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

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

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

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

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

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

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.