unsafe's picture

unsafe

image

What Did The Blood Of Jesus Accomplish For Us ?

 

Without the shedding of Jesus's Blood we humans would not have the privileges that this Great Sacrifice has accomplished for us . There were 5 areas where Jesus shed His Precious Blood and each area has accomplished certain privileges for us .

 

Do we know what the shedding of His Blood from each area has accomplished  for us ?

 

Do we acknowledge what this sacrifice has accomplish or ignore  it  ?

 

Isaiah 53 ---What does this scripture say to you personally

 

Peace

Share this

Comments

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

What do you think it accomplished unsafe?

unsafe's picture

unsafe

image

 

What do you think it accomplished waterfall for you personally .

 

 

GordW's picture

GordW

image

Isaiah 53, one of the SErvant SOngs.  It is highly questioned whether the original writer meant the Servant as an individual MEssianic person or if the SErvant is the people of Israel as a whole.  If the latter then it has nothing to do with Jesus.  However the early church, in trying to tell the story of Jesus crucified and risen, adopted the SErvant songs witha specific interpretation to help explain the God they had met in JEsus.

 

My theology is not big on the "BLood of the LAmb" or "There is Power in the Blood" imagery.  My focus is on the life of Jesus and on God's action at the Easter moment (and make no mistake, the Scripture witness is very clear that Jesus did not rise but that God raised Jesus).

 

When it comes to forgiveness, one of the most common understandings of what the Blood accomplished, I think Jesus did not accomplish forgiveness.  Jesus PROCLAIMED forgiveness.  The forgiveness was already there without any sacrifice.  Jesus as a human did not forgive sins he told people they were forgiven, just as to this day any of us who act in a priestly role (for example leading in the prayer of confession and assurance of pardon) do not forgive sins but we remind people that they are forgiven.

unsafe's picture

unsafe

image

 

Hi GordW   --thanks for your reply ---This is your Quote   It is highly questioned whether the original writer meant the Servant as an individual MEssianic person or if the SErvant is the people of Israel as a whole.

 

This is why I personally believe that the Servant is the Messiah ---

 

The Servant seems to be an innocent and guiltless sufferer . Israel is described as a sinful Nation and a people laden with iniquity  .

 

Isaiah 1 V  4  Amplified Bible  4Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised and shown contempt and provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger, they have become utterly estranged (alienated).

 

Peace

 

 

onewman's picture

onewman

image

Blood is symbolic of life not death. Paul told us to present our bodies as living sacrifices to God, he told us to do that because he wanted us to imitate him even as he imitated Christ. Christ's sacrifice was his life, not his death. IMHO

unsafe's picture

unsafe

image

 

I believe that Blood gives life to our human physical bodies without blood we would not exist in human form . The same holds true for animals etc.

 

God in the Old Testament gave instructions that in order to restore a relationship with Him man's sin needed to be covered and thus animals were slaughtered and their blood used to cover sin  for atonement . So it makes perfect sense to me that God would sent Jesus to shed His Blood to blot out  man's sin once and for all instead of shedding animal blood every time a sin was committed . 

 

Leviticus 17 v 11 and 14

 

11For the life (the animal soul) is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life [which it represents].

 

 14As for the life of all flesh, the blood of it represents the life of it; therefore I said to the Israelites, You shall partake of the blood of no kind of flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats of it shall be cut off.

 

So to my way of thinking Jesus shedding His blood for us becomes very precious as it blots out sin and gives us a new start.

 

Hebrews 9 11-15 NKJB   

 

The Heavenly Sanctuary

   
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

 

Peace.

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Well since your Jesus is not relevant to my relationship with God, his supposed sacrifice really hasn't done anything for me, nor would I expect it to.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

This is what I'm wondering and perhaps someone could enlighten me.

 

As Christians we tend to think of Jesus' death as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins whereas the Jews who do not regard Jesus as their Messiah, no longer offer sacrifices, due to the fact that the second temple was destroyed around 70AD. Because the temple was destroyed there was no longer anywhere that a sacrifice could take place.

 

Now is there a connection between the temple destruction where priests were once the only recipients of the sacrifices offered, and Jesus' crucifixion as the ultimate sacrifice that included everyone?

 

The Jews returned to prayer and a day of atonement , and Christians focus on Jesus as their redeemer that requires no further sacrifice.

 

Somehow this "blood thing" seems to be getting out of hand for me.

 

 

 

GordW's picture

GordW

image

waterfall wrote:

Now is there a connection between the temple destruction where priests were once the only recipients of the sacrifices offered, and Jesus' crucifixion as the ultimate sacrifice that included everyone?

 

No direct connection since different religious traditions (now) are involved.  It would be an interesting (though possibly futile) question to ask how those members of the Christian Community who saw themselves as Jewish at the time the temple was destroyed would talk about the temple sacrifice.

 

One of the ways Judaism reacted to the destruction of Jerusalem was to refocus themselves.  In part this process was likely helped because when Jerusalem was destroyed those who administered the temple system were largely killed while the Pharisaic class which was not as centered in Jerusalem survived and became the Rabbis who developed the Talmud (this is a simplification).

 

I am not as familiar as I would need to be with modern Judaism to know the answer to my follow-upo query -- is therte a desire for the temple to be rebuilt and the sacrifice system re-established

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

I think the third temple is to be rebuilt only during the Messianic era. I believe that would mean no sacrifices required?

