Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

By making messianic claims he made himself dangerous enough to be executed by the romans. That is not the same as violating "established law."

The jewish priesthood did not represent "established law." They were one group among many in judaism, and their views were probably a minority. However, they were the most connected to the roman authorities.

Apparently, they did represent 'established law', since the Roman authorities bowed to their wishes. Otherwise, by what authority did the priests abide in order to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus?

 

[godnotgod]

Trying to engage in an intelligent debate with one who does not acknowledge the rules to which you subscribe is like trying to play poker with a walrus. It just can't be done.

I'm with you on this one. I have always perceived the mystical realm as one in which anyone can say anything because there is nothing to disprove them and therefore the mystic can look down on all the unenlightened people while the unenlightened realists are doomed to such mundane fates as discovering flight, finding cures to diseases, and developing early warning systems so people can be prepared for natural disasters...

How quaint!

To think that the mystic "looks down on the unenlightened" displays an ignorance as to how the mystic actually sees reality. You are interpreting how he sees it through the lens of your distorted perception; you even admit that yourself.

So tell me: once those unenlightened (and they are) realists discover flight, find cures to diseases, and allay natural disasters, will they then understand their own natures? Or will they simply be technologically advanced healthy and safe fools living an insulated existence in total ignorance of who and what they are, tucked away in total comfort in their Fool's Paradise? Maybe they will have discovered just enough information to realize that they have placed the cart ahead of the horse, eh? Oh, lucky them!

BTW, there is no such thing as a mystical or a non-mystical "realm" apart from the very world you find yourself in at this very moment. There is no such thing as "this world" and "that world". Or are you trying to get "mystical" on me?

BTW, this is not a debate. It is merely a discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Apparently, they did represent 'established law', since the Roman authorities bowed to their wishes. Otherwise, by what authority did the priests use to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus?

Ignorant antisemitic drivel ...

 

[godnotgod]

Ignorant antisemitic drivel ...

So the Jewish high priests did not demand that Jesus be executed for blasphemy?

If that is incorrect, please, by all means, enlighten the ignorant amongst us with a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night.

 

[godnotgod]

Your attempts to make buddhist dogma somehow more "rational" or "real" than christian are not only elitist but rather comical.

Actually, what I find comical is your attempt to portray Buddhism as being dogmatic. Is'nt that an oxymoron, since Buddhism really is not about beliefs but Enlightenment, and besides, I began this part of the discussion not about Buddhism so much as about Higher Man.

 

[godnotgod]

Only that is ONE part of the liturgy, which also includes the eating of the body.

....which clinches even MORE the pagan ideaology behind Christian thought.

You select out a part of a unified liturgy because you want to make your point, but in doing so you defeat yourself because you ignore the rest. Also, you ignore the vast bulk of early christian literature which focuses on the resurrection. Heck, take all of christian literature from Paul to Cardinal Ratzinger and you find that the actual death of Jesus pales in comparison (in terms of importance) to his resurrection.

As far as the point I am trying to make, it would'nt matter at all if the Resurrection were a tidal wave in comparison to the Crucifixion. The point is that this one little tell-tale sentence uttered from Jesus's mouth is sufficient to establish Christianity as a pagan based religion, against all of the talk of the Resurrection, and even if Mithraism had no influence whatsoever. What it proves is that the symbolic eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the god-man is clear evidence that it is a pagan idea which many believe holds some mysterious and miraculous power to cleanse and purify. To be more specific, the eating of the flesh transmits eternal life, while the drinking of the blood washes away sin.

This is exactly the idea behind the eating of the flesh of a slaughtered bull and the drinking of its blood. Both serve exactly the same purpose. On top of that we have the ritual washing in the blood of the bull as a means of purification, exactly the same idea that the Christian has in mind when he proudly admits to wanting to be "washed in the blood of Jesus".

I have firmly established that the Crucifixion is the key to the payment for the debt of Original Sin which Adam and Eve incurred in the Garden of Eden, and which totally facilitates the re-opening of the Gates of Paradise, and the Salvation of all Mankind by the shedding of the blood of Jesus for the remission of sin, as Jesus himself tells us at the Last Supper.

You have attempted to make the claim that the Resurrection re-established the spiritual realm, but that story falls apart, since the spiritual realm was never in any need of being re-established. It always has existed. It is simply that access to it by man was not possible because of Original Sin, and the sacrifice of the Crucifixion took care of that.

