Significance of sacrifice - its types and its purpose

[Soul Invictus]

Speaking with my friend I informed her how I didn't buy into the idea of original sin. I told her that assuming Jesus existed, that his death was due to the political climate in which he would not have been held in high regard of the populus.

I then quoted her Ezekiel 18:20, which I then expected, and then got a reply regarding animal sacrifice. Given that animal sacrifice was conducted when people sinned and was necessary to atone for them, I asked her when did the standard change from animal sacrifice to human sacrifice? She wasn't quite sure, and neither was I.

Does anyone care to speak about the change in covenants especially that of the change of sacrifices? I'm thinking that the Roman culture would not be willing to conduct these, so the change had less to do with the Jewish religion, but the fusing of the two cultures.

It was my understanding that the proper manner for sacrifice was clearly laid out in the OT. To what extent did repentance itself play a role?

[Bernard Muller]

Does anyone care to speak about the change in covenants especially that of the change of sacrifices?
This is "explained" very thoroughly in the 'to the Hebrews' epistle, which I analysed in my page "beginning of Christianity".
As far as original sin, the concept is definitively post NT, with some tenuous justification from an obscure passage from Paul, Romans 5:12-19. NT Christians were led to believe all their sins before their conversion are forgiven.
Best Regards, Bernard

[Amos]

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
Does anyone care to speak about the change in covenants especially that of the change of sacrifices?
//
It was my understanding that the proper manner for sacrifice was clearly laid out in the OT. To what extent did repentance itself play a role?

Maybe the animal sacrifice was symbolic for the 'entirety' needed as a sacrifice. In the NT God does not want our repentance but he wants 'our all' and this includes the very faculty that does the repenting. Allan Watts summed this up with "beyond surrender" or "beyond theology" or "beyond this world."

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Amos
Maybe the animal sacrifice was symbolic for the 'entirety' needed as a sacrifice. In the NT God does not want our repentance but he wants 'our all' and this includes the very faculty that does the repenting. Allan Watts summed this up with "beyond surrender" or "beyond theology" or "beyond this world."

Who is Allan Watts?

[Doctor X]

[Cartment Voice--Ed.]

A hippy!!!

[End Cartmen Voice--Ed.]

Thanks for your invitation to comment. At this stage, it seems clear that human sacrifice and the heren or "ban"--the requirement to sacrifice conquered people to a deity--had a place. When and where it came about and passed away I am not sure. I ordered a book on it--a reference in Collins' paper I quote too much on this subject--which considers the history up to the Christianization of the concept.

I will let you know what I find, the book has not arrived yet.

Nevertheless, "died for your sins" is indeed a late concept not supported by the Synoptics or Jn. I had heard that this was an Augustinian "thing."

It serves a recruitment purpose--look, it is not good enough that you are good, you have this SIN you must get rid of. Also, as others noted, once it became clear that Junior's mission as portrayed by the Synoptics, Jn, and even Paul failed . . . well . . . people needed some other "point" to justify the whole thing.

--J.D.

[Bernard Muller]

Who is Allan Watts?

From the top of Google:
"... Alan Watts (1915-1973) who held both a master's degree in theology and a doctorate of divinity, is best known as an interpreter of Zen Buddhism in particular ..."

It is amazing how sound bites from a modern scholar are used, when the real primary evidence ('Hebrews') is ignored.

Best regards, Bernard

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, logically (I know, that's anathema to cults) the idea of sacrificing one's best breeding stock (the unblemished, "perfect" lamb or goat) and/or one's best grain would be done in order to maintain wealth status of the ruling elite. Especially among the more nomadic tribes, wealth was measured primarily according to one's stock, so forcing (or tricking) the ignorant into pointlessly slaughtering or giving up the best of that stock would insure that only those who could afford to kill off one of their "unblemished" would remain the most wealthy in any given region.

As for the "atonement" nonsense, all one would have to do is simply examine that logically as well. God supposedly already knows what's in one's heart and would therefore not need to force one to murder an innocent member of his own creation to prove it.

Even as a symbolic gesture, it makes no sense. Sins aren't communicable; one can't "put one's sins on another" nor can another "take one's sins away," so it's either a result of immense stupidity, pointless barbarism, or deliberate fraud in order to maintain wealth status, IMO.

[Bernard Muller]

Nevertheless, "died for your sins" is indeed a late concept not supported by the Synoptics or Jn. I had heard that this was an Augustinian "thing."
J.D.

Did you read 1Thessalonians, Paul's first letter:
1Th5:10 "He died for us"

And other like:
2Co5:19a "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them ..."
2Co5:21a "God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us ..."
Gal1:3b-4a "... our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age ..."
Ro3:23-25 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,"
Ro4:25a "[Christ] who was delivered up because of our offenses, ..."