As a side note I read in Wiki that the messianic era (global peace and harmony) begins in the 6000th year after creation. Which would mean 2011 corresponds to the Hebrew calendar as the year 5771.

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Does anyone see the connection between the old animal sacrifices and the current practice of revering the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God?

 

I mean, Moses stopped the Israelites from sacrificing bulls. It was well past the Age of Taurus but they were still performing this outdated ritual. And after that they quickly moved into the ritual of the Passover Lamb, in accordance with our Sun's path passing through the sign of Aries, the Ram.

 

This ritual was later adopted by the Christians as the blood of Christ being that sacrificial lamb. An atonement from God for all the sins of our past. Christ suffered so we could live.
 

And so now we have the continued practice of relying on a blood sacrifice for our salvation and from an age that has already passed. Christ Himself pretty much said Himself to everyone: save yourselves! Pick up the cross of redemption and walk the  path of the savour, like all the other sons of men who knew themselves to be Sons of God before you.  Don't rely on savours to show you the God within. They can only point the way, they cannot take you there. The resurrection is the promise before our very eyes that we can all live again, but now with our our eyes wide open.  But "we" have to make the sacrifice now, each of us. It's time for Humanity to stand as One, leaving the personality as secondary in importance.

 

The Age of Pisces represented the division between the lower self and the higher self, e.g. the one fishing (the soul) swimming upward and the other fish (the personality)  swimming downward. It was during this age that the concepts and visions of unity and brotherhood were brought forward as concepts. But these vision never manifested and remained idealistic in form. But they were the blueprints of the future as action always follows thought. These blueprints were to be brought about to fruition in the next age.

 

The Age of Aquarius is the man bearing the pitcher of water. When when we see him we'll know the new passover is at hand. That time is now, the new age as begun. When the Bible talks about the end of the world as in Mathew 24:3,  it is talking about the end of the age. That time is now.

 

Aquarius is the sign of Brotherhood and unification. It is the man bearing the pitcher of water who, according the Labour of Hercules, cleared away the filth of the kingdom in a single day. With the parallel lines of Aquarius, nature works side by side, the lower and the higher in unison. These parallel lines also represent the control of electricity, which may eventually prove valuable in bringing about the heaven on earth phenomena.  

 

The story of history and our future is literally written in the stars. Does anyone see this connection?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

unsafe wrote:

Without the shedding of Jesus's Blood we humans would not have the privileges that this Great Sacrifice has accomplished for us.

McDonald's Happy Meals?

 

The ability to make a right turn on a red?

 

Registered Retirement Savings Plans?

 

 

unsafe wrote:

There were 5 areas where Jesus shed His Precious Blood and each area has accomplished certain privileges for us .

 

 

Do we know what the shedding of His Blood from each area has accomplished  for us ?

 

Do we acknowledge what this sacrifice has accomplish or ignore  it  ?

We acknowledge that it's an interesting story, kinda like Star Wars and Superman, and we go on with our lives and avoid the fan clubs as much as we can.

 

 

unsafe wrote:

Isaiah 53 ---What does this scripture say to you personally

That because some mythical guy who said some good stuff and had an amazing PR department got snuffed out, we need to give up our Sundays to grovel to him.

qwerty's picture

qwerty

image

 

What Did The Blood Of Jesus Accomplish For Us ?

 

 

Well, unsafe, since I have used up all my lifelines and have no more left, I would have to guess that that his blood was the first recorded instance of the existence of type O blood which in an emergency can be used to transfuse patients with type A, Type B type AB and of course type O. Previously it was believed that there was no basis for the idea of "common humanity" whereas after the discovery of Jesus' type O blood it was realized there was.

unsafe's picture

unsafe

image

 

We are made holy through the shedding of Jesus's Blood ---According to this scripture from the  CEBible

 

Hebrews 13 v 11-12  11 The blood of the animals is carried into the holy of holies by the high priest as an offering for sin, and their bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy with his own blood.

 

Moses sprinkled Blood from animals on the door ways to protect them from death

Exodus 12 v 23

 

So to me personally it sounds like it is through The Blood that Jesus shed we are free from sin and we have access to other things as well.

 

Isaiah 53 v 5  5But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole.

 

It seems to me that when we are wounded we shed blood but that is just my opinion. 

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

 

kaythecurler's picture

kaythecurler

image

unsafe - it seems pretty obvious that we (all humans) shed blood when wounded.  This doesn't mean anyone wants to bath in that blood - or rejoice because we are bleeding - or thinks we had an accident because we were 'sinful'.  I don't want to wash in the blood of a lamb either - or a goat, cow, chicken or moose.  The majority of the human race don't follow the tenets of Christianity - though I daresay they are many who say they are Christian.  You, like everyone else must make your own choices about your spiritual practices - I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

To be perfectly serious for a second, and this is hard for me considering the ridiculous topic, nobody has ever identified a problem encountered by humanity that could be solved by killing someone whose living did not contribute to the problem in the first place.

 

The celebration of a human sacrifice puts Christianity on par with other morally bankrupt belief systems that utilize(d) forms of animal or human sacrifice.  If you believe that the death of another person benefits you in some direct or indirect way, you should be ashamed of yourself.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

What does the blood of Jesus mean to me? 