So tell me, now, exactly how you can state that the Resurrection made the Crucifixion "pale in comparison"? That is just some kind of joke, because we all know that without the sacrifice of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection into Paradise is pointless, unless it was the key to man's salvation. The only reason it seems to make the Crucifixion "pale in comparison" is because it represents both a victory over physical death and a victory over evil, both of which are delusive ideas based upon ignorance.

Christians like to brag about the "fact" that Jesus is the only one whose tomb is empty, while those of Buddha, Mohammed, etc, are all occupied. But wouldd it not be far more sensational if the body of Jesus were actually discovered still laying in his tomb somewhere? You would not just get a mere 500 eyewitnesses; you would have throngs from all over the world coming to gawk. Such an event would make the idea of the "Resurrection" "pale in comparison", I would think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So the Jewish high priests did not demand that Jesus be executed for blasphemy?

According to whom. Written where and when? Confirmed how?

 

[Oberon]

The whole point is that there is indeed a way to tell the difference! If you cannot tell the difference, then you are deluded.

The problem with delusional people is they don't know that they are deluded. Same principle applies here. You are convinced that your "religious experience" is valid or accurate based on intuition or whatever, and this somehow gives you an ability to understand texts such as those in the NT without knowing the language they were written in or anything about the culture which produced them.

That is because you are still attached to thinking and beliefs.

So are you. The difference is that one of us has tangible evidence, while the other claims intuition and spiritual experience as evidence.

you will never realize your own enlightenment

Fine. I have no problem with that.

.

As you may recall, the cave dwellers in Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Are you going to start explaining another text written in a language you can't read to me?

One does not believe in Enlightenment

Yes, one does. It is not a state that can be shown to exist by any empirical deduction, and therefore requires belief.

You cannot know that television signals exist in a room until you turn the TV set on.

Yes, you can. Other instruments can tell you this. And, more importantly, other people can see what is on the TV once you turn it on.

interference such as BELIEF and THOUGHT

It so nice you don't let thought get in your way.

 

[Oberon]

Apparently, they did represent 'established law', since the Roman authorities bowed to their wishes. Otherwise, by what authority did the priests abide in order to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus?

According to the passion narratives, no such thing happened. The priests did not use authority at all. They persuaded Pilate that Jesus was dangerous enough.

As for what likely happened, Pilate wasn't the sort who would need a lot of persuading to execute a Jew like Jesus making messianic claims.

There was no established law.

 

[Oberon]

....which clinches even MORE the pagan ideaology behind Christian thought.

And in which pre-christian ritual was the body and blood of a savior eaten?

The point is that this one little tell-tale sentence uttered from Jesus's mouth is sufficient to establish Christianity as a pagan based religion

How? Which pre-christian pagan ritual involved drinking the blood of a willing sacrifice for the absolution of sin?

and even if Mithraism had no influence whatsoever.

As it post-dated the texts in question, it hardly could have the influence you describe.

What it proves is that the symbolic eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the god-man is clear evidence that it is a pagan idea

Show me the pagan text which predates the NT and contains the eating and drinking of the body and blood of a willing sacrifice for the absolution of sin.

This is exactly the idea behind the eating of the flesh of a slaughtered bull and the drinking of its blood.

1. They bathed in the blood. They didn't drink it.
2. Not a willing sacrifice
3. Not for the absolution of sin.

Try again.

Both serve exactly the same purpose

Intuition again? Or can you actually quote a text?

I have firmly established that the Crucifixion is the key to the payment for the debt of Original Sin which Adam and Eve incurred in the Garden of Eden

The concept of original sin comes after the NT was written. Moreover, although Christ was thought to have died for the sins of the world, the point was that this death opened the kingdom of heaven for humanity. The washing away of sin doesn't matter if we still die. However, without Jesus resurrecting as the messianic claimaint of the throne of YHWH's kingdom, we would be in the same predicament. No entering into god's kingdom if Jesus isn't there. The sacrifice would be meaningless, because the kingdom of god would not be opened.

 

[Scott C.]

What evidence exists that points to Pagan roots as the basis for many of the ideas found in the Christian religion?

I didn't take the time to read this thread, just the initial post, so this may now be off topic.

As an LDS, this is my perspective...

I believe in Adam and Eve. I believe that God introduced them to the correct and true order of things concerning...

-Teachings that Christ would come and be a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
-Animal sacrifice as a type or symbol of Christ who was to come (animal sacrifice stopped at the time of Christ, as it was no longer required).
-The fact that Christ is the Son of God.
-The need for the fall and atonement.
-The purpose of life.