What about 'Hebrews'?
Heb7:27b "... He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
Heb10:12 "...this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins ..."
Heb10:9b-10 "He sets aside the first [covenant] to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Heb9:25-26 "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood which is not his own. Then Christ would have to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

What about Matthew26:28 "For this is my blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins."
Also 1Peter2:24

Best regards, Bernard
















Best regards, Bernard

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
Speaking with my friend I informed her how I didn't buy into the idea of original sin. I told her that assuming Jesus existed, that his death was due to the political climate in which he would not have been held in high regard of the populus.

I then quoted her Ezekiel 18:20, which I then expected, and then got a reply regarding animal sacrifice. Given that animal sacrifice was conducted when people sinned and was necessary to atone for them, I asked her when did the standard change from animal sacrifice to human sacrifice? She wasn't quite sure, and neither was I.

Does anyone care to speak about the change in covenants especially that of the change of sacrifices? I'm thinking that the Roman culture would not be willing to conduct these, so the change had less to do with the Jewish religion, but the fusing of the two cultures.

It was my understanding that the proper manner for sacrifice was clearly laid out in the OT. To what extent did repentance itself play a role? Animal sacrifice was a substitute for the true sacrifice that Jesus would give. Animal sacrifices in the OT, were symbolic of the coming, ultimate sacrifice in Jesus. Thats where the phrase, the "Lamb of God" came from, because the Jews use to sacrifice lambs in the temple, but Jesus is the true Lamb. And sacrifices never "switched" over from animal to human. Jesus' sacrifice was part of God's plan from the beginning, but animals were used for the Jews until Jesus' time came. And once Jesus was sacrificed, He became the ultimate and final sacrifice forever; He paid humanities debt to God for whoever accepts His gift.

[Doctor X]

And that means what?

I will have to review which Pauline letters are actually Pauline--for some reason I believe Hebrews is "pseudopauline"--but I am pulling that out of the nether regions. Peter is certainly late and not included in what I wrote.

Nevertheless, what does it mean? Did he die to "wipe the slate clean?" Did he die because people sin? Regarding Mt, why does Junior not mention it in his message? Why does he not preach, "you have all sinned and I have to fix it. Thanks a lot you bastards!"?

Anyways, I will be able to comment with a bit more responsibility when I obtain the reference--it discusses the concept of sacrifice in Christian thinking.

--J.D.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
This is "explained" very thoroughly in the 'to the Hebrews' epistle, which I analysed in my page "beginning of Christianity".
As far as original sin, the concept is definitively post NT, with some tenuous justification from an obscure passage from Paul, Romans 5:12-19. NT Christians were led to believe all their sins before their conversion are forgiven.
Best Regards, Bernard Actually, Original sin is in the OT. It isn't purely NT, although thats where its concentrated since thats part of what Jesus died for.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

There is another verse on original sin, I think in Isaiah but can't think of the passage off the top of my head.

[Bernard Muller]

Why does he not preach, "you have all sinned and I have to fix it. Thanks a lot you bastards!"?
J.D.

Do not take me wrong. I never said HJ preached what you said. I just meant, than in early Christianity (when the NT was composed, one text by one), the idea was around very early, even if not accepted by all.
Yes 'Hebrews' is not by Paul, nor 1Peter by Peter, but the epistles just represent views on the subject during the NT era.

What I tried to say, we do not have to wait for Augustine to read about that concept.

Best regards, Bernard

[Doctor X]

Magnus55:

That passage does not support original sin. It merely makes a general observation about men.

I suppose it is better than wiping them out for being "noisy."

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Bernard:

Ah! I pulled the Augustine from the same orifice . . . at least the Hebrews complaint was correct. . . .

I recalled being taught that the "formed" concept of Original Sin [™--Ed.] came from Augustine . . . of course if you can point to, say, Heirocanious the Flatulent's writings of 110 CE that would be earlier!!

As for early Christianity . . . I remain unconvinced that Mt and the rest at that stage believed the "he died for our sins" as in Original Sin. It DID become an apology . . . to give a "point" to the highfalootin kerygma, but I do not think it was universally accepted . . . or widely accepted . . . by the time of the Synoptics.

However, I am more than happy to sit corrected . . . I hope this damn reference I ordered discusses the matter!

--J.D.

[Bernard Muller]

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

That's not even close! You have to be very imaginative to see the original sin here (and its cancellation by the "sacrifice" of a Christ in the future).

