Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Sleeppy]

What do you have against ungodliness?

I am both godly and ungodly, in one body. I have whatever I was given, able to receive, and able to maintain.

 

[thepersianpuzzle]

Perhaps the crucifixion is just a story to help us fathom gods love towards us.

 

[fantome profane]

When an investor invests into a company, they sacrifice out of their own resources. Even when there is a return from that sacrifice, the original circumstance is still considered to be sacrificed for that of the new circumstance.

No, that is called an "investment".

 

[Sleeppy]

No, that is called an "investment".

An investment is a sacrifice. Let me help you do your research:

Sacrifice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone.

Investment - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The outlay of money usually for income or profit.

 

[fantome profane]

An investment is a sacrifice. Let me help you do your research:

Sacrifice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary





Investment - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I am just going to assume you have never started up a new business, and no one close to you has either. You don't go up to people and ask them to "sacrifice" their money. You don't go to the bank looking for a "sacrifice". You ask people to invest their money. You try to convince them that it is a good investment. Use the word "sacrifice" just once and they will turn away. If anyone considered it a "sacrifice" they would not do it.

 

[John Martin]

Crucifixion and Resurrection are historical events but also archetypes.
Truth has two aspects: conditioned or historical, unconditioned or eternal.
Unconditioned truth is like the infinite space. Conditioned truth is like the space within the walls and the roof.
Jesus stood for the unconditioned truth. His spiritual tradition represented conditioned truth. Jesus invited his tradition to grow from the conditioned truth to the unconditioned truth. His spiritual authorities refused. They wanted him to remain in their conditioned truth. Jesus refused.
On the part of Jesus crucifixion is the consequence of his commitment to the unconditioned truth and refusal to remain in the conditioned truth of his tradition.
On the part of the Jewish spiritual leaders crucifixion is the consequence of their refusal to grow from the conditioned truth to the unconditioned truth. They absolutied the conditioned truth.
Resurrection is affirmation that the unconditioned truth will ultimately triumph.
Unconditioned truth cannot be killed.
This crucifixion and resurrection did not happen in the past but they are happening all the time.
Whenever we confine the truth into four walls and a roof we are crucifying the truth.
Whenever we refuse to grow in divine-human relationship we are are crucifying the truth.
Whenever we build dividing walls we are crucifying the truth because Truth is unconditioned and it has no walls.Truth is unity.
Those who stand for unconditioned truth, stand for unity. These persons may be killed in the name of blasphemy but they(truth) will rise. They will be ultimately victorious. Unity will ultimately triumph and not disunity.
In this sense crucifixion and resurrection are not past events but recurring phenomenon. They are archetypes.

 

[oldbadger]

Ther is a contradiction in the bible of whether crucifixion was on a cross or a tree.

Yes....... Stake, cross or tree.......

 

[Sleeppy]

I am just going to assume you have never started up a new business, and no one close to you has either. You don't go up to people and ask them to "sacrifice" their money. You don't go to the bank looking for a "sacrifice". You ask people to invest their money. You try to convince them that it is a good investment. Use the word "sacrifice" just once and they will turn away. If anyone considered it a "sacrifice" they would not do it.

Assume what you will. If you receive money from someone else, they sacrificed that money in order to give it. If you go to the bank for a loan, the bank must sacrifice the amount to be given, in order that you receive it. So, if the people turn away, it is because they haven't understood that their sacrifice would be synonymous with an investment in that case.. All you would need to do is show them a dictionary, or a thesaurus.


What is Salary Sacrifice?


AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia

 

[Desert Snake]

Assume what you will. If you receive money from someone else, they sacrificed that money in order to give it. If you go to the bank for a loan, the bank must sacrifice the amount to be given, in order that you receive it. So, if the people turn away, it is because they haven't understood that their sacrifice would be synonymous with an investment in that case.. All you would need to do is show them a dictionary, or a thesaurus.


What is Salary Sacrifice?


AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia

It isn't like the prior sacrifice in Judaism. So, if you are 'correct', you cannot relate it to Judaic sacrifice.

 

[oldbadger]

We need more idle, baseless speculation, these threads thrive on it.

Dammit..... I'm doing my best.....
Idle? It's hard work ripping everything up and turning it upside down.
You love it.......! Can't keep away from it........
I should be charging for the entertainment..... (sniff)

 

[Sleeppy]

It isn't like the prior sacrifice in Judaism. So, if you are 'correct', you cannot relate it to Judaic sacrifice.

Judaic sacrifice was also an exchange, or type of investment. When the men of God sacrificed anything, they were attempting to worship God. Worship is an investment; the benefits and consequences of these investments are detailed in the Torah and prophets. I can quote just about anything in the Torah and prove it to you.

 

[oldbadger]

Thanks for the quote. What does this suggest to you about the narrative found in Mark 15?

I bear it in mind as I think about:-

But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
Now at [that] feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
.............Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?
And [so] Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus,

And I'm surprised that you find the references worthy of comment.