Adam and Eve therefore knew very well of Christ, his mission, and taught this to their children.

Generally speaking, I would say that any resemblances to these concepts that are found in world religions, are due to the fact that we all descend from Adam and Eve and therefore we all have a common religion in our heritage.

Over time, as people disperse and move about and become disconnected from their original roots, religious teachings evolve and change...but we see some core concepts or threads of commonality among religions of the world. I point to God and what I will call "original revelation in the beginning of the world" as the reason for the commonality.

Having said that, I realize that some religious beliefs do not descend in any way from what was taught in the beginning. Some take root and start independently.

But when I see concepts such as vicarious sacrifice, life after death, laws of morality, offspring of Diety, accountability to a Higher Power, eternal progression after this life, becoming like or part of the Divine, etc. as part of or common to major world religions, I conclude that "original revelation in the beginning" is the explanation.

 

[godnotgod]

The concept of original sin comes after the NT was written. Moreover, although Christ was thought to have died for the sins of the world, the point was that this death opened the kingdom of heaven for humanity. The washing away of sin doesn't matter if we still die

It most certainly does. You cannot go to heaven with Original Sin on your soul. But even with Original Sin out of the way, you would still go to hell according to how God judges you on Judgment Day, if you had committed sins of a more grievous nature. Although we still die, (which we would with or without a Resurrection), the idea is that one has eternal life after that, in a Heaven whose Gates were opened by the Crucifixion.

. However, without Jesus resurrecting as the messianic claimaint of the throne of YHWH's kingdom,

The is the idea of Jesus's bloodline as being royal and connected to, I believe, the House of David to establish him as a King here on earth has simply been superimposed over the idea that he is a King of Heaven also. Just so much blather, actually, and another attempt to make Jesus a "Special Case":

"See? My God is better than your God!"

The problem is not that a King must claim the throne of Heaven, but one of "Who is in control?". That has always been the problem, and continues on, in the child mind of the Christian, into the "afterlife". Even then, Evil continues on in a Hell, but a Hell that is now completely and forever under control...ha...ha...ha...or so they think!:seesaw:

...we would be in the same predicament. No entering into god's kingdom if Jesus isn't there. The sacrifice would be meaningless, because the kingdom of god would not be opened.

Wrong. One attains the right to enter Heaven by accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior in this world, now.:

"No man enters the Kingdom of Heaven except through me"

...and since Jesus tells us that...

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

...essentially, we go to Paradise NOW. Unfortunately, the orthodox Christian has the teaching so twisted that he places the idea of the Heavenly realm in some future time and place, accessible only after death. He has disassociated his true nature from the ordinary life he must live every day, and turned it into a fantasy.

So the fantasy says that, when you face Judgment Day, you are then ready to enter the Kingdom of Heaven whose Gates have already been opened, not by the Resurrection, but by the Crucifixion, as you just pointed out above.

 

[Oberon]

It most certainly does. You cannot go to heaven with Original Sin on your soul. But even with Original Sin out of the way, you would still go to hell according to how God judges you on Judgment Day.

You are misunderstanding how I am using death. The death Jesus was supposed to have freed humanity from was permanent. He did this not simply by sacrificing him self, but also by resurrecting as a ruler of heaven. Without the resurrection, there would be no messiah, and no one goes to heaven, washing away of sins or no.

The is the idea of Jesus's bloodline as being royal and connected to, I believe, the House of David to establish him as a King here on earth has simply been superimposed over the idea that he is a King of Heaven also. Just so much blather, actually, and another attempt to make Jesus a "Special Case":

The house of David was where the messiah was supposed to come from, hence the geneology. It doesn't matter though. The point is that by becoming a ruler in heaven Jesus was able to allow access to heaven. The washing away of sins doesn't matter if he isn't up there letting people in.

Wrong. One attains the right to enter Heaven by accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior in this world, now.

It isn't a matter of right to enter. The point was prior to Jesus attaining his thrown, heaven was closed of to humanity. Jesus suffering washed away sins, but it didn't open the gates. His resurrection and restoration of gods kingdom did.

 

[godnotgod]

You are misunderstanding how I am using death. The death Jesus was supposed to have freed humanity from was permanent. He did this not simply by sacrificing him self, but also by resurrecting as a ruler of heaven. Without the resurrection, there would be no messiah, and no one goes to heaven, washing away of sins or no.