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

As for early Christianity . . . I remain unconvinced that Mt and the rest at that stage believed the "he died for our sins" as in Original Sin. It DID become an apology . . . to give a "point" to the highfalootin kerygma, but I do not think it was universally accepted . . . or widely accepted . . . by the time of the Synoptics.
J.D

Right on J.D.
On an earlier post, I said the idea of Jesus dying for the original sin came AFTER the NT was written. Early Christians were led to believe Jesus died for ALL their sins (at least the ones they accumulated before being converted/baptized).
However I said there was an obscure passage in Paul's epistle which likely was used to justify the later belief:
Romans 5:12-19 Darby
"12 For this [cause], even as **by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death**; and thus **death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned**:
13 (for until law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law;
14 but death reigned from **Adam** until Moses, even upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is [the] figure of him to come.
15 But [shall] not the act of favour [be] as the offence? For **if by the offence of one the many have died, much rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace, which [is] by the **one man Jesus Christ**, abounded unto the many.**
16 And [shall] not as by one that has sinned [be] the gift? For the judgment [was] of one to condemnation, but the act of favour, of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the one, much rather shall those who receive the abundance of grace, and of the free gift of righteousness, reign in life by the one Jesus Christ:)
18 so then as [it was] by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men for justification of life.
19 **For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous.**"

So the original sin comes from Paul, not Jesus.

PS: I noticed "one man Jesus christ", another argument against mythicist!
I do not know how the smily get in here

Best regards, Bernard

[Doctor X]

How did the smiley get there?

Could it be. . .

. . . SATAN!!?

I must confess I am a bit "antimythist" since I shy away from opinions I would "like" to be correct--proving even Junior was a myth, since Paul mentions his brother, and EVEN IF a "Historical Junior" existed it does not make all of the myth true. It is a bit like finding out that Arguwalder of the Iron Dick--second assistant skull crusher of Hllwqwerthog the Rampant--inspired the first "Arthur" story! It does not make hunting the lakes of Swansea for Excalibur any more useful!

--J.D.

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Right on J.D.
On an earlier post, I said the idea of Jesus dying for the original sin came AFTER the NT was written. Early Christians were led to believe Jesus died for ALL their sins (at least the ones they accumulated before being converted/baptized).
However I said there was an obscure passage in Paul's epistle which likely was used to justify the later belief:
Romans 5:12-19 Darby
"12 For this [cause], even as **by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death**; and thus **death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned**:
13 (for until law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law;
14 but death reigned from **Adam** until Moses, even upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is [the] figure of him to come.
15 But [shall] not the act of favour [be] as the offence? For **if by the offence of one the many have died, much rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace, which [is] by the **one man Jesus Christ**, abounded unto the many.**
16 And [shall] not as by one that has sinned [be] the gift? For the judgment [was] of one to condemnation, but the act of favour, of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the one, much rather shall those who receive the abundance of grace, and of the free gift of righteousness, reign in life by the one Jesus Christ:)
18 so then as [it was] by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men for justification of life.
19 **For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous.**"

So the original sin comes from Paul, not Jesus.

PS: I noticed "one man Jesus christ", another argument against mythicist!
I do not know how the smily get in here

Best regards, Bernard

Thanks for that passage Bernard. I'm comparing Paul's message to Jesus'. Now if I can only remember where Jesus rebuked Paul for his message...

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Anyways, I will be able to comment with a bit more responsibility when I obtain the reference--it discusses the concept of sacrifice in Christian thinking.
--J.D.

Please let me know once you get that source. I want to look into that issue as well.

[Doctor X]

I do not think Junior ever rebukes Paul/Saul . . . unless you believe the Damascus incident that takes place after his decomposition in Acts. . . .

Certainly, Paul never claims to have met Junior . . . he even sort of boasts that his knowledge is better for having never met him. . . .

I really should stop posting away from my sources . . . danger of blathering incoherently [Nothing new.--Ed.]

--J.D.

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Doctor X
I do not think Junior ever rebukes Paul/Saul . . . unless you believe the Damascus incident that takes place after his decomposition in Acts. . . .

Certainly, Paul never claims to have met Junior . . . he even sort of boasts that his knowledge is better for having never met him. . . .

I really should stop posting away from my sources . . . danger of blathering incoherently [Nothing new.--Ed.]

--J.D.

Doctor,

You have to go through several scriptures to see it. A preacher who used to be in the Christian faith once spoke on it...I think it's on a tape I have. I'll let you know once I find it, okay.?

Wait a minute, I thought the whole Damascus incident was focused around Saul/Paul meeting Jesus...Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Could you give me a passage that shows the latter claim you made about his knowledge being better for not having met him? I had no idea about that one.

[Bernard Muller]

Thanks for that passage Bernard. I'm comparing Paul's message to Jesus'. Now if I can only remember where Jesus rebuked Paul for his message...

