Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Sexualisation of very young girls - US style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mossrose View Post

    Do you know anything about the NEW COVENANT that Jesus instituted at the last supper?
    No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

    Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice.
    Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

      Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

      Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.
      You are once again showing your ignorance about who Jesus is. You should quit now.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

        Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

        Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.
        The animal sacrifices took the place of the punishment the Israelites would have to pay for because of their sins. Jesus just took it to the ultimate level and made one sacrifice for all. But you are right, the Jews had a hard time accepting Jesus as the Messiah for a number of reasons, including he died a shameful death hung on a tree.


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          Do you know anything about blood and Judaism? No Jew would speak of drinking blood even metaphorically.
          More food for thought.

          I was reading Jill Levine's 'The Misunderstood Jew' .....she is a great biblical scholar and a practicing Jew (numerous books and video presentations).

          When discussing the Last Supper she does confirm that Jews do not eat (drink) blood. Yet even while acknowledging this she goes on to stress the intended 'shock' of the words of Jesus in the gospel of John (such shock is a teaching method used by Jesus (and she provides examples). She focus on the idea of the sacrifice of Jesus and does not seem to focus on problems with the blood at all. Still reading but it is Paul - a practicing Jew - who speaks of the meaning of the 'body and blood.'

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            No Jew speaks of drinking blood. The blood is reserved for the deity.

            Hence the strict rules around the removal of all blood from Kosher meat, even today.

            Which equates with reinstating human sacrifice. Something that was anathema for Jews.
            But the Jews selected Jesus to die instead of Barrabas. We have discussed that point about Jews before and that this push for Jesus' death was brought up to those Jews in the preaching in Acts. (So, it is not all Jews nowadays guilty of this.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mossrose View Post

              Do you know anything about the NEW COVENANT that Jesus instituted at the last supper? Which did away with the old covenant of the shedding of the blood of sheep and other animals. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice.
              Once again, an attack from a Christian, really???

              Why don't you try to engage in a conversation?

              HA's point, I believe, was not so much that Jesus shed blood at his death (and that is understood as a blood sacrifice) but that practicing Jews (which Jesus, Paul and the earliest followers of Jesus in Palestine were) would ever think or ever actually 'drink blood.'

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                But the Jews selected Jesus to die instead of Barrabas. We have discussed that point about Jews before and that this push for Jesus' death was brought up to those Jews in the preaching in Acts. (So, it is not all Jews nowadays guilty of this.)
                To be fair, many question if Barabbas was a real character. Note the name Bar Abbas, son of the Father. So the son of the father is freed while the Son of the Father is crucified??

                However, there is also no such exchange that was made by Romans, there was no trading criminals who were guilty of crimes against thee state. They would have simply and gladly crucified both Barabbas and Jesus........like they did so many others.

                Pilate has been more than a bit 'whitewashed' in the gospels almost to the point that he is innocent of the blood of Jesus and it is the Jews who were responsible. However this polemic against Jews is written in gospels when those communities were in actual conflict with Jews and it was projected back in the time of Jesus so the present community could basically say, "see, those guys are bad." In reality, the Romans could not care about the squabbles of the problems of people in this 'backwater land.' And Pilate was ruthless, he cared nothing for the Jews or a lowly, itinerant preacher of this rabble.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                  You have intrigued me here.

                  I have typically concentrated on the 'how' of the Eucharist, i.e. 'real presence, explained as transubstantiation or, better, transignification. I have not really through much about the 'when.'

                  So some of my remarks are subject to change as I read but:

                  I agree that there were ritual meals in the mystery religions........but there were also such meals in Judaism.

                  Also, I have come to appreciate that Paul inherited or 'received' much from the earliest Jesus communities (that he once persecuted and then embraced) as opposed to 'inventing' things (not that he didn't develop and expand what became Christianity).

                  Gera Vermes, in his 'Christian Beginnings', a Biblical scholar and Dead Sea Scrolls expert, stated that "In addition to baptism.....Paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as 'breaking of the bread' as well as 'thanksgiving' or eucharist in Greek." Verses continues, "As in the case of baptism, Paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an initiation and repetition of the 'Lord's Supper'...........Paul implies that the mystical significance of this meal was revealed to him by the risen Christ........"

                  Finally, Vermes adds, "If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must be attributed to..........Paul writing in the 50s."

                  So, first,we do have Paul inheriting baptism and eucharist, the shared communal meal, from the earliest communities (he didn't invent that part). However, it does seem to be the case that Paul did give that meal a new meaning (he did 'invent' this part). Therefore, we can validly say that the original meal was indeed Jewish (since the earliest community were practicing Jews) but it is also valid to say that Paul's innovation went beyond what was found in both 2nd Temple Judaism and the early 'Christian' community.

