Tuesday, January 22, 2008
'Deconstruction of a Good Ol' Southern Gospel Song, and an Unlikely Discussion of the Doctrine of Blood Atonement'
This is one of my favorite songs from my Gospel radio days: "Two Winning Hands," by the Hinsons. (I don't partcularly like the self-reveling way the second verse is performed, but hey, holy joy and silliness of self get all jumbled up sometimes).
It's packed with traditional imagery and plays on words, which is exactly why it's right up my alley. Oh, and the style of music. The Hinsons, from Freedom, Calif. (Santa Cruz County), reflect Dust Bowl-Okie influences all around.
Lyrics are below, if you want to follow along.
"Two Winning Hands"
Some lawyers can win
And some doctors can heal
Your ol' banker can lend
Til' all your pockets are filled
But if yours is the case
Of the sin stricken soul
For the problem you face
There's only one place to go
Just climb up that mountain
Where still springs the fountain
That sparkling crimson
Called Calvary's flood
That same Jesus you've heard of
Can take a black heart without love
Wash it in red blood
And make it whiter than snow
Don't gamble on life
With all your luck and your skills
Cause ya can't play the cards
Ole man death's gonna deal
The Bible has said
Who the loser's gonna be
There's only two winning hands
And they were nailed to a tree
(repeat chorus)
I've highlighted the core message of the song: Jesus's death paid the price for our sin. That's the basic message of orthodox Christianity, I think.
Heretodox Bishop John Shelby Spon calls that idea "barbaric," and he says Christianity has a "blood fetish."
I'd say calling it "barbaric" is overkill -- although I understand how the idea of suicide, or child murder, can be repugnant -- "foolishness," if you will -- but he might have a point about some sects of Christianity having a blood fetish.
For those of us who grew up with the tradition, it doesn't seem repugnant. And it doesn't seem any weirder to me than whichever stripe of Muslim it is that annually self-flagellates. But then, that is pretty weird.
Then there's William Cowper's great old hymn:
"There is a Fountain Filled with Blood"
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lies silent in the grave, lies silent in the grave;
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lord, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be,
For me a blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!
’Tis strung and tuned for endless years, and formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father’s ears no other name but Thine.
I've bolded the key phrase above, "dear dying Lamb" a reference to Christ's sacrifice as the "Lamb of God."
My question: If this is "true," that is, a valid prayer, especially "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire" -- an assertion made in more than one place in the Old Testament, why is the concept of blood atonement even necessary?
I'm questioning. Not rejecting. But I have to say I lean hard toward the moral influence view of atonement, as opposed to more hard-core views.
And so I can still love that Hinsons song, because, gratuitously bloody or not, this is the *effect* of Jesus's death:
That same Jesus you've heard of
Can take a black heart without love
Wash it in red blood
And make it whiter than snow
The earliest Christians interpreted everything about Jesus through their Jewishness. I'm a Gentile. Is it necessary for me to employ their ancient interpretation?
Or is that just another form of circumcision that Peter's vision -- especially verses 34-35 (Acts 10) -- was meant to nullify?
--ER
It's packed with traditional imagery and plays on words, which is exactly why it's right up my alley. Oh, and the style of music. The Hinsons, from Freedom, Calif. (Santa Cruz County), reflect Dust Bowl-Okie influences all around.
Lyrics are below, if you want to follow along.
"Two Winning Hands"
Some lawyers can win
And some doctors can heal
Your ol' banker can lend
Til' all your pockets are filled
But if yours is the case
Of the sin stricken soul
For the problem you face
There's only one place to go
Just climb up that mountain
Where still springs the fountain
That sparkling crimson
Called Calvary's flood
That same Jesus you've heard of
Can take a black heart without love
Wash it in red blood
And make it whiter than snow
Don't gamble on life
With all your luck and your skills
Cause ya can't play the cards
Ole man death's gonna deal
The Bible has said
Who the loser's gonna be
There's only two winning hands
And they were nailed to a tree
(repeat chorus)
I've highlighted the core message of the song: Jesus's death paid the price for our sin. That's the basic message of orthodox Christianity, I think.