No fat chance. How could he do that to his pal Paul!
And Paul claimed he was having the mind of Christ, even if he had inquiries about that:
2Cor13:3 "Since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me ..."
And Jesus (in heaven!) was unlikely to go public against Paul! As a matter of fact, he never did! ;)

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Wait a minute, I thought the whole Damascus incident was focused around Saul/Paul meeting Jesus...Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Could you give me a passage that shows the latter claim you made about his knowledge being better for not having met him? I had no idea about that one.

Ya, that what I understand, on the road to Damascus, and we have **three very different versions** of that, all in the same book (Acts);)
(notice how I am mastering the Smilies:notworthy )

I gave you one passage already, here are other ones:

2Co11:10 "As surely as the truth of Christ is in me [Paul], nobody in the regions of Achaia [Greece] will stop this boasting of mine."

2Co12:1 "I [Paul] must go on boasting. ... I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Gal1:11-12 "I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Is not primary evidence from the NT fun?;)

Best regards, Bernard

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Ya, that what I understand, on the road to Damascus, and we have **three very different versions** of that, all in the same book (Acts);)
(notice how I am mastering the Smilies:notworthy )

I gave you one passage already, here are other ones:

2Co11:10 "As surely as the truth of Christ is in me [Paul], nobody in the regions of Achaia [Greece] will stop this boasting of mine."

2Co12:1 "I [Paul] must go on boasting. ... I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Gal1:11-12 "I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Is not primary evidence from the NT fun?;)

Best regards, Bernard

Thanks....I actually had that last one. All three Damascus accounts are in Acts aye...gotta check that out. I can master the smileys too :) :) :)

[Bernard Muller]

and EVEN IF a "Historical Junior" existed it does not make all of the myth true. J.D.
Right on J.D.:)
I would go one more step: EVEN IF a "Historical Jesus" existed it does not make any myth, not even one, true.

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Even as a symbolic gesture, it makes no sense. Sins aren't communicable; one can't "put one's sins on another" nor can another "take one's sins away," so it's either a result of immense stupidity, pointless barbarism, or deliberate fraud in order to maintain wealth status, IMO.
Koyaanisqatsi

YA, copied and agreed!
But if you read 'Hebrews', everything makes a lot of sense, up to the time you realise the OT quotes, which the author is using in the crucial parts to support his argumentation, are totally out-of-context. More, you have to believe all that crap about Jewish animal sacrifices as required by God.

Best regards, Bernard

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X

Nevertheless, "died for your sins" is indeed a late concept not supported by the Synoptics or Jn. I had heard that this was an Augustinian "thing."

It serves a recruitment purpose--look, it is not good enough that you are good, you have this SIN you must get rid of. --J.D.

It is more like a protestant thing because Catholics are still told to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

[Doctor X]

Gang:

Yay! Book arrived:

Jon D. Levenson. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Will get back to you once I actually read it. . . .

Amos:

It is more like a protestant thing because Catholics are still told to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

Last I looked, "original sin" was still a thing in Catholicism.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Last I looked, "original sin" was still a thing in Catholicism.

--J.D.

Original sin is a fact and will always be a Catholic thing but the idea that Jesus died for our sins (so we do not have to) is not and never was Catholic.

Origional sin just means that we are divided between our Tree of Knowledge (conscious mind) and the Tree of Life (subconscious mind) and because we are divided in our own mind are we not free in either mind and therefore are we banned from Eden. To return to Eden we must crucify our ego and place it subservient to our intuit mind and that is what redemption is all about.

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Amos
Origional sin just means that we are divided between our Tree of Knowledge (conscious mind) and the Tree of Life (subconscious mind) and because we are divided in our own mind are we not free in either mind and therefore are we banned from Eden. To return to Eden we must crucify our ego and place it subservient to our intuit mind and that is what redemption is all about.

I like this philosophical outlook Amos, so I got a question for ya.
Did you come up with that?

[Amos]

Hi Soul Invictus, it's an old perspective but to defend it you must know the rest of the story.

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Amos
Hi Soul Invictus, it's an old perspective but to defend it you must know the rest of the story.

PM me.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally posted by Magus55
Animal sacrifice was a substitute for the true sacrifice that Jesus would give. Animal sacrifices in the OT, were symbolic of the coming, ultimate sacrifice in Jesus. Thats where the phrase, the "Lamb of God" came from, because the Jews use to sacrifice lambs in the temple, but Jesus is the true Lamb. And sacrifices never "switched" over from animal to human. Jesus' sacrifice was part of God's plan from the beginning, but animals were used for the Jews until Jesus' time came. And once Jesus was sacrificed, He became the ultimate and final sacrifice forever; He paid humanities debt to God for whoever accepts His gift.

First of all, jesus was an invalid sacrifice under Jewish law.
See this link for some of the reasons..... http://home.comcast.net/~messiahtruth/jcsac.html

The biggest reason is that jesus is not the proper species. The Torah says exactly what god wants as a sin sacrifice and there is no mention of a human or a god-man.