 

It means that Jesus was a living, human being with blood circulating through his body, carrying precious oxygen to every living cell, propelled by a powerful pump called the heart.  It means that when that human being was hung on a cross with that blood pouring out from several open wounds, the strain on his breathing from the position he was suspended in, the flies . . .  the ravens .  . .    Well that heart stopped beating, that blood stopped circulating, the brain was starved for oxygen and the body died.  To me that was a real and physical death. 

 

I also think that Jesus was filled with the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be killed but remains with us today.  

 

 

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

seeler wrote:

What does the blood of Jesus mean to me? 

 

It means that Jesus was a living, human being with blood circulating through his body, carrying precious oxygen to every living cell, propelled by a powerful pump called the heart.  It means that when that human being was hung on a cross with that blood pouring out from several open wounds, the strain on his breathing from the position he was suspended in, the flies . . .  the ravens .  . .    Well that heart stopped beating, that blood stopped circulating, the brain was starved for oxygen and the body died.  To me that was a real and physical death. 

 

I also think that Jesus was filled with the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be killed but remains with us today.  

 

 

Hey seeler, 

 

a little more towards you thinking, the bible says when Jesus side was priced, blood and water came out, what do you think that would meen or indicate. 

seeler's picture

seeler

image

I'm not a medical doctor.  In fact I have never seen a person dying or dead of open wounds.   But I understand that once the heart stops pumping and the blood stops circulating, there is no more force behind it to continue bleeding.  But gravity would work, and the blood might accumulate in some pockets.  If the body were to be pierced after death the blood would either drip or flow for a while.   The water - perhaps the dead cells release water that would also accumulate under the skin and flow out.   It seems to me that if there were blood and water in the same area they would blend into a thin liquid like diluted blood.  Perhaps eventually the heavier blood cells would sink to the bottom and the clearer fluid rise to the top so that they might be seen as two separate fluids.   What does it mean or indicate?   As I said, I'm no medical doctor, and it doesn't doesn't indicate anything to me except perhaps that this was a dead body. 

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

There is some discussion that the water represents baptism, but only the original authors could tell you what they were thinking for sure.  Maybe it just sounded impressive.

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

seeler wrote:

I'm not a medical doctor.  In fact I have never seen a person dying or dead of open wounds.   But I understand that once the heart stops pumping and the blood stops circulating, there is no more force behind it to continue bleeding.  But gravity would work, and the blood might accumulate in some pockets.  If the body were to be pierced after death the blood would either drip or flow for a while.   The water - perhaps the dead cells release water that would also accumulate under the skin and flow out.   It seems to me that if there were blood and water in the same area they would blend into a thin liquid like diluted blood.  Perhaps eventually the heavier blood cells would sink to the bottom and the clearer fluid rise to the top so that they might be seen as two separate fluids.   What does it mean or indicate?   As I said, I'm no medical doctor, and it doesn't doesn't indicate anything to me except perhaps that this was a dead body. 

 

 

 

 

i have learned through my wife's first heart attack  that blood is a living breathing organism, I didnt know that at first , blood and water is the separation of the blood and if correct the hemoglobin which looks like dirty water, when the blood dies it breaks down and separates.

 

I have read theories as to what happened to Jesus on the cross , some say He never really died, that He was taken away unconscious, but you are correct, blood and water coming from HIs side indicates a dead body. I find it interesting that the apostles who find that part important enough to write it down when back in those days there medical understandings were not as today. 

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

chansen's picture

chansen

image

I'm not saying it actually happened.  In fact, it is extremely doubtful that it happened.

 

I'm just saying that the authors had to write that, or it was added in at some point, to satisfy anal-retentive nit-pickers who carried messiah checklists.

GordW's picture

GordW

image

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

GordW wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

 

 

 

I agree, but one would think , that if they wanted to fulfill scripture they would do it them selves , which was not the case, one can argue coincidence 

 

Witch's picture

Witch

image

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

 

 

 

I agree, but one would think , that if they wanted to fulfill scripture they would do it them selves , which was not the case, one can argue coincidence 

 

An easier way to fulfil scripture would be to just make up a part of the story where he was stabbed, which is the point I think Chansen was trying to make. You're arguing from the idea that it's unlikely they could get a Roman soldier to do something so that they could fulfil scripture. What you're missing is that the easiest way to fulfil scripture is just to make the story fit the prophecy.

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

 

 

 

I agree, but one would think , that if they wanted to fulfill scripture they would do it them selves , which was not the case, one can argue coincidence 

 

An easier way to fulfil scripture would be to just make up a part of the story where he was stabbed, which is the point I think Chansen was trying to make. You're arguing from the idea that it's unlikely they could get a Roman soldier to do something so that they could fulfil scripture. What you're missing is that the easiest way to fulfil scripture is just to make the story fit the prophecy.

 

no, I was arguing that its unlikely they would lie against The Roman authority of the time

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

I agree, but one would think , that if they wanted to fulfill scripture they would do it them selves , which was not the case, one can argue coincidence 

An easier way to fulfil scripture would be to just make up a part of the story where he was stabbed, which is the point I think Chansen was trying to make. You're arguing from the idea that it's unlikely they could get a Roman soldier to do something so that they could fulfil scripture. What you're missing is that the easiest way to fulfil scripture is just to make the story fit the prophecy.

Indeed, you don't leave prophesy fulfillment to Roman Centurions, who were notorious drinkers.  You let your authors and editors take car of that.