The very fact that Titus could reprieve three convicts on crosses could help folks to accept that Pilate, in isolated absolute power, could offer the citizens of Jerusalem such choices as he pleased.

I'm trying to determine if you honestly believe that you're doing much beyond muddying the waters with idle speculation.

Never frivolous. I never know if I'm just clouding issues. I have often found inept complacency, so I don't auto-trust in experts, I want to look again. And again.
My soul has been severely damaged by the dishonesty of legal expert-witnesses..... omg

 

[oldbadger]

Crucifixion and Resurrection are historical events......................
This crucifixion and resurrection did not happen in the past ...................

:faint: ....................

 

[Ken Brown]

Your "understanding" of how we view sacrifices is just so wrong, and even your use of scripture reflects mere picking-and-choosing what you want to believe, not that which is actually written. Instead of believing in nonsense, you actually may want to look something up, such as here: Judaism 101: Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

There are other Jewish sources you can use as well, so you might consider Googling some of them.

Shabbat Shalom metis, my understanding comes from statements like we find from Rashi's commentary on Lev 17:11:

For the soul of the flesh: of every creature is dependent upon the blood, and therefore, I have given it to atone for the soul of man. [In this way,] one “soul” [namely, the blood of a sacrifice] shall come and atone for another soul.

Why would you think the sin offering was not used as a substitute in Israel's history? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[metis]

Shabbat Shalom metis, my understanding comes from statements like we find from Rashi's commentary on Lev 17:11:

Why would you think the sin offering was not used as a substitute in Israel's history? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

With symbolic value, as I previously mentioned, as the Temple sacrifices and Yom Kippur especially deal with communal sins on a year to year basis. "No man is an island" in Judaism, and there's a strong teaching of communal responsibilities.

 

[outhouse]

My soul has been severely damaged by the dishonesty of legal expert-witnesses..... omg

Not relevant to any discussion here.

Other then commeting on possible motives for bias.

The very fact that Titus could reprieve three convicts on crosses could help folks to accept that Pilate, in isolated absolute power, could offer the citizens of Jerusalem such choices as he pleased.

There is no connection to a well known popular historian begging a friend to release his other friends, and making a claim that Pilate "could have"

Pilate "could have" done anything he wated, but keeping peace was his number one job as his life depended on it. he had a reputation for being to brutal, the bible contradicts historical knowledge in every aspect of the trial including letting some Jew go free.


The trial itself is debated oalong the lines of apologist thinking it was real, and critical historians claiming it as a literary creation.

 

[Ken Brown]

With symbolic value, as I previously mentioned, as the Temple sacrifices and Yom Kippur especially deal with communal sins on a year to year basis. "No man is an island" in Judaism, and there's a strong teaching of communal responsibilities.

Shabbat Shalom metis, do those "communal responsibilities" require the slaughtering of an innocent animal in the place of the wicked? Their blood for the blood of the community? Open up. Explain why the shedding of blood is required for atonement? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[oldbadger]

There is no connection to a well known popular historian begging a friend to release his other friends, and making a claim that Pilate "could have"

Precedent! Plus Pilate had the power and the means...... if he wished.

Pilate "could have" done anything he wated, but keeping peace was his number one job as his life depended on it.

Good. And if, for any reason, he wanted to keep Jesus alive, he could have, just could have...... either crucified another in his place, or taken him down early, with no broken legs. Now...... do apologists push that one? Nada!

he had a reputation for being to brutal,

Source. Don't tell me about the incident which caused his recall to Rome. I want a chronologically suitable source please.

the bible contradicts historical knowledge in every aspect of the trial including letting some Jew go free.

Don't throw it away. Work on it. Worry it. Look at it.

It's not up for debate D)

 

[outhouse]

Good. And if, for any reason, he wanted to keep Jesus alive, he could have, just could have...... either crucified another in his place, or taken him down early, with no broken legs. Now...... do apologists push that one? Nada!

And pigs could fly

Hundreds of thousands of Jews were crucified, and we only have one exmple of one person being taken down.

There is no evidence of Pilate ever setting anyone free, let alone taking them off a cross.


It is you climbing the uphill battle and you who is required to make a connection based on more then YOUR imagination.

 

[metis]

Shabbat Shalom metis, do those "communal responsibilities" require the slaughtering of an innocent animal in the place of the wicked? Their blood for the blood of the community? Open up. Explain why the shedding of blood is required for atonement? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

In almost all cultures that rely on hunting or animal husbandry, there can be found the concept of sacrifice of an animal(s), although they are not all handled the same way. Why is this done? Generally speaking, it's to thank God (or the Gods) for the gift of animals with the hope that God would welcome such sacrifices.

As far as our animal sacrifices were concerned, what many don't understand is that the meat of the animal was eaten by the priests with what's left then passed on to the poor, and only the blood, skin, and some internal organs were burnt.

As far as "innocent animals" are concerned, are you a vegetarian?

BTW, the shedding of blood is not required for atonement as it is only one pathway.