Also all these ideas you have come out of the NT, mainly the Book of Hebrews. There is no evidence in the Torah that the sacrifices were just symbolic and were just preparing for some "super sacrifice" that would make them not needed. The Torah says to follow the law FOREVER, as I have to point out to you christians all the time and you can never understand. The book of Hebrews says the blood of bulls can never take away sins, so it's calling god a liar because it says in the Torah that the blood of bulls can take away sins. This is why you are not a Jew; because you have so little respect for the Jewish god that you actually follow a book that claims god is a liar.

[Bernard Muller]

Original sin is a fact and will always be a Catholic thing but the idea that Jesus died for our sins (so we do not have to) is not and never was Catholic.
Amos

From the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
"And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins , [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I do NOT see "one Baptism for the remission of the original sin"

Best regards, Bernard

[Amos]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
From the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
"And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins , [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I do NOT see "one Baptism for the remission of the original sin"

Best regards, Bernard

Hello Bernard, yes one Baptism for the remission of sin. Notice that we have the Sacrament of Confession that includes the forgiveness of sin but our Baptism is the Sacrament that later removes our sin nature and therefore our original sin.

[Bernard Muller]

Hello Bernard, yes one Baptism for the remission of sin
Amos

I think you miss my point Amos. The Constantinople Credo says "sins" plural. So it cannot be the original sin.
Best regards, Bernard

[Amos]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I think you miss my point Amos. The Constantinople Credo says "sins" plural. So it cannot be the original sin.
Best regards, Bernard

But Original Sin is not a sin in itself but it is the capacity to sin and to make sin thinkable the laws were needed (ie. no law equals no sin because sin is a violation of religious law).

So now, the sacrament of Confession deals with the forgivensess of sin and the Sacrament of Baptism deals with the redemption of sin. Go figure.

[Doctor X]

But Original Sin is not a sin in itself but it is the capacity to sin. . . .

So . . . baptism 'n all that which removes Original Sin removes the capacity to sin.

Neat.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
So . . . baptism 'n all that which removes Original Sin removes the capacity to sin.

Neat.

--J.D.

Well yes, but that would have to be Catholic Baptism. To be born of water and spirit is required to reach the fulness of salvation (according to Catholic doctrine) and to be born of the spirit outside the church is to receive salvation without the ability to work out your own salvation (still Catholic doctrine).

Yes, it is a neet concept, really, wherein sin is needed to remove our capacity to sin. Remember here that the laws were given to Moses not to stop sin, but to convict man of sin and for this to be possible the law must be written as if in stone upon our soul where they will fuction as an anvil that creates a blow when the hammer (sin) strikes.

We kind of know that sin is needed for justification (Gal.2:17) and sin is good because the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only. According to these precepts if salvation is desired the concept sin must remain clear to us and we must violate often and this maybe is what confession is all about (you don't really want to know).

So yes and no. Catholic life is journey where upon our first day we are given a white Baptism candle and our last day will be when we recognize that same white candle in the advent wreath of our Christ-mass celebration.

[Bernard Muller]

We kind of know that sin is needed for justification (Gal.2:17) and **sin is good because the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only**. According to these precepts if salvation is desired the concept sin must remain clear to us and **we must violate often** and this maybe is what confession is all about (you don't really want to know).
Amos

I am shocked. Do you mean it is necessary for Catholics to sin (many times) to get salvation? Really.

Best regards, Bernard

[Amos]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I am shocked. Do you mean it is necessary for Catholics to sin (many times) to get salvation? Really.

Best regards, Bernard

Sorry Bernard for I did mean to shock you. Hope all is well again and so I can take it one step further.

Without going into the sacramental power of Catholic Baptism let me just point out to you that Romans 8:7-12 makes it clear that "it was only through the law that I came to know sin . . . and sin seized that opportunity to rouse in me every kind of evil desire." Later it concludes that "the commandment that should have led to life brought me death" and it is out this death that we are born into eternal life through the goodness of our "inner self"-- which agrees with the law of God (v.22).

Really then, the concept sin is just a fishing tool needed to redeem our prior benevolent nature wherein we are in harmony with God and Baptism is life-line along which we are baited unto eternal life. I think it also states that we must reach the limit of our sinfulness (v13) before anything good can happen to us or it would not be called the limit of sinfulness.

Of course, the "limit of sinfulness" is the deviation from our norm and that is why we have the cardinal virtues and capital sins that can convict us any time and any place.

[Doctor X]

Amos:

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself from one post to the next?

--J.D.

[Amos]

Please show me where so I have something to worry about.

[Devilnaut]

Doc, yes baptism removes sin but only "real" baptism (which Amos called catholic baptism).