GordW's picture

GordW

image

Witch wrote:

n easier way to fulfil scripture would be to just make up a part of the story where he was stabbed, which is the point I think Chansen was trying to make. You're arguing from the idea that it's unlikely they could get a Roman soldier to do something so that they could fulfil scripture. What you're missing is that the easiest way to fulfil scripture is just to make the story fit the prophecy.

 

Or make the prophecy fit the story.  THat is, take the story as you have been told it and then search to see if this or that piece of the story could have a counterpart in Scripture.

 

200 years later it is a matter of faith to try and determine which aspect of the story is historical, which was added to "fulfil" scripture, and which had scripture re-interpreted to fit the story.  Especially since we can't ask the original writers,(and the video tape of the event seems to have been lost angel)

A's picture

A

image

The meaning of Jesus' blood is a very interesting subject.  (Although, it's kind of useless if you don't believe in the whole Great Sacrifice theory.  I don't get it at all - why does a loving God require the brutal death of his only kid to feel better about humans in general?  Weird!  But anyway. )

The fascination with blood is pretty much all over the Hebrew Bible - YHWH really, really, really likes it!  I still have these visuals of blood being thrown on altars too often to think about... or what these altars looked and smelled like afterward... and just think of the flies...  

Why does YHWH love blood so much?  Maybe it has something to do with abundance of meat?  I don't really know.  Jesus' blood is said to be very precious - he is like the ultimate sacrifice - so his blood has way more power than any goat's blood would...  And, we established already that YHWH really likes blood... So, we imagine that we have some metaphorical access to Jesus' blood - Jesus being YHWH favourite kid - and being able to "cover" ourselves in Jesus' metaphorical blood is very good for us.  Something like that.  Very gory if you ask me.

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Blood is an excellent fertilizer. I remember a spot where I once killed a deer and bled it into the lawn. The grass there grew greener for several years.

 

Similarly, the blood of Jesus must have caused the grass to grow greener around the bottom of the cross.

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Neo wrote:

Does anyone see the connection between the old animal sacrifices and the current practice of revering the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God?....

 

No takers on this eh? That's ok, Astrology's not for everyone.

 

I like to also share the following from a fellow esoterist and "new ager". It's regarding the teachings of Maitreya, the Christ and the idea of a saviour coming to earth to save our souls verses ourselves picking up that cross of self-sacrifice and walking that path home on our own volition.

 

 

"The Christ comes to inspire humanity to save the planet, and humanity from destroying itself. It is through His teaching that He seeks to inspire us to make that change. This is the expectation that most people have of him as a ‘Saviour’. But we have to do the work for ourselves. As He said long ago, every stone, every brick must be set in place by humanity itself: 'I am the architect of the Plan, you are the willing builders of the Temple of Truth.'

 

"We must save ourselves by correct response to His teaching. No one else can do this, not even the Christ Himself. The World Teacher is a saviour, but He does not come to save us. He comes to teach, and it is true we do the saving. By the correct response to the teachings, that is, making the teachings a dynamic force within our life, we save ourselves. Saving is knowing. When you become and are the Self, you are saved.

 

"It has been presented to the world by the Christian groups for 2,000 years in terms of a Saviour coming to the world to save humanity from the results of their sins. But it has no relation to sin. It is about self-transformation. We change ourselves and enter the process of being saved. It is a stage-by-stage process.

 

"We save ourselves in response to the teachings and above all the application of the teachings to oneself. You can hear teachings and they remain as teachings, as they have done for 2,000 years to millions of people. The teachings of the Christ  through (the person of) Jesus, which people have heard and put into the Bible, have been either explained away or are still as relevant today as they were, but have not been applied.

 

 

"If we do not apply the teachings, if they are not a dynamic force within us, and therefore a force for change, we do not become saved. Correctly applied, daily, weekly, yearly, the teachings transform us, bit by bit. We come closer to our soul, imbibe more of the soul’s energy into ourselves, more of the light of the soul. We bring more subatomic matter into our bodies, so changing them, spiritualizing and gradually perfecting them. That is saving yourself — growing into the likeness of the soul.

 

 

"The soul seeks to express itself through its vehicle, the man or woman, but they have to respond to the teachings. That is why the Teacher comes, to remind us once again of the Laws: the Law of Karma, the Law of Rebirth, the Law of Harmlessness. We have to apply these laws correctly, dynamically to our lives, not just as an idea that remains in the head but does not do anything. If it is only a memory in the brain, it does not do anything at all. We have to actually apply it and make it into a yeast so that it changes us. It lifts us and changes us. You have to change according to the teachings.

 

 

"It is not knowledge per se. It is the instinctive response to the dynamic of the teaching. It is a process, not just words, not just homilies, not just something to remember. It does not matter if you remember it or not in terms of words. What does matter is if it becomes an active process in your life, and leads you from awareness to awareness, initiation to initiation, and eventually to perfection. That is being saved, and nobody can do it but oneself."

Witch's picture

Witch

image

blackbelt wrote:

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

They had to say that Jesus was pierced in order to fulfill OT "prophesy" from Zechariah 12:10.  No pincushion treatment, no messiah.

