they can't bring him back to life. Sometimes when dealing with superpowered entities you just have to think outside the box.

Many gods got their immortality through fruit or drink or incantations or whatever. Clearly, just remove the stimulus and they die. Clash of the Titans (the reboot) would've been a really short movie had the protagonist just stolen their ambrosia.

 

[godnotgod]

It was symbolic of the actual shedding of Christ's blood which the Jesus of Nazareth was discussing with them -or originally teaching them about -before his blood was shed.
You can't say Jesus didn't teach it and then acknowledge that example of Jesus teaching it.

Remember, we are talking about Yeshua here, who held no belief in blood sacrifice. The story about the Last Supper and the eating of flesh and drinking of blood is a concoction out of whole cloth. But within that context, 'Jesus' is saying (my paraphrase):

"My blood is about to be shed. This wine is symbolic of my blood of the new covenant which is to be shed unto many for the remission of sin. Drink it symbolically/ritually in remembrance of what is about to come to pass"

There was no such 'Jesus of Nazareth' as there was no 1st century town of Nazareth, as already explained.

What all Israelites -of the house of Judah or of the house of Israel -were steeped in was over a thousand years of observing old testament sacrificial law -the spilling of blood of animals, etc., to represent a desire to be forgiven, etc. -all of which foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice from the time of the first Passover -and even as far back as God providing a sacrifice in place of Abraham's son.

When animals were sacrificed, their actual blood and the spilling thereof had no power in and of itself. It was a representation of willingness and an activity which God required at that time to precede forgiveness of sin -so that power was associated or assigned. God never desired those things, but they accomplished something -which was to prepare the minds of a people for a sacrifice which would accomplish something far greater.
Similarly, baptism is for the remission of sin, but the water pretty much just gets you wet. It is God forgiving one at that time -after doing something symbolic of that which God would do -which removed guilt by his decree.
God has always been willing to forgive, but what was necessary was a way to remove sin itself -so that we might eventually not need forgiveness.
Otherwise -why not just continue with animals?

Or learn to forgive one another, and ourselves, and make efforts to understand the nature of wrongdoing, which is ignorance, and square with it once and for all, and then go on to a new life, putting all of that stuff behind us. We don't need to go killing a man-god and then perfuming it up with all sorts of rationalizations and mumbo-jumbo and paint it as if its directive came from God.

When it is said that the shedding of Christ's blood had the power to do that, it is not the same as saying there was something unusual about his actual blood.

Yes it is. No one else is reputed to have that power. But you did just say that Christ's blood does possess that power, didn't you? So again, my question: how is that the case?

It is also not as though if he died without a drop of blood spilled (would have been difficult) then sins could not be forgiven, and sin could not be removed. It just so happened his blood was spilled literally -but the phrase really just means he was killed.
You really have to get past the whole blood thing and see what his particular death (who he was, the circumstances surrounding his death, at whose hands, the timing thereof, what it worked in him, what it worked in us, psychological effect, what he would do later, etc.) could accomplish, which the death of others could not.

All the rest is just fabrication and proselytization. The reason I can't 'get past it' is because the Crucifixion is the core doctrine of Christianity, although Christians themselves place the Resurrection above it in importance. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin, period. But I don't put any stock in that notion not even for a minute. It is simply a superstitious pagan belief, superimposed over the tragic death of Yeshua, who died for sedition, treason, and blasphemy. Paul brilliantly synthesized three elements to launch what is today modern Christianity: Jewish history as backdrop to lend credibility to the myth; the doctrine of the Logos, who descends from a heavenly realm as teacher to mankind, taken from the Gnostics; and the dying and resurrected god-man, taken from the mystery religions in which Paul was steeped as a child in Tarsus.

One thing it did was show that he was willing to go through that which is required of us -another was to give him firsthand knowledge of the human experience -both of which are parts of how sin (transgression of the law which -by extension -will maintain peace and happiness eternally) will be completely removed -but there are many others. As you don't seem very interested, I'll leave it at that, but I hope you consider it seriously at some point.

No one needs someone else's experience in order to mature spiritually. Yeshua walked his path; we all need to walk our own path as well. What Yeshua was about is what we are about. There is no difference. Only we need to awaken to that fact. That awakening is called Enlightenment. Yeshua was already enlightened. His teachings do not need a pagan blood sacrificial doctrine added to them to mystify the remission of sin and to keep us in submission to ignorance.

One more thing: Christians claim that the Christian God's love is unconditional. However, to demand payment in the form of blood sacrifice in return for the innocent bite of some 'Forbidden Fruit' (the first sting operation), is completely conditional, and not love at all, but a contract, a covenant, which man continues to break anyway. The only way that man will ever get himself back in tune is to reconnect with his own true nature. But Christianity wants to separate him from that, by setting up a contrived war between what it claims is the spirit over here and the flesh over there, where no such conflict exists in the first place.