You were referring to the symbolic baptism early in life (which is really just a tradition and not the real thing) and Amos was talking about real baptism (the content which fills the container, the hole created by the symbolic baptism at birth).

[Doctor X]

In response to my rhetorical inquiry:

Moi: So . . . baptism 'n all that which removes Original Sin removes the capacity to sin.

I received in reply:

Well yes, but that would have to be Catholic Baptism.

Fine . . . have a Catholic baptism.

Then Amos replies to Bernard regarding the need to sin. However, above, those with a Catholic baptism have lost the capacity to sin.

This may seem a minor point, but consistency is important.

Back to the Topic:

I am working through Levenson's book--quite good! It may change my mind a bit. The death of Junior may--have not got that far yet--indeed be a sacrifice. However, child sacrifice was not something to "clear away sins"--the deity "owned" the child and could claim it. Furthermore, one has to remember the difference between "sin" as we see it now--"I've been a baaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaadddddddddd boy!"--and having to make happy a deity--get him on your side.

The child sacrifices of King of the Moab [2 Kgs 3:26-27--Ed.], and Jephthah [Judg 11:29-40--Ed.] fit this model. Levenson discusses other biblical passages that point to child sacrifice:

Mic 6:6-6
Isa 30:30-33
Ezek 20:25-26--which disturbes inerrants!
Jer 19:5-6
Exod 34:19

as well as the infamous Exod 22:28-29 I have cited a number of times.

He also discusses the practice in Carthage--into the Common Era--of child sacrifice:

The mother-land of these colonies [Neo-Phoenician--Ed.] . . . was the home of the Phoenician states with which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had been in nearly continuous interaction. . . . The rediscovery in modern times of the Phoenician language shows it to be probably the nearest thing there was to biblical Hebrew and, along with these commercial, political, nd religious interactions, provides evidence for the close affinity of Israelite and Phoenician culture. . . . Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R Wolff have excavated an area in Carthage that is so full of urns containing charred remains of children that they term it the "Carthaginian Tophet." . . . ". . . between 400 and 200 B.C.," "averag out at 100 urn deposits per year or slightly fewer than one every three days.

Levenson takes time to discuss contrary opinions. As he notes to the possible complain that these represent "infant mortality" or disease:

For in them they found unually not one but two children, one a newborn and the other of two to four years of age.

He also notes the practice of substitution--using a lamb or kid rather than . . . well . . . your kid. It has been assumed that this is a "evolution"--first children then substitutes and that the whole Abraham-Isaac myth is the development of the substitution--which would be contradicted by "historical myth" by the Exodus rules!

On the contrary, it seems that:

. . . we should not be surprised that Stager and Wolff found that the substituion of the animal for the child [i]declined over the periods in which they studied the Carthaginian Tophet. In the seventh century B.C.E., one out of every three urns contained animal remains; by the fourth century B.C.E., only one out of ten.

This is about as far as I have gone. The point is that Levenson stresses the absence of
"textual and archaeological evidence for a general practice of child sacrifice" which makes him wonder if this was an "ideal" rather than a rule.

Anyways, more as I progress. . . .

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Then Amos replies to Bernard regarding the need to sin. However, above, those with a Catholic baptism have lost the capacity to sin.

Not exactly because the capacity to sin is lost with our Beatific Vision which is equal to the convergence of our twain mind. What I tried to tell you is that Catholic Baptism is required to achieve this but maybe I should add here that this will not happen until later in life. I have stated that Baptism is like a life-line to our soul (through our fellowship with believers and communion with the saints) and therefore we are never lost but are allowed to stray from the flock to create the feeling that we are lost-- which is about the time when we reach the "limit of our sinfulness" . . . and this is "the limit" because we will have reached the end of this world and are about to venture upon a new phase in life that we can call "eternal" because time-as-such is not known in the right brain. We can now return to John B who was born in the right brain wherein he prepared the way towards a successful menopauze (meno= I remain as I become eternal). Hence the "water and spirit" birth is needed to achieve the fulness of salvation.

The conviction of sin is needed to achieve the above and that is why religion must remain keen on the concept sin which in turn is why the law (various taboos) is the heart of every mythology.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

....and Marry had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.....

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Doctor X

I am working through Levenson's book--quite good! It may change my mind a bit. The death of Junior may--have not got that far yet--indeed be a sacrifice.

Make sure you keep me posted as to the validity of the sacrifice issue. We definitely want to compare it to the information on the URL you submitted. Not to mention the significance of the debate surrounding that issue!

[Amos]

You are supposed to believe me.

[Doctor X]

Amos:

Ye speaketh in "word salad" to use the technical term.

I, again, advise you to read some basics on physiology then some of the basics on OT and NT scholarship.

As I have already explained to you, "twain mind" is a fantasy created by you. It is not only not physiologic, it is NOT IN THE NT or OT.

