who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[McBell]

No, I have never made any bold empty claims, ever.

denial and or a Bold faced lie

I have never posted my opinion, ever.

denial and or a Bold faced lie

I have not lied ever to you.

denial and or a Bold faced lie.
See post #218

I don't ever find the truth offensive, ever never.

Denial and or a bold faced lie.

And I am not guilty of transference, ever.

denial and or a bold faced lie

Your childish behavior is offensive and I am asking you once again to stop now.

I will stop pointing out your lies and bold empty claims when you stop lying and making bold empty claims.

Balls in YOUR court now.

Stop bothering me. What you are doing is akin to stalking. I want you to stop posting offensive things to me and you refuse to stop. That is stalking. Stop now.

You need to look up the definition of "stalking".

Please pay considerable attention to the fact that replying to your posts to me is NOT stalking.

 

[truthofscripture]

denial and or a Bold faced lie


denial and or a Bold faced lie


denial and or a Bold faced lie.
See post #218


Denial and or a bold faced lie.


denial and or a bold faced lie


I will stop pointing out your lies and bold empty claims when you stop lying and making bold empty claims.

Balls in YOUR court now.


You need to look up the definition of "stalking".

Please pay considerable attention to the fact that replying to your posts to me is NOT stalking.

Okay you stalking child, I am putting you on the ignore list.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Okay you stalking child, I am putting you on the ignore list.

One might consider that an honor, seeing as how our friends Empirical Evidence, Logic, and Intellectual Honesty also reside there. Sounds like good company. Like having tea with Buddha, Jesus, and Fred Rogers.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm afraid I don't understand what "pagan" is supposed to mean in this context. Yes, sacrificial cult in temple Judaism was quite similar in form and function to sacrificial cult in Greco-Roman religion, or indeed any neighboring culture. That's not really disputed. But you seem to be using some essentialist definition of the word "pagan" that I'm not familiar with. It's a polemical term that Christians invented to refer to those who weren't Christians or Jews, but aside from that it's not a very descriptive or useful word.

Yes, it does have a wide range of meaning. As pertains to the discussion, I am using it only to define those religious practices or beliefs which included blood sacrifice, actually or symbolically. The short list would include Mithraism, Judaism, and Christianity. And if infanticide to the god Moloch bears any truth, it reveals a tie between the Jews who practiced it and the pagan sources from which it was derived. See here: Moloch Baal | The West’s Darkest Hour

Also not sure what magic has got to do with it, unless you were using some figure of speech. Again, "magic" is a denigrating term invented by pagan Greeks as a way of disparaging what they viewed as illicit or foreign practices. If they were being very uncharitable and Hellenocentric, they might dismiss Judaic religion as "magic" (i.e. like the Zoroastrian Magi and their foreign mumbo-jumbo). But if you're suggesting that the precise forms of the sacrifice were just dressing, that wasn't the attitude of ancient sacrificial cult that I'm aware of—on the contrary, the precise ritual details were the entire point, and no sacrifice could go forward if they were not followed to the letter. That would be the case for "pagan" sacrifices as well as Jewish ones. There's no essential core that can be extracted and analyzed in isolation from the ritual specifics.

I'm suggesting that Judaic animal sacrifice and Christian symbolic sacrifice are more formalized, 'authentic', and 'official' than their pagan counterparts. And I am using the word 'magic'* to apply to both in the sense of a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of a mysterious transformation of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. In this sense, belief in blood sacrifice is a kind of superstition. In particular, the ancients seemed to have held that the blood was the life-force; that it carried with it some kind of magical, transformative power without which life was non-existent. As I recall, some ancient warriors, upon slaying a legendary opponent, would drink his blood to gain his power. Animal blood had the power of transferring guilt and sin away from the sinner in Judaism, while Jesus is the scapegoat and 'Lamb of God' whose blood has the power to 'take one's sins away'. The idea of the scapegoat, found in Judaism, goes back much further to Syria in the 24th century BC. Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line of my argument is that there is no difference in the significance between the blood sacrifice of Jesus and that of any other religious practice, as both imply a magical and transformative power of the blood.