Heretodox Bishop John Shelby Spon calls that idea "barbaric," and he says Christianity has a "blood fetish."
I'd say calling it "barbaric" is overkill -- although I understand how the idea of suicide, or child murder, can be repugnant -- "foolishness," if you will -- but he might have a point about some sects of Christianity having a blood fetish.
For those of us who grew up with the tradition, it doesn't seem repugnant. And it doesn't seem any weirder to me than whichever stripe of Muslim it is that annually self-flagellates. But then, that is pretty weird.
Then there's William Cowper's great old hymn:
"There is a Fountain Filled with Blood"
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lies silent in the grave, lies silent in the grave;
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lord, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be,
For me a blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!
’Tis strung and tuned for endless years, and formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father’s ears no other name but Thine.
I've bolded the key phrase above, "dear dying Lamb" a reference to Christ's sacrifice as the "Lamb of God."
My question: If this is "true," that is, a valid prayer, especially "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire" -- an assertion made in more than one place in the Old Testament, why is the concept of blood atonement even necessary?
I'm questioning. Not rejecting. But I have to say I lean hard toward the moral influence view of atonement, as opposed to more hard-core views.
And so I can still love that Hinsons song, because, gratuitously bloody or not, this is the *effect* of Jesus's death:
That same Jesus you've heard of
Can take a black heart without love
Wash it in red blood
And make it whiter than snow
The earliest Christians interpreted everything about Jesus through their Jewishness. I'm a Gentile. Is it necessary for me to employ their ancient interpretation?
Or is that just another form of circumcision that Peter's vision -- especially verses 34-35 (Acts 10) -- was meant to nullify?
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Blood, blood, blood, fountains of it, rivers of it, pools of it, spurting from the arteries of sacrificed animals and children and people whose land and crops and livestock we want.
Sacrificing the first born child to Moloch the Bull God of the Middle East and the Sea Peoples was the norm in early Hebrew history. Moloch (later Baal, later Ba El, then just El, plural Elohim) the God demanded the first born child be sacrificed by burning to him. So Jehovah must have felt like if Moloch can do it so can I. Otherwise why would Abraham carry Issac up the hill so willingly if there wasn't a precedent. And don't forget that it was Jehovah that killed off all of the first born everything in Egypt just because of the stubbornness of one man. Then when Lord God Jehovah consecrated the Levites he had them prove their loyalty by going out and killing their neighbors and friends. Oh yes and then because of the stubbornness of the people he made them wander the wilderness until everyone over 20 lay dead beside the road. Then he had the first Jesus (Joshua) kill of all the Canaanite men, boys and older women to get their stuff and virgins. And should we be mentioning the fact that it looks like Moses even allowed the first born son's to be redeemed which many believe meant sacrificed along with all the other first born animals otherwise why would it have to be revoked at a latter date.
Now that's in the first two books it gets worse as we read along.
Now we get to the second Jesus and we are going to shed his blood like an animal so that it won't have to be done ever again. But by this time we are using the Dionysian model of the Greeks not the Bull model of the Hebrews. But instead of a ritual sacrifice in the temple like the Jews or the Aztecs we have him executed by the State in a criminal process, not even following the practice of washing in the blood of the Bull or the Lamb like you should in Greek religious practices.
Then in some perverted way we create a religion that honors the death of martyrs so much that its followers seek martyrdom as a way to salvation and fame within their own religious circles. I am of course talking about the Orthodox Church of Rome. And should we mention the Church ordered killing of the Arians, which didn't work out too well, cause the Vandals were Arian Christians too and ended up sacking Rome, thus the DARK ages. But then we have the Crusades, the first of which was financed by the Christian Sacking of Constantinople, a major Christian City, so that the Venetians could be paid to take the Crusader Army to the Holy Land. Oh yes and the murder of all the Cathars in the 12th century by the Church, not to mention all the Christians who stood beside them on principle.
How about the Catholic Roman church of Mussolini and their silence and tacit approval of the 36 million Jews, Gypsies, et. al. (noncombat deaths) executed in WWII?
Blood, Blood, blood, there's power in the blood. Maybe that's why our President is willing to trade Blood for Oil! It is a War for a metaphor.