Jesus was recognized as the Messiah before he allegedly resurrected himself. The sacrifice of the Crucifixion achieved the redemption of Original Sin and the re-opening of the Gates of Paradise, essentially saving mankind from the inevitable fate of an eternity in Hell. This is the outcome of the condition of Original Sin, or spiritual death. The reopening of Heaven is what is meant by his being the Messiah, Messiah meaning Savior. The Resurrection did not achieve this; the Crucifixion did, by the shedding of his blood:

"This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin"

I don't see the connection you are trying to make between the Resurrection and mankind's access to Heaven. No resurrected King is necessary as a 'ruler of heaven' since Yawheh is already the ruler of the entire universe.

What really is at stake here, and what you are not getting, is that Jesus is an external symbolic representation of man's real divine nature, a nature that once realized, is supreme and beyond death. It is simply that the divine nature of the Christian is so hidden from view, that he externalizes it, projecting it onto a familiar figure, one that is human which he can identify with, but one which is also celestial, and which can have victory over both physical and spiritual death. When one does realize his own divinity and unfolds it, he then becomes a Buddha. Both physical and spiritual beings are realized as One in the here and now. Heaven or Hell is NOW. The Christian is in denial of his own divinity....so much so that he thinks it is blasphemy to be God. But, then again, that is still his ego talking. He is still asleep spiritually, and sees things dualistically: heaven and hell, good and evil, jesus and satan, always seemingly in conflict, over which a victory must occur. He never understands how those dualistic concepts can ever work together in harmony. That is his problem.

The house of David was where the messiah was supposed to come from, hence the geneology. It doesn't matter though. The point is that by becoming a ruler in heaven Jesus was able to allow access to heaven.

But it most certainly does matter, as he is recognized as a ruler of Heaven because he is first proven to be a ruler on Earth, via of his royal bloodline that goes back to the House of David. Here again, we have the importance of historicity to prove the authenticity of the spiritual Jesus. He could only be recognized as a ruler of Heaven after he is first officially recognized as having royal blood on Earth. You don't want just some Joe off the streets to be King.

The washing away of sins doesn't matter if he isn't up there letting people in.

He does'nt let them in; St. Peter does.

It isn't a matter of right to enter.

No? What did Jesus say?

"No man enters the Kingdom of God except through me"

That sound like "right to enter" to me.

...as in: "You do not have the right to enter Heaven until you first bow down and accept me as your own personal lord and savior."

The point was prior to Jesus attaining his thrown, heaven was closed of to humanity. Jesus suffering washed away sins, but it didn't open the gates. His resurrection and restoration of gods kingdom did.

According to you, Jesus could have come to earth, taught men, worked miracles, died a peaceful death, resurrected himself, establishing himself as King of Heaven, and then re-opened the Gates of Heaven. The Crucififixion was not necessary.

I don't know what your religious indoctrination was, by mine was thoroughly Catholic, in which we had pounded into us the doctrine that Jesus's Crucifixion via of the shedding of divine blood, was the event that re-opened the Gates of Heaven which the Original Sin of Adam and Eve had closed.

Essentially, the Gates of Heaven having been closed represents Yawehs's anger over the disobedience of his children. Only a worthy sacrificial host could appease his anger so that he would reopen them. That sacrificial host was his 'only begotten Son', Jesus, whom he sacrificed for the benefit of mankind. Only a pure and worthy host such as the only son of God would have the power to appease the angry Godhead. It was not Jesus who reopened the Gates, but Yawheh, and then only because his only son's blood was shed as payment for Sin.

Don't you SEE? The entire doctrine is completely tribal in content. If you brush your indoctrination aside for a moment, it will also become obvious to you.

 

[godnotgod]

Here is an excerpt from just one random Google search re: blood sacrifice as the key to the opening of the Heavenly Gates:

THE BLOOD OF JESUS HAS OPENED HEAVEN.


"We read in Hebrews ix. 22, Christ "by His own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."


We know that in the Old Testament Tabernacle God's manifested presence was inside the veil. No power of man could remove that veil. The High Priest alone could enter there, but only with blood, or the loss of his own life. That was a picture of the power of sin in the flesh, which separates us from God. The eternal righteousness of God guarded the entrance to the Most Holy Place, that no flesh might approach Him.


But now our Lord appears, not in a material but in the true Temple. As High Priest and representative of His People, He asks for Himself, and for sinful children of Adam, an entrance into the presence of the Holy One. "That where I am, there they may be also" is His request. He asks that heaven may be opened for each one, even for the greatest sinner, who believes in Him. His request is granted. But how is that? It is through the BLOOD. He entered THROUGH HIS OWN BLOOD. THE BLOOD OF JESUS HAS OPENED HEAVEN.