*White magic has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for good and selfless purposes. With respect to the philosophy of left-hand path and right-hand path, white magic is the benevolent counterpart of malicious black magic. Because of its ties to traditional pagan nature worship, white magic is often also referred to as "natural magic".
White magic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

Okay you stalking child, I am putting you on the ignore list.

If your self control is so lacking you have to put me on ignore to stop replying to my posts, then you best put me on ignore.

Putting me on ignore will not stop me from pointing out your lies and bold empty claims.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Yes, it does have a wide range of meaning. As pertains to the discussion, I am using it only to define those religious practices or beliefs which included blood sacrifice, actually or symbolically. The short list would include Mithraism, Judaism, and Christianity.

That's a unique usage of the word. I'm really not sure how it's a useful term anymore if you're going to redefine it in that way, so that Christianity (the thing the term "paganism" was invented to contrast) is included as a form of paganism. It's a bit like saying that a "reptile" is any animal with a face, including mammals.

I'm suggesting that Judaic animal sacrifice and Christian symbolic sacrifice are more formalized, 'authentic', and 'official' than their pagan counterparts.

If you're in fact suggesting that Judaic animal sacrifice was more formalized than pagan animal sacrifice, then I must say that you're mistaken. Greco-Roman religion is the pagan tradition that we have the most evidence for by far, and you're not going to find a more formalized example of sacrificial cult. It may have differed from Judaic sacrifice in a few particulars, but not to the degree that the average modern person would notice the difference. But one doesn't have to know much about it to know that, so I must be misunderstanding you here.

In particular, the ancients seemed to have held that the blood was the life-force; that it carried with it some kind of magical, transformative power without which life was non-existent. As I recall, some ancient warriors, upon slaying a legendary opponent, would drink his blood to gain his power. Animal blood had the power of transferring guilt and sin away from the sinner in Judaism, while Jesus is the scapegoat and 'Lamb of God' whose blood has the power to 'take one's sins away'. The idea of the scapegoat, found in Judaism, goes back much further to Syria in the 24th century BC.

24th century BC? That must be a typo, as we have no evidence for specific religious beliefs or practices going back that far, nor had goats even been domesticated yet.

But aside from that, we don't need to speculate about why ancient people sacrificed animals: they tell us repeatedly, if you bother to read ancient literature. The gods enjoy the scent of the burning fat, which was often spiced with fragrant herbs, and the act of sharing a meal with humans gave them pleasure, as did the prestige that came with having people call on them for patronage. In most cases the animals would be slaughtered quickly, then bled, then butchered and cooked, then eaten by the celebrants. In most of those cases the blood was not used for anything, nor was it seen as particularly important to the process. In Judaic practice in particular, religious taboos against the consumption of blood meant that it had to be removed as much as possible prior to the cooking. In a few Greco-Roman sacrificial rites the blood might be used for something, but it's not consistent, and it's not clear that it's the blood itself that's important and not just the fact that it's been consecrated to a divinity.

As for the lamb metaphor, you're getting the basic sacrifice to Yahweh (normally an ox, at least in the 2nd Temple period) confused with the Passover myth. The lamb's blood was painted on doors to keep death from visiting the houses during the final plague in Egypt (in a noteworthy exception to the general rule about blood's being unclean). The Christ is compared to the lamb in the sense that he saves people from death. Sin doesn't enter into that equation directly, at least not as formulated by the early Christians who wrote the scriptures.

As I mentioned, the idea that Christ's death was a blood sacrifice to atone for sin is medieval in origin, and it shows in the degree to which its formulator didn't really understand the nature or purpose of sacrificial cult.

The bottom line of my argument is that there is no difference in the

significance between the blood sacrifice of Jesus and that of any other religious practice, as both imply a magical and transformative power of the blood.