 

 

The problem with this view is, is that it was not a Hebrew Jew who knew the scriptures doing the piercing, it was a Roman Centurion who knew nothing of the Torah , I highly doubt they would wright lies against the Roman Empire in fear

HOwever it was a follower of The Way (working form hearsay since the story is clear that few of Jesus' friends were anywhere near the spot) who wrote the account and he would have known the scriptures.  But realistically if you are executing someone you want to make sure they are good and dead.  JAbbing a spear into their side is a pretty good test I'd say

 

 

 

I agree, but one would think , that if they wanted to fulfill scripture they would do it them selves , which was not the case, one can argue coincidence 

 

An easier way to fulfil scripture would be to just make up a part of the story where he was stabbed, which is the point I think Chansen was trying to make. You're arguing from the idea that it's unlikely they could get a Roman soldier to do something so that they could fulfil scripture. What you're missing is that the easiest way to fulfil scripture is just to make the story fit the prophecy.

 

no, I was arguing that its unlikely they would lie against The Roman authority of the time

 

I'm afraid you've lost me as to how that would apply here?

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Agnieszka wrote:

The meaning of Jesus' blood is a very interesting subject.  (Although, it's kind of useless if you don't believe in the whole Great Sacrifice theory.  I don't get it at all - why does a loving God require the brutal death of his only kid to feel better about humans in general?  Weird!  But anyway. )

The fascination with blood is pretty much all over the Hebrew Bible - YHWH really, really, really likes it!  I still have these visuals of blood being thrown on altars too often to think about... or what these altars looked and smelled like afterward... and just think of the flies...  

Why does YHWH love blood so much?  Maybe it has something to do with abundance of meat?  I don't really know.  Jesus' blood is said to be very precious - he is like the ultimate sacrifice - so his blood has way more power than any goat's blood would...  And, we established already that YHWH really likes blood... So, we imagine that we have some metaphorical access to Jesus' blood - Jesus being YHWH favourite kid - and being able to "cover" ourselves in Jesus' metaphorical blood is very good for us.  Something like that.  Very gory if you ask me.

 

 

The interest in blood likely flows from the fact that even the ancients had some idea that the flow of blood represented life, although they may not have understood the concept of white cells and red cells, etc. A living body bleeds freely because the blood is being pumped; a dead body doesn't, except with the help of gravity and nowhere near as freely as a living body. The blood then becomes the symbol of life. The blood sacrifice becomes the primitive way of claiming life - for the Israelites and for those Christians who choose to interpret the crucifixion this way the new life represented by the forgiveness of sin. It is rather gory. I would agree with you on that. But it's also understandable if you try to get into the mindset of a pre-scientific people trying to understand how things work.

 

Your description of a brutal God requiring the death of his only kid to feel better about humanity is a rather flippant dismissal of a much more complicated piece of traditional Christian doctrine - ie, the idea of incarnation, by which the death on the cross is not merely the death of God's "kid" but is rather an act of divine self-sacrifice. Some interpret it as the shedding of divine blood for the purpose of fully and for all time fulfilling the requirements of the blood sacrifices in the Law of Moses. Others see it is a simple act of human injustice and a call to justice and deny the whole concept of incarnation, so that what happened is merely an innocent man being put unjustly to death by the authorities, with the idea that it had any salvific value being dismissed. I tend to see it as an expression of divine solidarity with humanity - God willingly experiencing death as we all experience death, and thus demonstrating the desire to be one with creation.

A's picture

A

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

Your description of a brutal God requiring the death of his only kid to feel better about humanity is a rather flippant dismissal of a much more complicated piece of traditional Christian doctrine - ie, the idea of incarnation, by which the death on the cross is not merely the death of God's "kid" but is rather an act of divine self-sacrifice.

You say "flippant", I say "simplified, and stripped of made up meanings". :-)

In your version, God demands of himself that his human version, interpreted by his followers as god's son is murdered brutally and his corpse is humiliated.  Yes?  I don't think that's much better.

Rev.Steven Davis wrote:

Some interpret it as the shedding of divine blood for the purpose of fully and for all time fulfilling the requirements of the blood sacrifices in the Law of Moses.

That is exactly where the continual emphasis on blood comes from, even within today's Christianities.

Rev.Steven Davis wrote:

Others see it is a simple act of human injustice and a call to justice and deny the whole concept of incarnation, so that what happened is merely an innocent man being put unjustly to death by the authorities, with the idea that it had any salvific value being dismissed.

The concept of incarnation is wonderful.  Until the whole idea that God requires the death of an incarnated version of itself in order to be happy with humanity.  It suggests God really did not like humanity very much at all, if only someone's brutal death could appease him.  What sort of an understanding of "loving, kind and compassionate" is that? 

So, Jesus had to follow god's demands and get himself killed so that this "loving god" would leave humanity alone and not pull another Flood or something.  Is that the "salvific value" of Jesus' murder?  That he rescued humanity from a rather nasty god?

Anyway, like I said, I just simplified the story.  But, of course, thousands of years have been spent on complicating it, layering it, making it somehow more palatable.  Good luck with that.  I'm not fooled.

Rev.Steven Davis wrote:

I tend to see it as an expression of divine solidarity with humanity - God willingly experiencing death as we all experience death, and thus demonstrating the desire to be one with creation.

You forget that Jesus was not so willing, that he begged his "father".  But no, the old man hadn't had his fill of blood as of recent...  It's terrifying, however you like to dress it up.

Cheers,

A.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

You're quite welcome to your opinion, of course. 