So it is ever, and always, through the blood that the throne of grace remains settled in heaven. In the midst of the seven great realities of heaven (Heb. xii. 22, 24), yes, nearest to God the judge of all, and to Jesus the Mediator, the Holy Spirit gives a prominent place to "THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING."
It is the constant "speaking" of that blood that keeps heaven open for sinners, and sends streams of blessing down on earth. It is through that blood that Jesus, as Mediator, carries on, without ceasing, His mediatorial work. The Throne of grace owes its existence ever, and always, to the power of that blood.


Oh, the wonderful power of the blood of Christ. Just as it has broken open the gates of the grave, and of hell, to let Jesus out, and us with Him; so it has opened the gates of heaven for Him, and us with Him, to enter. The blood has an almighty power over the kingdom of darkness, and hell beneath; and over the kingdom of heaven, and its glory above.

Andrew Murray:The Power of the Blood of Jesus.Chapter 2

....and here is further evidence of the pagan nature of the belief in the magical power of blood:

"I. WHEREIN DOES THE POWER OF THAT BLOOD LIE? or what is it that gives to the blood of Jesus such power? How is it that in the blood, alone, there is power possessed by nothing else?
The answer to this question is found in Leviticus xvii. 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."


[so here is further evidence of the pagan origins of both Judaism and Christianity both]

It is because the soul, or life, is in the blood; and that the blood is offered to God on the altar, that it has in it redemptive power.
i. The soul or life is in the blood, therefore the value of the blood corresponds to the value of the life that is in it.

[Ah, and then God ups the ante!]

The life of a sheep, or goat, is of less value than the life of an ox, and so the blood of a sheep or a goat in an offering, is of less value than the blood of an ox (Lev. iv. 3, 24, 27).

The life of man is more valuable than that of many sheep or oxen.

[Alas! That is still not good enough for God. More BLOOD, please!!! I demand more and better BLOOD!]


And now who can tell the value or the power of the blood of Jesus? In that blood, dwelt the soul of the holy Son of God.
The eternal life of the Godhead was carried in that blood (Acts xx. 28)."

 

[Oberon]

Jesus was recognized as the Messiah before he allegedly resurrected himself.

According to the NT, yes. But being recognized as the Messiah and proving it are two different things. The resurrection was proof, but more importantly it meant Jesus could be there to open the God's kingdom to humanity. As Paul said, without the resurrection, christian faith is in vain.

The sacrifice of the Crucifixion achieved the redemption of Original Sin

1. Original sin was a later concept.
2. The absolution of sin doesn't matter if Jesus isn't there to open the kingdom.
3. Sacrifice doesn't equate with paganism. Your whole point here with this blood sacrifice is to show pagan influence on christianity. Yet your only example of a sacrifice for absolution is from Judaism, and the examples of Mithraic rituals, which aren't for absolution, postdate the NT.

and the re-opening of the Gates of Paradise

No reopening without a resurrected messiah.

, essentially saving mankind from the inevitable fate of an eternity in Hell.

No saving from hell without the resurrected messiah.

"This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin"

I don't see anything here about original sin, or a tie to paganism, or entrance into heaven.

I don't see the connection you are trying to make between the Resurrection and mankind's access to Heaven. No resurrected King is necessary as a 'ruler of heaven' since Yawheh is already the ruler of the entire universe.

That was the whole point of the resurrection. That by resurrecting, Jesus conquered death for us. His sacrifice absolved sin, but it was his resurrection into his messianic thrown to open the gates that allowed access. This point is made from the earliest christian documents we have (Paul) all the way to modern celebrations of easter.

What really is at stake here, and what you are not getting, is that Jesus is an external symbolic representation of man's real divine nature

What is really at stake here is not how you or I believe about who or what Jesus really was, but what basis there is to say that christianity was based upon paganism. It wasn't. Christian theology did borrow a great deal from pagan philosophy, but the crucifixion and the resurrection are not pagan themes, nor is a willing suffering sacrifice for the absolution of sin.

No? What did Jesus say?

"No man enters the Kingdom of God except through me"

Yes, but the above says nothing about the sacrifice. Jesus' resurrection allowed people into the kingdom of god.

The Crucififixion was not necessary.