*White magic has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for good and selfless purposes. With respect to the philosophy of left-hand path and right-hand path, white magic is the benevolent counterpart of malicious black magic. Because of its ties to traditional pagan nature worship, white magic is often also referred to as "natural magic".
White magic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a cute theory, but from an academic standpoint it rests on a general lack of understanding of how people actually saw these things in ancient times, and there's no real effort to engage with the piles of primary-source evidence we do have on the subject. Modern occultism, including the theory of magic that you cite here, is a recent invention that has no direct connection to the attitudes and practices of people in antiquity, and trying to interpret their beliefs and practices in those terms isn't terribly helpful.

 

[godnotgod]

24th century BC? That must be a typo, as we have no evidence for specific religious beliefs or practices going back that far, nor had goats even been domesticated yet.

Ancient Syria
A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC. They were connected with ritual purification on the occasion of the king's wedding. In them, a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of "Alini"; "we" in the report of the ritual involves the whole community. Such "elimination rites", in which an animal, without confession of sins, is the vehicle of evils (not sins) that are chased from the community are widely attested in the Ancient Near East.

Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[godnotgod]

That's a unique usage of the word. I'm really not sure how it's a useful term anymore if you're going to redefine it in that way, so that Christianity (the thing the term "paganism" was invented to contrast) is included as a form of paganism.

What I'm trying to say is that pagans, Jews, and Christians who saw the blood as having some significance in their rituals did so because they all had a common belief about blood: that it possessed some kind of mysterious, transformative power.

 

[godnotgod]

If you're in fact suggesting that Judaic animal sacrifice was more formalized than pagan animal sacrifice, then I must say that you're mistaken. Greco-Roman religion is the pagan tradition that we have the most evidence for by far, and you're not going to find a more formalized example of sacrificial cult. It may have differed from Judaic sacrifice in a few particulars, but not to the degree that the average modern person would notice the difference. But one doesn't have to know much about it to know that, so I must be misunderstanding you here.

More formalized in the sense of being more 'official' or 'authentic' than pagan ritual.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I'm trying to say is that pagans, Jews, and Christians who saw the blood as having some significance in their rituals did so because they all had a common belief about blood: that it possessed some kind of mysterious, transformative power.

Communion, the wine and bread, ie representing Jesus, is a remembrance ceremony, not a vampiric sacrifice reenactment. They actually are...different..concepts.

 

[godnotgod]

In most of those cases the blood was not used for anything, nor was it seen as particularly important to the process. In Judaic practice in particular, religious taboos against the consumption of blood meant that it had to be removed as much as possible prior to the cooking. In a few Greco-Roman sacrificial rites the blood might be used for something, but it's not consistent, and it's not clear that it's the blood itself that's important and not just the fact that it's been consecrated to a divinity.

The Judaic taboo against the consumption of blood had to do with the idea that it was sacred.

Like all ancient religions, the religion of Israel found blood something sacred, for blood is life, and everything touching life is in close contact with God, the sole Master of life...
The prohibition against eating blood and meat not ritually drained was in force well before biblical revelation. Whatever the original meaning of the proscription, it received precise motives in the Old Testament: blood, like life, belongs only to God; blood has its proper place in sacrifice; man must not use it except for purposes of expiation...

Blood in the Bible - OrthodoxWiki

ex·pi·a·tion
the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing; atonement.

IOW, the blood has sacred power as a means of sin redemption, exactly the meaning behind the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

Because of the Judaic prohibition against the drinking of blood, and because the idea is a central metaphor in Christianity, the idea cannot have come from Judaism, but it more likely may have come from Mithraism instead. See here:

THE IDENTIFICATION OF BLOOD AND WINE IN THE EUCHARIST | Elton Hollon - Academia.edu

 

[godnotgod]

Communion, the wine and bread, ie representing Jesus, is a remembrance ceremony, not a vampiric sacrifice reenactment. They actually are...different..concepts.

While it of course is not a vampiric ritual, it is still possesses far,far greater significance than that of being merely a remembrance ceremony. That is only a part of the meaning of the ritual, but not even the primary part:

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:28

No, it is clearly divine blood that has the magic, the transformative power, to wash away the sins of all mankind. In the larger context of the Christian doctrine, Jesus is the sacrificial host sent by his Father as a means of reopening the Gates of Paradise for all mankind which the Original Sin of Adam and Eve had closed.