Now you offer contradictory meanderings on the baptism not shared by those who performed it given the texts we have.

This reminds me of reading about the Unarians . . . if it make sense to anyone, they need help.

Once again:

Ganong, Review of Medical Physiology, Lange Publishing.

Freidman, Who Wrote the Bible? and
Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?

which are listed in the Recommended Reading. Invest some time into learning what you are trying to write about.

And with that I have nothing more to say.

Soul:

I will add to this thread when I have completed the book. It is a very good read.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Amos:

As I have already explained to you, "twain mind" is a fantasy created by you. It is not only not physiologic, it is NOT IN THE NT or OT.

--J.D.

But our mind is twain because if it was twin we would have no knowledge of our subconscious mind and if our subconscious mind was fully conscious to us it would not be sub-conscious and therefore not twain either.

The bible wants to show us how we must come to understand our own mind and in doing so "will know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord our God" and so obtain the mind of God. I would say that if you haven't figured his our by now the entire bible must still be a "word salad" to you.

[Doctor X]

Oye.

But our mind is twain because if it was twin we would have no knowledge of our subconscious mind. . . .

That is your belief, which, for better or worse, does not determine physiology. Now "twain because if it was twin" had better be a typographical error because it makes no sense otherwise. It certainly neglects the obvious alternative to "twain" which, Heavens to Betsy, better approximates the reality--it is one.

More circular reasoning. . . .

The bible wants to show us. . . .

You cannot assign a coherent intent to a collection of texts. Certainly not:

. . . how we must come to understand our own mind and in doing so "will know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord our God" and so obtain the mind of God.

No, not at all a concern of El or YHWH or even Elohim. I am sure this was the motivation to the genocide ordered of Saul . . . no wait . . . it was the intent behind YHWH trying to kill Moses immediately after electing him his spokesperson--fortunately Mrs. Moses had her son's foreskin handy--never know when such stuff comes in handy--yes, that is the lesson: SAVE THOSE FORESKINS!! You do not wish to be caught without one should the Almighty decide to stalk you after appointing you to greatness.

Glad that cleared it up--a fragment that has irritated generations of scholars for CENTURIES . . . it was all an exercise in Jungian individuation!

No . . . wait . . . Freudian movement from the anal phase to . . . um . . . Fritz Pearl? No, I have it! Reichian! It commands us to build Orgon Collectors! You see! THAT was what the whole whale-and-Jonah-thing was . . . Jonah needed to collect more Orgon energy!

I would say that if you haven't figured his our by now the entire bible must still be a "word salad" to you.

I think the individual would do well not to impune the reading comprehension of others given his manifest and consistent inability to comprehend texts.

One is free to believe in whatever one wants, no matter how ridiculous and dishonest, of course, but one cannot expect a text to support it because he proclaims it does.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Oye.



That is your belief, which, for better or worse, does not determine physiology. Now "twain because if it was twin" had better be a typographical error because it makes no sense otherwise. It certainly neglects the obvious alternative to "twain" which, Heavens to Betsy, better approximates the reality--it is one.



Yes, you are right, "it is one" except that one side doesn't seem to know much about the other. The other side here is the reign of God and "the scribe who is learned in the reign of God can bring from his storeroom both the new and the old (Mt.13:52)"

You seem to think that our reading comprehension depends on our ability to memorize words from dictionaries but that is not always true. Here, in fact, the opposite is true because words are used to make parables to describe something that is not a rational event and therefore the words mean something different then what they usually mean (or they would not be parables and metaphors).

Oh yes, I arrive at my interpretation from the text so it is really supporting me.

[Doctor X]

Yes, you are right, "it is one" except that one side doesn't seem to know much about the other.

Grounding into reality again, both know what the other does. Even those born . . . or aquire . . . a disconnection have communication between both hemispheres. Discovering a disconnection syndrome is very subtle if it is there.

That is, of course, if you still write about the mind. This, on the other appendage:

The other side here is the reign of God and "the scribe who is learned in the reign of God can bring from his storeroom both the new and the old (Mt.13:52)"

proves a non sequitur.

You seem to think that our reading comprehension depends on our ability to memorize words from dictionaries but that is not always true.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam.

On the contrary, it involves understanding what the words and the passages that are built by them mean.

. . . words are used to make parables to describe something that is not a rational event. . . .

Parables--parabolai--παραβολαι--"comparisons" are a particular type of Greek form. What you are doing, on the other hand, is ignoring the meaning and context and are rather randomly making up meaning as you go along.

Oh yes, I arrive at my interpretation from the text so it is really supporting me.

In your mind only, unfortunately.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Grounding into reality again, both know what the other does. Even those born . . . or aquire . . . a disconnection have communication between both hemispheres. Discovering a disconnection syndrome is very subtle if it is there.