What is that smell? Decomp? Smells like my bood soaked hushpuppies did three days after the OKC Bombing. The smell, now that is blood at its most powerful.
Sacrificing the first born child to Moloch the Bull God of the Middle East and the Sea Peoples was the norm in early Hebrew history. Moloch (later Baal, later Ba El, then just El, plural Elohim) the God demanded the first born child be sacrificed by burning to him. So Jehovah must have felt like if Moloch can do it so can I. Otherwise why would Abraham carry Issac up the hill so willingly if there wasn't a precedent. And don't forget that it was Jehovah that killed off all of the first born everything in Egypt just because of the stubbornness of one man. Then when Lord God Jehovah consecrated the Levites he had them prove their loyalty by going out and killing their neighbors and friends. Oh yes and then because of the stubbornness of the people he made them wander the wilderness until everyone over 20 lay dead beside the road. Then he had the first Jesus (Joshua) kill of all the Canaanite men, boys and older women to get their stuff and virgins. And should we be mentioning the fact that it looks like Moses even allowed the first born son's to be redeemed which many believe meant sacrificed along with all the other first born animals otherwise why would it have to be revoked at a latter date.
Now that's in the first two books it gets worse as we read along.
Now we get to the second Jesus and we are going to shed his blood like an animal so that it won't have to be done ever again. But by this time we are using the Dionysian model of the Greeks not the Bull model of the Hebrews. But instead of a ritual sacrifice in the temple like the Jews or the Aztecs we have him executed by the State in a criminal process, not even following the practice of washing in the blood of the Bull or the Lamb like you should in Greek religious practices.
Then in some perverted way we create a religion that honors the death of martyrs so much that its followers seek martyrdom as a way to salvation and fame within their own religious circles. I am of course talking about the Orthodox Church of Rome. And should we mention the Church ordered killing of the Arians, which didn't work out too well, cause the Vandals were Arian Christians too and ended up sacking Rome, thus the DARK ages. But then we have the Crusades, the first of which was financed by the Christian Sacking of Constantinople, a major Christian City, so that the Venetians could be paid to take the Crusader Army to the Holy Land. Oh yes and the murder of all the Cathars in the 12th century by the Church, not to mention all the Christians who stood beside them on principle.
How about the Catholic Roman church of Mussolini and their silence and tacit approval of the 36 million Jews, Gypsies, et. al. (noncombat deaths) executed in WWII?
Blood, Blood, blood, there's power in the blood. Maybe that's why our President is willing to trade Blood for Oil! It is a War for a metaphor.
What is that smell? Decomp? Smells like my bood soaked hushpuppies did three days after the OKC Bombing. The smell, now that is blood at its most powerful.
Selah did a great version of "There is a Fountain Filled with Blood" - the best I have ever heard. Interesting blog - I will be back to check you out some more!
DrLobo: Did I pick at a scab, or what? Whoa.
dlyn, come back anytime!
As I am increasingly wont to say: What Jesus said (what we know of it) is more important -- way more important -- that is said about Jesus.
dlyn, come back anytime!
As I am increasingly wont to say: What Jesus said (what we know of it) is more important -- way more important -- that is said about Jesus.
Ugh...that whole "river of blood" stuff makes me ill. If I wanted that kinda gore, I'd watch "Saw" or "Hostel."
ER said: "DrLobo: Did I pick at a scab, or what? Whoa." .... and....
"As I am increasingly wont to say: What Jesus said (what we know of it) is more important -- way more important -- that is said about Jesus."
No, no, no scab, opened a artery maybe but not a scab.
Well let's see what Jesus said about blood. Start with John 6:53-59.KJV
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Now this is often used in reference to the Eucharist of Christian belief rather that the Christology. But give the context of the saying it is most assuredly Christological. Which makes it a troubling comment.
You might even call it the "Eating and drinking is believing" passage.
Now of course the references in the New Testament to the blood of Christ are just metaphors, except maybe where they are beating the shit out of him and when they nail up to the cross. but then again on the Eucharist side of the equation the Catholics come down on the side of literalism as to the body and blood. So maybe you have to back off the metaphor stuff when it comes to blood. I mean when a real lamb is sacrificed there is real blood not metaphorical blood. But maybe that's not a sequitur.
