Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-08-2012, 11:31 AM

Blood symbolizes life in these paradigms, actually - and immortality.

Chili · 01-08-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Then what's the use of referencing blood altogether ...

Christianity is a more complex religion than you might guess from some current simplified evangelical belief systems. If people are going to devote their lives to Christian theology, they need lots of intricate references to the Exodus or other items of cultural history to occupy their minds.

I would say that the reference to blood is that also our RNA must be purified as it represnts 'this age' so that we will not be distracted by it while walking on our Alma Mater, as she is the water set aside to give us dry land to walk on along the road-dust of the sun and so outside of Eden but next to 'her' . . . to which we return and there must walk on her prior to the light of common day.

Chili · 01-08-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am not sure what you mean by "not for pagans." In any case I also added below that blood is not always of importance in the epistles either. And the fact that the author of Romans and Ephesians doesn't mention anything about the thorns or the spear makes it important to know what blood is being referred to .

The physical death of Jesus achieved nothing of itself. However, one cannot drive nails into a hand or foot without causing loss of blood, so the blood figure, that began allegorically with those skins in Eden, and continued with Abel's sacrifice; that began in the literal sense with Abraham's ram, and continued at the Passover in Egypt, and on the Tabernacle altar, etc., is satisfied. But Jesus could have died bloodlessly, because

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

But it was not a spiritual death as the spiritually dead are called to life and out of those the select are chosen to die and rise again on the other side of the great divide that exist only in our very own mind.

sotto voce · 01-08-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Blood symbolizes life

So blood shed represents death.

Chili · 01-08-2012, 01:44 PM

I was rushed to get to town, but let me add without reading Cor.15 that Paul was the cloak of faith and not a Gospeler who so was not concerned to provide the details that the Gospels do present. His job was to call the flock together and provide the material cause wherein the Gospeler can do his thing, and when I write that in heaven we must walk on her prior to the light of common day it means that in heaven not only the sea is no longer but also the nigth will be no more and with it the Morning and the Evening star that we call Mary instead of Jesus, and so we are on our own without a dream to live, obviously, as there must be two of us to have this dream, and for this to be possible also our RNA that modifies our DNA must in purity remain.

I am not sure why, but if the claim is made that neither pain or sickness can exist in heaven this may just be why that has to be. I can readily accept desire to be a human thing and pain as well, but sickness and good health in paradise is not that easy to explain.

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 03:24 PM

Even the emission of some blood from nails isn't the same thing as the blood drained from a temple sacrifice that is then sprinkled on the altar or even disposed of.
But the case of Jesus must be understood metaphorically since his sacrifice implies shedding of blood in a nonphysical way. However the physical resurrection then removes any real similarity with animal sacrifice, which has no resurrection. But I guess they weren't paying close enough attention to the differences.

braces_for_impact · 01-08-2012, 04:56 PM

Hell if I know. Blood makes a horrible cleanser. In fact, it's a pain in the ass to clean up. I mean, it would be had I ever seen large amounts of it in one place before.:constern01:

la70119 · 01-08-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But I guess they weren't paying close enough attention to the differences.

Now you get it! They weren't paying attention to the differences. And they weren't paying attention to what they were writing, either.

For example:, Paul, 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19

Quote:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Here, no less than Paul is saying that it is not the shed blood that saves from sin, but the resurrection of Christ Jesus. In other words, if the Passion was not a classic example of Indian Giving, Christianity is futile!

And yet...

Hebrews 9:22

Quote:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [of sins].

And yet, knowing what happens in devotional crucifixions, and how the nailing through the heel does not puncture large blood vessels (see National geographic's "The First Jesus" on Hulu), we can determine that crucifixion (w/o real impalement) is a relatively bloodless affair. Maybe that's why Mel Gibson in The Passion of The Christ has Jim Caviezel shed his blood all over town!

Duvduv · 01-08-2012, 07:46 PM

Of course in Hebrews there is a closer identification with the notion of real sacrifice but perhaps it is blood in a conceptual way rather than a literal one. And it is mentioned in Romans and Ephesians, whoever the writers were.
But I wonder why they didn't pay attention!
It would make more sense if there were different authors who emphasized different points such as atoning blood or resurrection.

la70119 · 01-08-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Of course in Hebrews there is a closer identification with the notion of real sacrifice but perhaps it is blood in a conceptual way rather than a literal one. And it is mentioned in Romans and Ephesians, whoever the writers were.
But I wonder why they didn't pay attention!
It would make more sense if there were different authors who emphasized different points such as atoning blood or resurrection.

If you have any idea how the Book of Mormon was invented, you get an idea how the New Testament was created. Officially, the Book of Mormon was written when Joseph Smith read those Golden Plates by peering through the Urim and the Thummin (that is, the seeing stones) while looking into a top hat. In reality, it was more like an invention by plaigarism as Joseph Smith misremembered the King James Version off the top of his head and threw in his own ideas to boot. The NT appears to be like that, except it was done with several authors and redacted and edited over the years.

But you'd think the same person who wrote several letters would stick to one message instead of giving several. Now I can see Ephesians having a message different from 1 Corinthians because its authorship is in dispute. But Romans? Clearly, Paul didn't care if he sent different messages.

Who knows, maybe they were ALL forged and there never was such a person as "Paul."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-08-2012, 11:31 AM	#21
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Blood symbolizes life in these paradigms, actually - and immortality.

01-08-2012, 01:44 PM	#25
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I was rushed to get to town, but let me add without reading Cor.15 that Paul was the cloak of faith and not a Gospeler who so was not concerned to provide the details that the Gospels do present. His job was to call the flock together and provide the material cause wherein the Gospeler can do his thing, and when I write that in heaven we must walk on her prior to the light of common day it means that in heaven not only the sea is no longer but also the nigth will be no more and with it the Morning and the Evening star that we call Mary instead of Jesus, and so we are on our own without a dream to live, obviously, as there must be two of us to have this dream, and for this to be possible also our RNA that modifies our DNA must in purity remain. I am not sure why, but if the claim is made that neither pain or sickness can exist in heaven this may just be why that has to be. I can readily accept desire to be a human thing and pain as well, but sickness and good health in paradise is not that easy to explain.

01-08-2012, 03:24 PM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Even the emission of some blood from nails isn't the same thing as the blood drained from a temple sacrifice that is then sprinkled on the altar or even disposed of. But the case of Jesus must be understood metaphorically since his sacrifice implies shedding of blood in a nonphysical way. However the physical resurrection then removes any real similarity with animal sacrifice, which has no resurrection. But I guess they weren't paying close enough attention to the differences.

01-08-2012, 04:56 PM	#27
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Hell if I know. Blood makes a horrible cleanser. In fact, it's a pain in the ass to clean up. I mean, it would be had I ever seen large amounts of it in one place before.:constern01:

01-08-2012, 07:46 PM	#29
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Of course in Hebrews there is a closer identification with the notion of real sacrifice but perhaps it is blood in a conceptual way rather than a literal one. And it is mentioned in Romans and Ephesians, whoever the writers were. But I wonder why they didn't pay attention! It would make more sense if there were different authors who emphasized different points such as atoning blood or resurrection.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.