Exactly, "both" means two, "know what the other does" means divided yet one, and if "a disconnection" is possible they must be twain instead of twin.

In my view our intuition is the memory of our soul (which is retained in our right brain, if you remember) and if they are fully one we can trust our intuition and base our actions on it. Before we can do this we must "go fishing on the right side of the boat" and perhaps "put on our cloak of faith" and dive head-first into this celestial sea. If we come up dry we will soon be able to "walk on this water" and base all our actions on it. At this time there is no longer any communication between these two because they will have become fully one and if you think that this is a bit of stretch you should go looking for Atlantis.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam.

How some ignoratio elenchi on your part?

On the contrary, it involves understanding what the words and the passages that are built by them mean.

Yes, they are like a work of art and require noetic vision to be interpreted. If you disagree with this please tell me what noetic vision is for and why would we have the need to make such a distinction.

In your mind only, unfortunately.

--J.D.

Not true at all. I am the person with whom the artist is communicating.

[Doctor X]

Exactly, "both" means two, "know what the other does" means divided yet one, and if "a disconnection" is possible they must be twain instead of twin.

No. From a physiologic--and, therefore reality--standpoint, one can disconnect parts that would not "normally" be disconnected that crosses your twain. Sorry your twain is a fabrication. Perchance you should call it "Clemens?"

In my view our intuition is the memory of our soul (which is retained in our right brain, if you remember)

Memory is not that hemispheric specific depending on the level of memory--as you should remember!

Oddly enough, nearly all Unspeakable Infidels that are Right Handed, are left "dominant" for short-term memory. The actual complex memories--that involve sight, sound, smell, emotion--have diffuse storage in different areas of the brain. Thus, it is much harder--despite Hollywood depictions--to "erase" long-term memory. This is why dementia patients "live in the past" so to write.

Given the above, I may dismiss the rest, incuding the unwitty reference to Atantis.

How some ignoratio elenchi on your part?

You tried to attach an argument to moi, so argumentum ad veritatem holds. You have, as indicated above, engaged in ignoratio elenchi rather chronically.

Yes, they are like a work of art and require noetic vision to be interpreted.

Ipse dixit.

If you disagree with this please tell me what noetic vision is for and why would we have the need to make such a distinction.

If you wish to challenge an opponent to a duel, and he has a claighmore, I would suggest you not use a toothbrush.

"Noetic" means comming from the mind itself. Unfortunately, language is learned from. The different word-orders and concepts of different languages demonstrates this.

You are trying to justify eisegesis--reading your beliefs into texts. This is the weak "new critical" approach where the critic dismisses the intent of the author, the context of his worth, and then mastrubates about "what I think."

Well, you may want Shakespeare to write "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic passion-play . . . unfortunately, he did not.

A schizophrenic may have a "noetic" vision of reality--it does not correspond to reality.

Sorry.

Not true at all. I am the person with whom the artist is communicating.

On the contrary, communication requires a willingness to understand the artist. You have demonstrated anything but that willingness.

You wish to make what you believe equal to reality--as the fantasies about how the brain works indicated. This may seem easy with art--works of art have a hard time complaining. However, reality has a way of contradicting fantasy.

Similarly, as indicated above, the texts do not support your interpretations.

You are left with two choices:

1. Continue in ignorant solitude.
2. Make the effort to read some scholarship and at least have a basis for your beliefs--this includes the brain.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
You are left with two choices:

1. Continue in ignorant solitude.
2. Make the effort to read some scholarship and at least have a basis for your beliefs--this includes the brain.

--J.D.

Thanks, I'll take the first option.

[Doctor X]

Then I shall no longer waste my time.

This board does not have "signatures," though the one I usually use proves apt.

--J.D.

He does not sell his secrets cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.

[Devilnaut]

What an ugly thread. I suggest Amos save his pearls?

[Soul Invictus]

Originally posted by Devilnaut
What an ugly thread. I suggest Amos save his pearls?

This thread is getting so far off the OP, it's not funny. I haven't followed all this "twain" business, nor see it's relevance. What's the issue of twain btw Amos and Doc, and why should Amos concede, Devilnaut?

Doc,

Let me know when you are finished with that book. I'd be interested if your views have changed on the validity of a human sacrifice. Maybe Heathen Dawn is lurking this thread.. Maybe he/she can offer some insight?

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Then I shall no longer waste my time.




Sorry for having wasted your time and please try to forget everything I wrote.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
This thread is getting so far off the OP, it's not funny.


Not really because the ultimate sacrifice to be made is our ego consciousness that is created and maintained by our conscious mind which is twain with our soul. The Doc disagrees with this and as much as tells me that they are in the same skull and therefore are one.