"As I am increasingly wont to say: What Jesus said (what we know of it) is more important -- way more important -- that is said about Jesus."
No, no, no scab, opened a artery maybe but not a scab.
Well let's see what Jesus said about blood. Start with John 6:53-59.KJV
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Now this is often used in reference to the Eucharist of Christian belief rather that the Christology. But give the context of the saying it is most assuredly Christological. Which makes it a troubling comment.
You might even call it the "Eating and drinking is believing" passage.
Now of course the references in the New Testament to the blood of Christ are just metaphors, except maybe where they are beating the shit out of him and when they nail up to the cross. but then again on the Eucharist side of the equation the Catholics come down on the side of literalism as to the body and blood. So maybe you have to back off the metaphor stuff when it comes to blood. I mean when a real lamb is sacrificed there is real blood not metaphorical blood. But maybe that's not a sequitur.
ER said: "For those of us who grew up with the tradition, it doesn't seem repugnant. And it doesn't seem any weirder to me than whichever stripe of Muslim it is that annually self-flagellates. But then, that is pretty weird."
How about all the Christian self-flagellates. The Opus Dei dudes, the Penetentes, the Guardia Sanframondi, the secret Philipino Christian societies, and others that practice the mortification of the flesh.
Of course this flagellation stuff goes all the way back to Egypt and the followers of Horus (the god-man) son Isis.
How about all the Christian self-flagellates. The Opus Dei dudes, the Penetentes, the Guardia Sanframondi, the secret Philipino Christian societies, and others that practice the mortification of the flesh.
Of course this flagellation stuff goes all the way back to Egypt and the followers of Horus (the god-man) son Isis.
I've always leaned towards the substitution theory of atonement myself. In the end, there was blood - and there are enough verses, in Paul and (esp.) Revelation to point to the necessity of "blood".
To the modern, or perhaps better "contemporary" mind, however, this is all strange talk. We do not come from a tradition or milieu in which blood sacrifice is commonplace, and the language surrounding it familiar. Indeed, I can remember the first time singing "There Is a Fountain" - I was in college, home on break - and I turned to a friend of mine and said, "Good Lord, it's a Rambo hymn!" I still feel that way - a tad too much enjoyment and reveling in the fact of all that blood. Isn't it enough that the Son of God had to become human, that now we have to wallow in the details of his physical torture as some kind of theological necessity?
Part of the blood business, to my own mind is an emphasis on the physical (or perhaps metaphysical/physical dual) nature involved in early atonement theories. Like St. Augustine's "original sin" theology - a kind of genetic defect running through humanity through the act of procreation itself - there had to be some kind of tangible explanation for what was occurring. The lack of mystery, the necessity for some kind of detailed explanation of exactly what was happening, how, and why, was in some sense no different from our own need to explain things today. The difference, for me, is simple - we are dealing here with mystery of God's grace. That it is, is far more important to me than what it is, or how. It is enough for me that the Creator of the Universe has deigned to look upon me, know my name, and despite all the horror within, loves me. Real love, not some romantic thing - real love, total, unconditional, even with all the scars of sin that will be there until the very end. I can no more explain that than I can explain gravity. Moreso, why would I want to?
To the modern, or perhaps better "contemporary" mind, however, this is all strange talk. We do not come from a tradition or milieu in which blood sacrifice is commonplace, and the language surrounding it familiar. Indeed, I can remember the first time singing "There Is a Fountain" - I was in college, home on break - and I turned to a friend of mine and said, "Good Lord, it's a Rambo hymn!" I still feel that way - a tad too much enjoyment and reveling in the fact of all that blood. Isn't it enough that the Son of God had to become human, that now we have to wallow in the details of his physical torture as some kind of theological necessity?