 

I've chosen to delete the remainder of my reply. Frankly, it's not worth getting into a flame war over. Too much of that going on here in various threads lately. I'm seriously thinking of simply using Facebook for my social networking. WC isn't much fun lately.

GordW's picture

GordW

image

A query (which is not automatically related to the blood).  Is there an automatic link between an incarnational theology (which Christianity does require in some form) and a requirement for blood sacrifice?

 

Is there no room for the possibility that the incarnation did NOT have to end on the cross?  THat maybe the cross was not God's original plan or hope?

 

OF course that pushes us to ask what the point of the incarnation was.

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

For me, Gord, the point(s) of incarnation are love and solidarity. "I love you enough to choose to be one of you and to experience what it's like to be you." My theology is firmly based on incarnation rather than crucifixion or resurrection. That doesn't mean that I deny crucifixion and resurrection, but it does mean that (for me at least) without incarnation neither crucifixion nor resurrection have any meaning. My theology is based on divine solidarity with us rather than divine sacrifice for us.

 

With that, I think I'll leave this discussion.

GordW's picture

GordW

image

And I would agree with you Steven.  BUt the discussion I have often found myself in assumes that incarnation is all for the purpose of the death.  ANd so In the context of this thread I wanted a different POV lifted up.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

The equating of blood with life, as has already been pointed out, is an ancient one. It's the root of vampire mythology (the dead taking life from the living through taking their blood). It's the root of the JW's aversion to transfusions. You see it in the Odyssey where Odysseus must give the shades in Hades blood before they can speak with him. And so on.

 

I'm not big on the whole "blood of The Lamb" thing, but I'd say that this ancient mythology could give us a metaphorical/mythological approach to the symbolism. Jesus blood symbolizing the life he taught and that he wanted for us rather than being shed to give us that life. Consuming the "blood" symbolically though communion means embracing and taking part in that life. The shedding of the blood being Jesus dying as a martyr to bring us that life, rather than as a sacrifice for our sins. This is just brainstorming, though, not really something I've thought through. It's never really been a big part of my spirituality even when I was Christian; it's even less so now.

 

Mendalla

 

A's picture

A

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

I've chosen to delete the remainder of my reply. Frankly, it's not worth getting into a flame war over. Too much of that going on here in various threads lately. I'm seriously thinking of simply using Facebook for my social networking. WC isn't much fun lately.

Funny, I really thought you were flaming me, calling my little simplified version of the story 'flippant'. I stated it how I see it and you are most welcome to disagree withe it... but as far as I'm concerned your version is not more true. Is that what constitues a 'flame war'? I don't think so. Unless you assume I intended to annoy you personally.
And clearly, even though you said you'll go off to Facebook, you were not quite finished discussing this subject.

This idea that Jesus' sacrificial death was a way for the incarnate God to be in solidarity with the human experience: this makes sense IF we do not go with the belief that the enitre thing was staged from beginning to end AND required by god. That just does not make sense at all... Anyway, happy Facebooking.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi unsafe,

 

unsafe wrote:

Without the shedding of Jesus's Blood we humans would not have the privileges that this Great Sacrifice has accomplished for us.

 

I don't know that it is the shedding per se that grants humans access to the privileges. I'm reasonably confident that it is God's grace that has accomplished that.  What follows then is why would God choose to operate this particular way?

 

I'm convinced that what we are dealing with is heavy symbolics more so than literal necessities.

 

For example the slain lamb at the very first passover.  There is no power in these mere lambs, nothing magic at all about the blood of a yearling.  God chose the blood of these animals to be the symbol which would instruct the angel of death to passover any house whose door lintel was painted in lamb's blood.

 

The same lamb was consumed as strength for the journey that would be the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt and, according to directions the lamb slain by each family was to be taken into the home from the tenth of the month until the 14th of the same month.  I'm reasonably certain that the Hebrews being far more agrarian than we are today did not have the same problems with this requirement that me and mine would have.  I mean looking after a little lamb would not be a hardship.  Slaughtering it would put enmity between me and the rest of the family and my heart wouldn't be entirely into it.  That said I doubt that the lambs were being abused over those four days and as yearlings they were probably showing as much affection as lambs will.  At any rate there would have been some sense of connection and a corresponding sense of loss.  Which I believe is also symbolic.

 

Skip ahead to the Gospel of John where Jesus is most powerfully presented as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  Now, is Jesus' blood magical?  Might it simply stand as symbol?   Which is not me saying that the crucifixion is bunk.  It is also in the Gospel of John where we find the notion of Jesus being God in human flesh which takes me back to a very early profession of faith made by Abraham when he said, "God himself will provide the lamb."  Although I don't believe that Jesus is what Abraham meant.

 

Paul gets in on the act in 1 Corinthians 5 where he asserts that Jesus is our passover lamb.  I'm not sure how that played to Gentile Christians, I can imagine the significant meaning it would have to those followers of the Way who had begun as Jews.

 

This particular theme of Jesus as Pashal lamb is repeated  in 1 Peter 1:  19.

 

What is incredible about these references is that they do not point to the crucifixion as being the event they point to the crucifixion as the symbol.  The event which is of greater significance is the grace of God present before the creation of the world.  The crucifixion is not the thing to be pointed at it is the thing which points.  And what the crucifixion points to how God deals with the alienation that sin produces.