 

[Desert Snake]

While it of course is not a vampiric ritual, it is still possesses far,far greater significance than that of being merely a remembrance ceremony. That is only a part of the meaning of the ritual, but not even the primary part:

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:28

No, it is clearly divine blood that has the magic, the transformative power, to wash away the sins of all mankind. In the larger context of the Christian doctrine, Jesus is the sacrificial host sent by his Father as a means of reopening the Gates of Paradise for all mankind which the Original Sin of Adam and Eve had closed.

Alas...no...The sacrifice of Jesus was for our sins..not those of Adam and Eve.

 

[godnotgod]

The Judaic taboo against the consumption of blood had to do with the idea that it was sacred.

Like all ancient religions, the religion of Israel found blood something sacred, for blood is life, and everything touching life is in close contact with God, the sole Master of life...
The prohibition against eating blood and meat not ritually drained was in force well before biblical revelation. Whatever the original meaning of the proscription, it received precise motives in the Old Testament: blood, like life, belongs only to God; blood has its proper place in sacrifice; man must not use it except for purposes of expiation...

Blood in the Bible - OrthodoxWiki

ex·pi·a·tion
the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing; atonement.

IOW, the blood has sacred power as a means of sin redemption, exactly the meaning behind the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

Because of the Judaic prohibition against the drinking of blood, and because the idea is a central metaphor in Christianity, the idea cannot have come from Judaism, but it more likely may have come from Mithraism instead. See here:

THE IDENTIFICATION OF BLOOD AND WINE IN THE EUCHARIST | Elton Hollon - Academia.edu

Actually, there are two parts to this metaphor: the shedding of divine blood as Atonement for sin; and the drinking and eating of divine flesh to attain divine union. Here, the deity is eaten, reflecting the child stage of religion, whereas in the East, divine union is attained via the breath. The difference is significant: blood sacrifice and communion represent first a separation from God, and then a reunion with God, whereas in the East, man has never been separated from the divine nature: that he has is only an illusion of the mind. Therefore, realization of one's own already existing divine nature is the key since the gifts of the incarnation have already been given apriori to ALL mankind, are are not the exclusive property of one Jesus Christ. Here lies the crucial difference between Buddhism and Hinduism on the one hand, and Christianity on the other.

 

[godnotgod]

Alas...no...The sacrifice of Jesus was for our sins..not those of Adam and Eve.

But remember: it was A&E's Original Sin of disobedience that was indelibly passed on to all of mankind, and the rest is history.

 

[Desert Snake]

But remember: it was A&E's Original Sin of disobedience that was passed on to all of mankind, and the rest is history.

No, their sin wasn't passed to us. The results/consequences were.

 

[godnotgod]

No, their sin wasn't passed to us. The results/consequences were.

Same difference, the point being that the Gates of Paradise were now closed to mankind, and only the blood sacrifice of God's own progeny had the power of reopening them. The picture here is man's relationship to the divine and the goal is divine union, the goal of all religious endeavor.

 

[godnotgod]

The lamb's blood was painted on doors to keep death from visiting the houses during the final plague in Egypt (in a noteworthy exception to the general rule about blood's being unclean).

As pointed out, the prohibition was not about uncleanliness, but about sacredness. I surmise that lamb's blood is a symbol for innocence and therefore, purity. That is why the lamb is a symbol for Jesus. Being innocent and pure, ie; without blemish, it is therefore sacred, and being sacred possesses power over sin.

 

[Vishvavajra]

More formalized in the sense of being more 'official' or 'authentic' than pagan ritual.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Vishvavajra]

But remember: it was A&E's Original Sin of disobedience that was indelibly passed on to all of mankind, and the rest is history.

Framing the Eden myth as being about a sin of disobedience is only one way of reading the story. It's also a relatively recent and specifically Christian way of understanding it. I wouldn't use that reading to understand ancient Jewish attitudes (or modern Jewish attitudes either, for the most part).