Part of the blood business, to my own mind is an emphasis on the physical (or perhaps metaphysical/physical dual) nature involved in early atonement theories. Like St. Augustine's "original sin" theology - a kind of genetic defect running through humanity through the act of procreation itself - there had to be some kind of tangible explanation for what was occurring. The lack of mystery, the necessity for some kind of detailed explanation of exactly what was happening, how, and why, was in some sense no different from our own need to explain things today. The difference, for me, is simple - we are dealing here with mystery of God's grace. That it is, is far more important to me than what it is, or how. It is enough for me that the Creator of the Universe has deigned to look upon me, know my name, and despite all the horror within, loves me. Real love, not some romantic thing - real love, total, unconditional, even with all the scars of sin that will be there until the very end. I can no more explain that than I can explain gravity. Moreso, why would I want to?
Well put, Geoffrey.
Here's what I wonder: Is the blood sacrifice component there because God demanded blood, or because the vast majority, but apparently not all, Israelites (see David) believed that God demanded blood sacrifice -- and-or, that simply animal sacrifice was the nuts-and-bolts manner in which they tried to commune with God?
I mean: If Jesus had been born among, say, a North American Indian tribe that expressed its worship and commune with the Great Spirit by planting a special plot of the Three Sisters (beans, corn and squash), then harvesting it and eating it in a special ceremony to invoke God's Grace, and then Jesus was seen as the end-all-be-all expression of God's reaching out to humankind, eliminating the need for the sacrifice of such a vegetable plot, might Jesus have been known as "the Casserole of God" or something rather than "the Lamb of God"?
Point being that it might be that the manner of attempts to commune with God don't matter -- the attempt itself does.
Ergo, blood or corn-beans-and-squash, such a detail is a cultural trapping, not a specific command of God.
? I'm just sayin'.
Here's what I wonder: Is the blood sacrifice component there because God demanded blood, or because the vast majority, but apparently not all, Israelites (see David) believed that God demanded blood sacrifice -- and-or, that simply animal sacrifice was the nuts-and-bolts manner in which they tried to commune with God?
I mean: If Jesus had been born among, say, a North American Indian tribe that expressed its worship and commune with the Great Spirit by planting a special plot of the Three Sisters (beans, corn and squash), then harvesting it and eating it in a special ceremony to invoke God's Grace, and then Jesus was seen as the end-all-be-all expression of God's reaching out to humankind, eliminating the need for the sacrifice of such a vegetable plot, might Jesus have been known as "the Casserole of God" or something rather than "the Lamb of God"?
Point being that it might be that the manner of attempts to commune with God don't matter -- the attempt itself does.
Ergo, blood or corn-beans-and-squash, such a detail is a cultural trapping, not a specific command of God.
? I'm just sayin'.
GKS mentioned: "Like St. Augustine's "original sin" theology - a kind of genetic defect running through humanity through the act of procreation itself..." Slightly off your point and subject, can't help but comment that the good Saint said that original sin is lodged solely in women and passed on that way. which brings up a thought. One, it must be the mitrochondria. Those only come from your mamma, so logically they could very well be the carries of original sin. Problem is we can't live without them. That would mean sin is necessary for Life. Well...., but say if that is the case and Mary had then...then Jesus was not sinless...uh, wait a minute.
ER said: "Here's what I wonder: Is the blood sacrifice component there because God demanded blood, or because the vast majority, but apparently not all, Israelites (see David) believed that God demanded blood sacrifice -- ..."
Well, considering that the animal sacrifice by the time of Jesus had turned into a strictly ceremonial event and most Jewish sin was expiated by a Temple Tax (think indulgence) that was levied even on the diaspora spread across the world then it is not probable that there was a Jewish need for such a blood sacrifice. Indeed remember this one is NOT their Messiah.
Indeed, the Pauli-an point of view is 99.9% Greek when it comes to the sacrificial death and resurrection of the god-man logos.
The god-man Diogenes was torn apart and eaten by the Titans. The Titans were killed and chopped up and mankind arose from their pieces. Thus man had both the good of the God-man and the evil of the Titans. Original sin, and a core of goodness. Now actually that also pretty much describes the death and resurrection of the Egyptian God Osiris at the Hands of his brother and resurrection by his wife Isis we couldn't find the penis however because it had been eaten by a fish (Pisces) so had to have a son for Osiris by immaculate conception, thus bore the God-man Horus aka the Aeon of Kore in latter Greek versions.
Naw, it's not the Hebrews this time.
Eating and drinking is believing?