 

unsafe wrote:

There were 5 areas where Jesus shed His Precious Blood and each area has accomplished certain privileges for us .

 

Would love to see your reference with this though I'm reasonably certain I'm going to disagree with it.  The blood of the lamb did not save in spots.  It saved completely.  Blood went on the lintels of the door not on every window frame and not on the roof of the home or the walls as if the angel of death needs door or window to pass through wall.  It had a ceremonial/symbolic function.

 

unsafe wrote:

Do we know what the shedding of His Blood from each area has accomplished  for us ?

 

We can't if we don't know the five areas you allege.  If I look specifically at the biblical text then the blood of Jesus as passover lamb means that I am spared a visit from the angel of death.  Since death is the fair wage paid for sin then the blood of Jesus means that God is graciously interfering with me getting the wage my sin has earned.

 

unsafe wrote:

Do we acknowledge what this sacrifice has accomplish or ignore  it  ?

 

I know that I have sinned and I believe that because of that sin I have fallen short of the glory of God and that death is my rightful inheritance.  Because God has acted graciously toward me for reasons known only to God I am spared that inheritance and the death of Christ on the cross is symbolic of a deeper sacrifice made at the foundation of the earth.  What that deeper sacrifice was exactly I do not know nor does my salvation rest upon my knowing it.  My salvation rests upon the grace of God alone.

 

unsafe wrote:

Isaiah 53--What does this scripture say to you personally

 

Once upon a time I believe, as I was taught, that this servant song was pointing at Jesus.  I am no longer of the opinion that this is the case.  In the context of the whole it seems more apparent that the suffering servant is not Jesus but Israel. which is how our Jewish brothers and sisters interpret it.

 

I find the treatment of Isaiah 53 at the link below very compelling and to be blunt, very challenging of much "Sunday School" teaching about Jesus.  I think that they engage in some literalism of their own and yet they don't appear to be stretching things as much as some Christian literalists I've read.

 

Read for yourself and consider:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=48&Itemid=500

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

clergychickita's picture

clergychickita

image

Agnieszka, I think Steven perhaps was responding to how you chose to paint a picture of his perspective for yourself, instead of asking more questions to have him describe his own perspective.  For example, you said, "In your version, God demands of himself that his human version, interpreted by his followers as god's son is murdered brutally and his corpse is humiliated. Yes? I don't think that's much better."  I don't think that's what Steven was saying at all.  I think he was saying that God chose to be one of us, "enfleshed" (literal meaning of incarnation), and that taking on human life meant participating in the joys and sorrows of that life.  For Jesus, speaking to power at the time, that led, rather inevitably, to arrest and brutality and death.  That does not have to be interpreted as "God's plan."  One can say that the only thing "God demanded of Godself" is to truly be incarnated/at one/in solidarity with humanity -- no matter what the consequences.

 

I, too, struggle with the story.  As an English major and Christian, I'm happy to look at all the layers of meaning, and see the beauty of the incarnation story, and (for me) the equal beauty of a story of a completely human Jesus walking in faithfulness despite the threat of the cross, alongside other layers of interpretation.  Taking the different gospel renditions (and later interpretations found in the letters) and trying to make it all fit into one cohesive story is tricky, however!  But in the end, as with the rest of scripture, I try to open up as many pathways as possible, and invite folks to wrestle with it themselves, and discover God's word to them.  For some people, the interpretation of forgiveness through blood sacrifice is absolutely good news.  For others, it is abuse and horror.  Is there any way we can share what is good news for us without disparaging others who don't share our viewpoint?

 

shalom, y'all!

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Agnieszka wrote:

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

I've chosen to delete the remainder of my reply. Frankly, it's not worth getting into a flame war over. Too much of that going on here in various threads lately. I'm seriously thinking of simply using Facebook for my social networking. WC isn't much fun lately.

Funny, I really thought you were flaming me, calling my little simplified version of the story 'flippant'. I stated it how I see it and you are most welcome to disagree withe it... but as far as I'm concerned your version is not more true. Is that what constitues a 'flame war'? I don't think so. Unless you assume I intended to annoy you personally. And clearly, even though you said you'll go off to Facebook, you were not quite finished discussing this subject. This idea that Jesus' sacrificial death was a way for the incarnate God to be in solidarity with the human experience: this makes sense IF we do not go with the belief that the enitre thing was staged from beginning to end AND required by god. That just does not make sense at all... Anyway, happy Facebooking.

 

I said I was considering restricting myself to Facebook because there's been a lot of nonsense going on on several threads lately, with a handful of posters taking over several threads to simply keep attacking each other.

My "flippant" comment was my interpretation of your words and of your intent. That's how it sounded to me; it was not intended to be the start of a "flame war." My edited and deleted comment on the other hand was me at my grumpiest and I admit I would have been flaming. That's why I deleted it.

As to "this makes sense IF we do not go with the belief that the entire thing was staged from beginning to end AND required by god. That just does not make sense at all." Yeah. So we agree. That's why I don't believe that. A lot of Christians would agree with that. That's why I find your caricature of Christianity unimpressive. I (like many Christians) don't buy into the concept of a God who micromanages every event in the creation. Not even the crucifixion. I do believe God works through what we humans do and seeks to influence and guide, but does not coerce in order to force a particular outcome.