Not exactly. First, it isn't a matter of what was necessary. Jesus DID die. What was necessary was for the Jesus sect to somehow interpret that event. A sacrifice was a Jewish motif, and the sect began as a jewish sect. Yes, the crucifixion was importanat but no, it wasn't more important than the resurrection.

I don't know what your religious indoctrination was, by mine was thoroughly Catholic

So was mine.

,

in which we had pounded into us the doctrine that Jesus's Crucifixion via of the shedding of divine blood, was the event that re-opened the Gates of Heaven which the Original Sin of Adam and Eve had closed.

Did you have to say the nicene creed in church as I did? This is the standard profession of the cathololic faith, and places more emphasis on the resurrection, and says nothing of blood:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Don't you SEE? The entire doctrine is completely tribal in content.

How much time have you actually spent reading anthropological research to understand what you call "tribal" religions? I'm guessing not a lot.

 

[Oberon]

"We read in Hebrews ix. 22, Christ "by His own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

No, we don't. Unless your copy of hebrews is very different from mine, Hebrews 9:22 does not say that.

However, we do have 1 Cor. 15:17:
εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, ματαία ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν, ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν/ if chist was not raised, your faith is folly, still you are among your sins.

[so here is further evidence of the pagan origins of both Judaism and Christianity both]

Where is the pagan texts which predates judaism and/or christianity and uses a willing blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[godnotgod]

No, we don't. Unless your copy of hebrews is very different from mine, Hebrews 9:22 does not say that.

The source I quoted from says that the passage is from Hebrews 9:22, but it is a typo. It is actually Hebrews 9:12:

Hebrews 9:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)

12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?



But what Hebrews 9:22 DOES say is very revealing in and of itself:


Hebrews 9:22King James Version (KJV)



http://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...etCommentaryText&cid=66&source=2&seq=i.65.9.4


22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

[godnotgod]

Did you have to say the nicene creed in church as I did? This is the standard profession of the cathololic faith, and places more emphasis on the resurrection, and says nothing of blood:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Yup! But far more than the Nicene Creed, I, as a Knight Commander Altar Boy, served hundreds of Catholic Masses, each time re-enacting the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ for the redemption of sin, and the ritual eating and drinking of his body and blood via of the sacrament of Holy Communion.

"Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, have mercy on me.
Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, grant us peace."


All the Nicene Creed actually does is to pass on some of the authority of God the Father to his Son, Jesus Christ. The rest of it goes to his other son, Satan, who sits on his left hand side. In other words, Jesus proved his mettle by his willing sacrifice, and so earned his place of authority to judge mankind, in the name of the Father. But this is a human theme, kind of like when a father passes his authority and/or inheritance to his first born son. The Nicene Creed does not establish the Resurrection as actually achieving anything of importance as does the redemption of sin via of the shedding of blood in the Crucifixion. It just establishes and keeps a familiar human face in control over a "kingdom which has no end." It is but a child's fantasy, one designed to assure the child that God is ultimately in control, the Devil has been contained, and everything is OK. Now go to your room.

It is a psychological device.

It assumes that the universe is designed after a hierarchical pattern, with Jesus as divine King, with we as his loyal subjects.

Of course, a King rules a nation, which wars with other nations, and Jesus the King does battle with the forces of Darkness and Evil. But, in the end, of course, all live happily ever after....uh....except for those sometimes faintly heard screams coming from somewhere far below one's feet.

"Momma, what is that sound like people screaming?"

"Nothing child. You're just hearing voices. Now brush your teeth and go to your room" :run:

 

[godnotgod]

Moloch

by Micha F. Lindemans
"King". The sun god of the Canaanites (Ammonites?) in old Palestine and sometimes associated with the Sumerian Baal, although Moloch (or Molekh) was entirely malevolent. In the 8th-6th century BCE, firstborn children were sacrificed to him by the Israelites in the Valleye of Hinnom, south-east of Jerusalem (see also Gehenna). These sacrifices to the sun god were made to renew the strength of the sun fire.* This ritual was probably borrowed from surrounding nations, and was also popular in ancient Carthage. Moloch was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims.
According to some sources, the Moloch in the Old Testament is not a god, but a specific form of sacrifice.


*"renew the strength of the sunfire". Does this perchance sound something roughly akin to: "and his kingdom will have no end."?

Please understand that we are looking at this from the standpoint of ideas or themes, and not specifics.

Please also note that these were Jews willingly making human sacrifices to a pagan god in order to derive and perpetuate some form of benefit from him.



Moloch