My wife is looking over my shoulder as I type this and she is saying, "You know you and I don't live in the same universe honey."
ER said: "Here's what I wonder: Is the blood sacrifice component there because God demanded blood, or because the vast majority, but apparently not all, Israelites (see David) believed that God demanded blood sacrifice -- ..."
Well, considering that the animal sacrifice by the time of Jesus had turned into a strictly ceremonial event and most Jewish sin was expiated by a Temple Tax (think indulgence) that was levied even on the diaspora spread across the world then it is not probable that there was a Jewish need for such a blood sacrifice. Indeed remember this one is NOT their Messiah.
Indeed, the Pauli-an point of view is 99.9% Greek when it comes to the sacrificial death and resurrection of the god-man logos.
The god-man Diogenes was torn apart and eaten by the Titans. The Titans were killed and chopped up and mankind arose from their pieces. Thus man had both the good of the God-man and the evil of the Titans. Original sin, and a core of goodness. Now actually that also pretty much describes the death and resurrection of the Egyptian God Osiris at the Hands of his brother and resurrection by his wife Isis we couldn't find the penis however because it had been eaten by a fish (Pisces) so had to have a son for Osiris by immaculate conception, thus bore the God-man Horus aka the Aeon of Kore in latter Greek versions.
Naw, it's not the Hebrews this time.
Eating and drinking is believing?
My wife is looking over my shoulder as I type this and she is saying, "You know you and I don't live in the same universe honey."
ER said: "..might Jesus have been known as "the Casserole of God" or something rather than "the Lamb of God"?
"Lamb of XXXX" in the Hebrew of Jesus' time also ment "son Of XXXX" and "Ewe of XXXX" ment "daughter of XXXX". so we might just be overtranslation that phrase. On the other hand there were Greek god-men called the Lamb of God before Jeus was.
And as far as caseroles go, wasn't that the source of Cain and Able's conflict and bad end.
"Lamb of XXXX" in the Hebrew of Jesus' time also ment "son Of XXXX" and "Ewe of XXXX" ment "daughter of XXXX". so we might just be overtranslation that phrase. On the other hand there were Greek god-men called the Lamb of God before Jeus was.
And as far as caseroles go, wasn't that the source of Cain and Able's conflict and bad end.
Might seem of topic, but it's not:
WHY did Jesus toss the "moneychangers" out of the temple?
Because they were making commerce, therefore a mockery, out of the need to find objects of sacrifice?
Or because they were aiding and abetting a manner of trying to commune with God that He dismissed?
In other words:
Was animal sacrifice abandoned by early Christians because they came to see Jesus as "the Lamb of God," and so no more sacrifices were required because He was the ultimate sacrifice?
Or did they abandon animal sacrifice because Jesus said such sacrifices were irrelevant to communing with God, and that's why He tossed the moneychangers?
Jesus profaned the order of religion at many turns. At many turns, according to Scripture. He displayed irreverence for what was considered as sacred!
Was it because He knew He would be the end-all-be-all sacrifice?
Or was it because He proclaimed that it was time to quit all such trappings of religion because then, as now, (IMHO), they did more to separate humankind from God than draw him near?
THAT, as a radical interpretation of what Jesus said, and was about, seems more in line with the way the radical Jesus treated the prevailing religion of His time. Or so I wonder. ...
WHY did Jesus toss the "moneychangers" out of the temple?
Because they were making commerce, therefore a mockery, out of the need to find objects of sacrifice?
Or because they were aiding and abetting a manner of trying to commune with God that He dismissed?
In other words:
Was animal sacrifice abandoned by early Christians because they came to see Jesus as "the Lamb of God," and so no more sacrifices were required because He was the ultimate sacrifice?
Or did they abandon animal sacrifice because Jesus said such sacrifices were irrelevant to communing with God, and that's why He tossed the moneychangers?
Jesus profaned the order of religion at many turns. At many turns, according to Scripture. He displayed irreverence for what was considered as sacred!
Was it because He knew He would be the end-all-be-all sacrifice?
Or was it because He proclaimed that it was time to quit all such trappings of religion because then, as now, (IMHO), they did more to separate humankind from God than draw him near?