A's picture

A

image

clergychickita wrote:

Agnieszka, I think Steven perhaps was responding to how you chose to paint a picture of his perspective for yourself, instead of asking more questions to have him describe his own perspective.

He called my presentation of the story "flippant", without asking me any questions about it either.

Quote:
 

For example, you said, "In your version, God demands of himself that his human version, interpreted by his followers as god's son is murdered brutally and his corpse is humiliated. Yes? I don't think that's much better."  I don't think that's what Steven was saying at all.  

That's just fine!  I'd be happy to hear what exactly he meant by it!  

Quote:

I think he was saying that God chose to be one of us, "enfleshed" (literal meaning of incarnation), and that taking on human life meant participating in the joys and sorrows of that life.  For Jesus, speaking to power at the time, that led, rather inevitably, to arrest and brutality and death.  That does not have to be interpreted as "God's plan."  One can say that the only thing "God demanded of Godself" is to truly be incarnated/at one/in solidarity with humanity -- no matter what the consequences.

I have no problem with this interpretation - and it is one I'm very familiar with, it makes sense.  But, in the context of a conversation about "the blood of Jesus" having value, and Jesus' death being of salvific value, this interpretation falls short.  Jesus becomes human, speaks to power at the time, is brutally murdered. The end.  His blood and his death are not parts of some bigger magical picture of God's forgiveness of the sins of humanity, etc., etc..  But, that is not what this conversation here is about - it is about the meaning of Jesus' blood, the meaning of Jesus' "sacrifice" which automatically opens the door to the other interpretation where the entire event is part of some bigger plan that God has staged.

Quote:

Is there any way we can share what is good news for us without disparaging others who don't share our viewpoint?

My choice not to gloss over the deeply disturbing aspects of the traditional reading of the story is not an example of disparaging others' ideas.  It's what I see.  If someone wants to disparage my reading of the story, let them.

 

 

 

A's picture

A

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

I said I was considering restricting myself to Facebook because there's been a lot of nonsense going on on several threads lately, with a handful of posters taking over several threads to simply keep attacking each other.

I wasn't attacking anyone.  I find the story ridiculous and I've struggled with it enough to know that no matter how you cover it up to make it pretty, it just ain't.  That is my opinion, not an attack on anyone.

Quote:

My "flippant" comment was my interpretation of your words and of your intent. That's how it sounded to me; it was not intended to be the start of a "flame war."

I don't think you can really get my intent without asking me directly.  Otherwise, you're just reading it into what I wrote.  And when you make assumptions, well, we all know what can happen. 

Quote:

As to "this makes sense IF we do not go with the belief that the entire thing was staged from beginning to end AND required by god. That just does not make sense at all." Yeah. So we agree. That's why I don't believe that. A lot of Christians would agree with that. That's why I find your caricature of Christianity unimpressive. 

Caricature, you say?  Ha!  Please, set foot at any evangelical denomination - any nice new mega church will do, particularly around Good Friday, and listen to what's being said, to what songs are being sung, to the great catharsis of gratitude for Jesus' willingness to "die for us"!

*A lot* of Christians take the most basic version of the story exactly as it's presented to them, and they don't think the story through from beginning to end.  

The basic version I have heard over and over again is: God sent his most beloved and only son to be murdered by humanity so that humanity may be forgiven our sins and be saved from God's wrath.  Isn't that it, as offensive as this summation may sound to you?  Substitutionary atonement, believe in it or not, is the basis of the faith of countless evangelical Christian denominations.  Jesus is sacrificed in order to save us from God's wrath, and God is the one who demands this sacrifice.  We are to worship God for accepting Jesus' sacrifice and to worship Jesus for making it, and we are oh so lucky that Jesus decided to take our place or things would be pretty grim for us now.  That's no caricature. That's the basis of so many people's faith and worship of Jesus.

Quote:

I (like many Christians) don't buy into the concept of a God who micromanages every event in the creation. Not even the crucifixion.

Accept it, you are in the minority.  Those who are outspoken representative of Christianity do not think like you.  All the other versions  of Christianity are liberal attempts to make sense of something so profoundly nonsensical that no amount of theologizing can make it make sense.

I'm not interested in flaming anyone.  Unless you consider the basic faith tenets of evangelical Christianity as rude and flippant. :-)

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Whatever.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Just in case anyone is confused, I am not posting using Agnieszka'a account.

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

"People ask me, "Do you have optimism about the world, about how terrible it is?" And I say, "Yes, it's great the way is it" ... I had the wonderful privilege of sitting face to face with [a Hindu guru] and the first thing he said to me was "Do you have a question?", cause the teacher always answers questions... I said, "Yes, I have a question." I said, " Since in Hindu thinking all the universe is divine, a manifestation of divinity itself, how can we say no to anything in the world? How can we say no to brutality to stupidity to vulgarity to thoughtlessness?" And he said, "For you and me, you must say yes." Well, I learned from my friends who were students of his that that happened to be the first question he asked his guru, and we had a wonderful conversation for an hour there."

--Joseph Campbell

A's picture

A

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

Whatever.

 

Well, actually, that's pretty much my sentiment about the whole thing. :-)  Still, I would have thought that, as a minister, you would have had this experience of evangelical Christianity as well... I understand it is painful to see.  I definitely found it painful.  But, I'm so over it! And, as you so eloquently stated, "whatever"! 

Hope you have a better day.

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe