Duvduv

I am not sure I understand the mythist argument about the meaning of the "blood" of the mythical Christ atoning for the sins of the believers.

I also don't understand the conventional notion since there was no flowing of blood as in an ANIMAL SACRIFICE, which is atonement, the animal is burned on the altar and the blood spread around.

WHERE did the blood come from that was comparable to this? Because a sword was stuck in the side and some blood came out from the nails (although we all know that a crucifixion could not work with nails anyway since the body weight would pull the person down)??

Duvduv

If the metaphor of an animal sacrifice is problematic then how is it a convincing argument? Even the Yom Kippur sacrifice only helped the current generation, not future ones.

Duvduv

For those believing in the historical Christ, was blood simply a generic metaphor for the death on the cross and a bit of blood oozing out because of the thorns, or did the sacrifice for the sins of the world only take effect with the spear into the side?
I have never seen a clear explanation of what the blood of the sacrifice refers to in the case of Jesus.

Chili

My first reaction is to say that blood makes reference to this generation as in you-or-me in person as opposed to water that is ours by way of incarnation that also was spilled for everyone to see.

This then is what makes the historal Jesus who's blood was spilled just an example for us to follow to make manifest our water as the promised land for us to walk on in the here and now.

You may consider that Jesus died instead of Christ and that he died for the sins of his world on the very cross he carried as hunchback under the illusory conviction of sin, and so is where liberty is found from sense perception as the primary cause of slavery whereupon our humanity is built and wherein our dominion is made know, and so be a victor in the end.

rlogan

No need to be so fixated on a literal meaning. Commoners were under a perpetual obligation to sacrifice, ie to tithe.

Christ removes that obligation by being the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He figuratively gives his blood for us.

Diogenes the Cynic

The blood of the Pascal lamb had salvic implications in the Temple sacrifices. The lambs were slaughtered and the blood was scattered on the altar. The idea of blood sacrifice was already there, so Christ as a Pascal-surrogate means his blood is scattered on the altar.

The salvic implications come from the Passover story, in which the blood of lambs* smeared on the door frames saved the Israelites from the Angel of Death.


*As an aside, I've always wondered how abject slaves would have been able to get hold of all those lambs for dinner, or any meat at all.

sotto voce

'Blood' (spilled) means death. Not physical death, as commonly supposed, but spiritual.

'He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Is 53:5-6

'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' 2 Co 5:21 NASB (emphasis mine)

Diogenes the Cynic

You know the Isaiah quote has nothing to do with the Messiah, don't you?

Duvduv

But WHAT blood did they believe was SHED for sins? Was it from the thorns, or from the spear, in which case the crucifixion was not the crucial factor, but only death with a bit of blood per se. Indeed, in the Nicene Creed he simply died, with no mention of a crucifixion or even blood......

Chili

Yes but material tithing is already like a burned sacrifice as time in self reflection is what is required to get in = Zechariah here who brings to bear the water that we need or elso our blood is shed in vain.