                  Although I believe I understand your reasoning, I would not call it non-Jewish (Paul being a Jew). The scholar, Larry Hurtado, uses the idea of mutation or innovation, from 2nd Temple Judaism, when discussing the movement of Christianity to 'worship/devotion' of Jesus as Lord, along side of the Father (and laying the groundwork for the trinity) and I think it might also fit here. Paul's idea is definitely a departure from Judaism and the early community but it is of a piece and a mutation/innovation of what he inherited. Playing with words? Perhaps but that is, in part, what we do to try to get a handle on such issues.

                  I for one, as a Christian, have no real difficulty with Paul's mutation and I actually like the idea of the eucharist; the idea of being 'nourished' by the bread of Life. Transubstantiation is a bit of a weird concept to get one's head around but the more modern explanation of transignification can be easily understood and it better allows the symbol to 'come alive' and be appreciated (note: symbol does not negate 'real presence'). It is also mystical - allowing for a sense of 'spiritual fascination' - if one has the right mindset.

                  Anyway, you got rethinking and researching. Thanks.
                  I have my own copies of many of Vermes' works and as he writes on page 75 of that same volume:


                  In addition to their traditional Jewish religious practices (observance of the Torah and participation in Temple worship) and the initiation rite of baptism (inherited from John the Baptist and Jesus), the first Palestinian members of the Jesus movement observed also a ritual of their own: a communal meal partaken in private houses and called the ‘breaking of the bread’ (Acts 2:42, 46).

                  That passage continues:

                  A similar meal reserved for fully initiated members was part of the daily routine of the Qumran sectaries according to the Community Rule (1QS 6:4–6), a routine they expected to continue even in the messianic age (1QSa 2:17–22).

                  At page 91 he points out that:

                  Paul implies that the mythical significance of this meal was revealed to him directly by Christ: ‘I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you’ (1 Cor. 11:23). He does not say that it came to him through apostolic tradition as the story of the death, burial and resurrection of the Saviour: ‘I handed over to you what I in turn had received’ (1 Cor. 15:3). If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must not be attributed to the Synoptic evangelists composing their accounts between AD 70 and 100, but to Paul writing in the early 50s. It seems that the idea entered the tradition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew through Luke, Paul’s disciple, whose Last Supper account mirrors that of his teacher. Only Paul and Luke mention Jesus’ command relating o the repetition of the ritual. For Paul the rite comprised a twofold allegory: the participation of the believers in the redemptive acts of the death and resurrection of Christ, and their assimilation into the mystical body of Jesus and the church .In Paul’s view, those who partook of the bread and drank from the cup were in the first instance united, mystically and sacramentally, with the redeeming death of Christ.

                  However, the introduction of flesh and blood is anathema to any Jew.

                  As Maccoby writes in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity :


                  The Eucharist signifies the mystical incorporation of the initiate into the godhead by eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Such a ceremony implies the deification of Jesus and is quite impossible to reconcile with a view of Jesus as merely a Messiah in the Jewish sense. Moreover, the Eucharist, as well as implying a doctrine of participation in the godhead, implies a doctrine of the sacrifice of Jesus as an atonement for mankind; the worshipper partakes of the body of the sacrificed Jesus much as the Jewish worshippers used to eat the Paschal lamb (to which Jesus is likened in I Corinthians 5: 7). Such a concept of the death of Jesus cannot be reconciled with any variety of Judaism, for it amounts to the reinstatement of human sacrifice, which for Judaism was anathema - indeed a large part of the Hebrew Bible constitutes a campaign against human sacrifice. The institution of animal sacrifice was understood to entail the complete supersession of human sacrifice; and the story of the akedah or Binding of Isaac in which God finally renounces human sacrifice in favour of animal sacrifice is the validating myth of this advance. [see chapter 11]

                  Maccoby goes on to point that the idea of vicarious atonement while not entirely alien to Judaism, is however, peripheral and forms no part of the main salvation pattern. Furthermore, the implication of the Eucharist suggesting that salvation is obtained through the death of Jesus and the shedding of his blood marks Christianity off as a radically different and separate religion from Judaism and indicates a return to non-Judaic concepts of atonement.

                  As for Paul being a Jew. He never uses the Greek Ἰουδαῖο to describe himself.


                  "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                    But the Jews selected Jesus to die instead of Barrabas. We have discussed that point about Jews before and that this push for Jesus' death was brought up to those Jews in the preaching in Acts. (So, it is not all Jews nowadays guilty of this.)
                    The Passover Amnesty is a fiction.
                    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      I have my own copies of many of Vermes' works and as he writes on page 75 of that same volume:

                      In addition to their traditional Jewish religious practices (observance of the Torah and participation in Temple worship) and the initiation rite of baptism (inherited from John the Baptist and Jesus), the first Palestinian members of the Jesus movement observed also a ritual of their own: a communal meal partaken in private houses and called the ‘breaking of the bread’ (Acts 2:42, 46).

                      That passage continues:

                      A similar meal reserved for fully initiated members was part of the daily routine of the Qumran sectaries according to the Community Rule (1QS 6:4–6), a routine they expected to continue even in the messianic age (1QSa 2:17–22).

                      At page 91 he points out that:

                      Paul implies that the mythical significance of this meal was revealed to him directly by Christ: ‘I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you’ (1 Cor. 11:23). He does not say that it came to him through apostolic tradition as the story of the death, burial and resurrection of the Saviour: ‘I handed over to you what I in turn had received’ (1 Cor. 15:3). If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must not be attributed to the Synoptic evangelists composing their accounts between AD 70 and 100, but to Paul writing in the early 50s. It seems that the idea entered the tradition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew through Luke, Paul’s disciple, whose Last Supper account mirrors that of his teacher. Only Paul and Luke mention Jesus’ command relating o the repetition of the ritual. For Paul the rite comprised a twofold allegory: the participation of the believers in the redemptive acts of the death and resurrection of Christ, and their assimilation into the mystical body of Jesus and the church .In Paul’s view, those who partook of the bread and drank from the cup were in the first instance united, mystically and sacramentally, with the redeeming death of Christ.

                      However, the introduction of flesh and blood is anathema to any Jew.

                      As Maccoby writes in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity :


                      The Eucharist signifies the mystical incorporation of the initiate into the godhead by eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Such a ceremony implies the deification of Jesus and is quite impossible to reconcile with a view of Jesus as merely a Messiah in the Jewish sense. Moreover, the Eucharist, as well as implying a doctrine of participation in the godhead, implies a doctrine of the sacrifice of Jesus as an atonement for mankind; the worshipper partakes of the body of the sacrificed Jesus much as the Jewish worshippers used to eat the Paschal lamb (to which Jesus is likened in I Corinthians 5: 7). Such a concept of the death of Jesus cannot be reconciled with any variety of Judaism, for it amounts to the reinstatement of human sacrifice, which for Judaism was anathema - indeed a large part of the Hebrew Bible constitutes a campaign against human sacrifice. The institution of animal sacrifice was understood to entail the complete supersession of human sacrifice; and the story of the akedah or Binding of Isaac in which God finally renounces human sacrifice in favour of animal sacrifice is the validating myth of this advance. [see chapter 11]

                      Maccoby goes on to point that the idea of vicarious atonement while not entirely alien to Judaism, is however, peripheral and forms no part of the main salvation pattern. Furthermore, the implication of the Eucharist suggesting that salvation is obtained through the death of Jesus and the shedding of his blood marks Christianity off as a radically different and separate religion from Judaism and indicates a return to non-Judaic concepts of atonement.

                      As for Paul being a Jew. He never uses the Greek Ἰουδαῖο to describe himself.

                      Good stuff thanks.

                      However the sticking point is that Paul, a Jew (influenced by the earliest Jewish community that preached the saving death and resurrection of Jesus that he inherited), takes the communal meal and innovates to what we have today. And I got the impression from Levine, that as a Jew, she focused on the shock value of the statement and (interestingly) attributed it to Jesus himself. Whether Paul use the Greek term for himself of not, the reality, as I have always understood it, is that he was a Jew.

                      I've read Maccoby also and it is interesting. Although I don't think that it has to be a recognition of the deity of Jesus as opposed to merely being Messiah. His followers had already begun their own innovation of the Jewish messianic expectation by preaching a crucified criminal as Messiah and having devotional practices that linked him with the Father as Lord Jesus (still not God). It seems to have been the case that with the 'resurrection' experience and thinking on their own scriptures, they came to understand Jesus is a radically different way that eventually put them at insurmountable odds with Judaism.

                      It is interesting that Luke, supposedly close to Paul, does not write of the death of Jesus as atonement. And, if we move to modern times, there are Christians who do not accept atonement as traditionally understood but still value the participation 'in the Godhead' through the nourishment by the bread that gives life.

                      I have to consider Maccoby a bit more.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                        Good stuff thanks.

                        However the sticking point is that Paul, a Jew
                        We do not know he was a Jew. He may have been, but he never calls himself one.