THAT, as a radical interpretation of what Jesus said, and was about, seems more in line with the way the radical Jesus treated the prevailing religion of His time. Or so I wonder. ...
Trixie, :-)
Just cannot help myself.
I tend to believe that the message of the Gospel is "Your'e saved!"
And that the decision one must make, when one realizes it, is whether to *reject* God's Grace -- not whether to *accept* it!
And anything that might cause someone to reject it is in my sites -- tradition, cultural understandings of it, of whatever.
:-)
Just cannot help myself.
I tend to believe that the message of the Gospel is "Your'e saved!"
And that the decision one must make, when one realizes it, is whether to *reject* God's Grace -- not whether to *accept* it!
And anything that might cause someone to reject it is in my sites -- tradition, cultural understandings of it, of whatever.
:-)
It might help you decide why he threw out the money changers if you know that they were there to change the various monies into the appropriate coin used to pay the annual Temple Tax as as levied on all Jews everywhere by the King of the Jews, Herod. So many foreign Jews would be there visiting the Temple as a pilgrimage, and emmisaries sent to collect taxes from the dispora would be there returning to pay the tax to the Temple after taking out their expenses and share ect. and the money changers would be taking some off the top and of course Herod got his share off the top and in that the Levite Priest had to historically live off of the meat of the sacrifices that were no longer taking place and were replaced with the Temple Tax that meant they had to take some of the tax themselves. So everybody was getting their share.
Kinda reminds me of a local mega church I visited a few years ago where there was an ATM in the gift shop/book store and several people were in there getting cash just before services started. It seemed kind of wierd to me. It's so they will have cash for the offering plate she explained when asked. According to the sign on the machine the ATM added a $2 service charge to any transaction and was owned by the church itself.
What goes around will return.
Kinda reminds me of a local mega church I visited a few years ago where there was an ATM in the gift shop/book store and several people were in there getting cash just before services started. It seemed kind of wierd to me. It's so they will have cash for the offering plate she explained when asked. According to the sign on the machine the ATM added a $2 service charge to any transaction and was owned by the church itself.
What goes around will return.
ATM in the church: Wow.
Trixie: "Sufferin' succotash, E.R." -- I got that at 2:39 a.m.! It would be a standard hymn in the Church of the Three Sisters!
Trixie: "Sufferin' succotash, E.R." -- I got that at 2:39 a.m.! It would be a standard hymn in the Church of the Three Sisters!
Blood on the Saddle
There was blood on the saddle, blood all around
And a great big puddle of blood on the ground
The cowboy lay in it, all covered with gore
He'll never ride tall in the saddle no more
Oh pity the cowboy, all bloody and dead
A bronco fell on him and mashed in his head
---Country Bear Jamboree recorded by Tex Ritter
Halber the Grimm
There is blood on that brow,
There is blood on that hand,
There is blood on that hauberk
And blood on that brand
Oh! bloody all over
In his war cloak, I weet
And he's wrapped in the cover
Of murder's red sheet
Written by Matthew Paris in the early 13th century recorded by Tex Ritter
There was blood on the saddle, blood all around
And a great big puddle of blood on the ground
The cowboy lay in it, all covered with gore
He'll never ride tall in the saddle no more
Oh pity the cowboy, all bloody and dead
A bronco fell on him and mashed in his head
---Country Bear Jamboree recorded by Tex Ritter
Halber the Grimm
There is blood on that brow,
There is blood on that hand,
There is blood on that hauberk
And blood on that brand
Oh! bloody all over
In his war cloak, I weet
And he's wrapped in the cover
Of murder's red sheet
Written by Matthew Paris in the early 13th century recorded by Tex Ritter
according to the Bible, blood was spilt in the very beginning. Jesus Christ when referencing Abel, the son of Adam, stated that his "blood cried from the ground"(Gen 3)...this "shed" blood of Abel and many others contaminated the earth. It was not Moloch, Ashterah, or any other pagan god that set the precedence of atonement by blood shed. It was man...man shed blood in the beginning and Yahweh saw fit to redeem man through the same thing that he screwed up with...blood. (Hebrews 9:22,Hebrews 12:4).
Post a Comment
<< Home