                        Originally posted by thormas View Post
                        (influenced by the earliest Jewish community that preached the saving death and resurrection of Jesus that he inherited), takes the communal meal and innovates to what we have today. And I got the impression from Levine, that as a Jew, she focused on the shock value of the statement and (interestingly) attributed it to Jesus himself. Whether Paul use the Greek term for himself of not, the reality, as I have always understood it, is that he was a Jew.

                        I've read Maccoby also and it is interesting. Although I don't think that it has to be a recognition of the deity of Jesus as opposed to merely being Messiah. His followers had already begun their own innovation of the Jewish messianic expectation by preaching a crucified criminal as Messiah and having devotional practices that linked him with the Father as Lord Jesus (still not God).
                        From a historical perspective that is all rather vague. We only Christians texts on these events.

                        Originally posted by thormas View Post
                        It seems to have been the case that with the 'resurrection' experience and thinking on their own scriptures, they came to understand Jesus is a radically different way that eventually put them at insurmountable odds with Judaism.
                        The fact of course is that these four gospels were written at different times, in different places, and for different Christian communities who had their own particular view of what Jesus was and what he represented. We need to remember that the religion in its first 250 years was entirely fluid and there was no "orthodoxy". That came much later.

                        Originally posted by thormas View Post
                        It is interesting that Luke, supposedly close to Paul, does not write of the death of Jesus as atonement. And, if we move to modern times, there are Christians who do not accept atonement as traditionally understood but still value the participation 'in the Godhead' through the nourishment by the bread that gives life.

                        I have to consider Maccoby a bit more.
                        His Sacred Executioner and The Myth of Jewish Evil are very readable

                        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          The Passover Amnesty is a fiction.
                          I'm not sure what this term encompasses. This term makes it sound like an annual event. It just sounds like a single event.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                            To be fair, many question if Barabbas was a real character. Note the name Bar Abbas, son of the Father. So the son of the father is freed while the Son of the Father is crucified??

                            However, there is also no such exchange that was made by Romans, there was no trading criminals who were guilty of crimes against thee state. They would have simply and gladly crucified both Barabbas and Jesus........like they did so many others.

                            Pilate has been more than a bit 'whitewashed' in the gospels almost to the point that he is innocent of the blood of Jesus and it is the Jews who were responsible. However this polemic against Jews is written in gospels when those communities were in actual conflict with Jews and it was projected back in the time of Jesus so the present community could basically say, "see, those guys are bad." In reality, the Romans could not care about the squabbles of the problems of people in this 'backwater land.' And Pilate was ruthless, he cared nothing for the Jews or a lowly, itinerant preacher of this rabble.
                            No wonder you are not of an orthodox form of Christianity. You whitewash scriptures to come to your views. And you are accusing Jewish writers of the NT of being anti-Jewish. Why is it that a documentation of the events must be seen as polemical? However, I assume you have something about Christianity that you accept.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                              More food for thought.

                              I was reading Jill Levine's 'The Misunderstood Jew' .....she is a great biblical scholar and a practicing Jew (numerous books and video presentations).

                              When discussing the Last Supper she does confirm that Jews do not eat (drink) blood. Yet even while acknowledging this she goes on to stress the intended 'shock' of the words of Jesus in the gospel of John (such shock is a teaching method used by Jesus (and she provides examples). She focus on the idea of the sacrifice of Jesus and does not seem to focus on problems with the blood at all. Still reading but it is Paul - a practicing Jew - who speaks of the meaning of the 'body and blood.'
                              You Catholics are the ones who claim it is really his body and blood. Us protestants just believe it represents his body and blood.

                              Also even Christians are advise to "refrain from blood" - which seems to put Catholics in a bind.

                              Acts 15:49

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                We do not know he was a Jew. He may have been, but he never calls himself one.

                                From a historical perspective that is all rather vague. We only Christians texts on these events.

                                The fact of course is that these four gospels were written at different times, in different places, and for different Christian communities who had their own particular view of what Jesus was and what he represented. We need to remember that the religion in its first 250 years was entirely fluid and there was no "orthodoxy". That came much later.

                                His Sacred Executioner and The Myth of Jewish Evil are very readable
                                Well you have me there about Paul. In all my reading, and about a year ago I read about 5 scholars, I have never come across any that suggested Paul was not a Jew.

                                True on the texts.

                                It seems, which is not surprising given your different posts, that you also have an extensive library. Not sure if you have read Larry Hurtado (also his blog) but he is really good at considerations about the earliest Christians.

                                Agree on the texts and orthodoxy. And, thanks for the recommendations.



                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Mountain Man, Today, 10:00 AM
                                20 responses
                                100 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:45 AM
                                59 responses
                                251 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post RumTumTugger  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:35 PM
                                33 responses
                                203 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post firstfloor  
                                Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 09:45 AM
                                34 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 09:10 AM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X