Abraham - true prophet of God or something else??

reply to post by Akragon

"Volunteer" is an interesting word here, though. Who set up the system where blood was the payment of sin? God? Jesus? "The Father"? Because Jesus certainly didn't want to do it personally ("Let this cup pass..."), but was willing to if that is what he was commanded ("...Not my will, but your own").

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

"Volunteer" is an interesting word here, though. Who set up the system where blood was the payment of sin? God? Jesus? "The Father"? Because Jesus certainly didn't want to do it personally ("Let this cup pass..."), but was willing to if that is what he was commanded ("...Not my will, but your own").

I would say man set up that particular system... God does not need blood... "I will have mercy and NOT sacrifice"

Lets also consider the fact that Jesus pre-existed his incarnation, and clearly remembered his time with God before hand... Clearly he knew he was going to be killed eventually even before his birth... but no one wants to experience the pain of death, especially the kind he went through

reply to post by Akragon

So then, according to your own interpretation, what was the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice? What was it meant to accomplish?

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

So then, according to your own interpretation, what was the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice? What was it meant to accomplish?

To show man how he is to live, free of the tyranny of mans laws...

To set an example for us to live by... to show the true meaning of love and forgiveness...

and to show the world that God isn't some maniacal tyrant bent on torturing his children for his own disgusting pleasures...

John 13:15
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

reply to post by Akragon

I'm not sure how Jesus's brutal torture and death, as depicted in the Bible, really contributes to that (in fact, it seem the opposite).

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

I'm not sure how Jesus's brutal torture and death, as depicted in the Bible, really contributes to that (in fact, it seem the opposite).

Do you believe his torture and subsequent death because of it is the important part of what is written?

That is the average Christians biggest misunderstanding... its not his death that was important... it was his life

IF Jesus had not "resurrected" and just died like anyone else, the record of his life is still far more inspiring then his resurrection

reply to post by Akragon

Nonono, I agree totally, but then again, I'm not really what one would call a Christian. I don't believe in the original sin, I don't believe that man is inherently sinful, I don't believe that God cannot just forgive like that, I don't believe that blood is required to pay for sin, etc.

I was just thrown off by your response with regards to the comparison with Abraham, where you said "Jesus volunteered to sacrifice himself because the world was a mess". You spoke of his "sacrifice" again after, and by that I'm ASSUMING you mean his torture and death (or do you mean some other sacrifice?). So I wasn't sure how exactly his "sacrifice" would clear up the mess, or "show the world that God isn't a manical tyrant bent on torturing his children".

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

Nonono, I agree totally, but then again, I'm not really what one would call a Christian. I don't believe in the original sin, I don't believe that man is inherently sinful, I don't believe that God cannot just forgive like that, I don't believe that blood is required to pay for sin, etc.

I was just thrown off by your response with regards to the comparison with Abraham, where you said "Jesus volunteered to sacrifice himself because the world was a mess". You spoke of his "sacrifice" again after, and by that I'm ASSUMING you mean his torture and death (or do you mean some other sacrifice?). So I wasn't sure how exactly his "sacrifice" would clear up the mess, or "show the world that God isn't a manical tyrant bent on torturing his children".

was it really HIS sacrifice or Gods?

Imagine God and his son watching the events unfold on earth, people being killed and tortured, women and children being slaughtered in the name of God... Eventually I would imagine Jesus said I want to fix this, they need to know the truth... and I would imagine the Father saying, "you know IF you go to them they will kill you"... and Jesus replying "I know, but someone has to show them the path or they will be lost"

God let him come to us... he could have said no... but that would interfere with free will...

Just as a Father lets his child go to war for the good of the many (even though war solves nothing)

God sacrificed his son for the sake of the rest of his children

reply to post by Akragon

Ok, now I'm sorry if I'm being dense here (in my defence, it really seems like you're not answering so that I give you the answer ), but are you saying that Jesus's sacrifice was "coming to earth" to show us the way, despite knowing he'd be killed for it, and that him being killed for it was the final lesson ("Look how horrible we are, we killed a totally innocent guy, now lets try to be better in the future!")?

Not an indictment of your theory (it can be used on traditional Christian theology as well), but Jesus knowing he'd come back to life after sorta nullifies the whole sacrifice.

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

Ok, now I'm sorry if I'm being dense here (in my defence, it really seems like you're not answering so that I give you the answer

), but are you saying that Jesus's sacrifice was "coming to earth" to show us the way, despite knowing he'd be killed for it, and that him being killed for it was the final lesson ("Look how horrible we are, we killed a totally innocent guy, now lets try to be better in the future!")?

Not an indictment of your theory (it can be used on traditional Christian theology as well), but Jesus knowing he'd come back to life after sorta nullifies the whole sacrifice.

What did anyone actually learn from his torture? Man is a horrible creature? We already knew that... and after his death the horrendous acts continued, and even to this day there is starving people all over the world, people being murdered for no reason, while the rich sit high on the hog.

We learned NOTHING from his death... but through his words a select few manage to find the message God wants us to hear... Many are called, but few are chosen... and that message has survived for almost 2000 years...

Gods sacrifice was giving his son to the wolves for the betterment of humanity... like a lamb to the slaughter... Jesus' sacrifice was coming in the first place... coming to a place where he would be mocked, shunned, and murdered by those who didn't understand what he was saying... just for giving them the truth of God

Danbones
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

its quite simple really
the reeds and basket cartoche belongs to zargon the great (aprox 4000 bc)
he was the baby in the basket, who was adopted and became king
thats written in stone in a plethora of places

moses...?
lol...not so much

Ah yes the stroy of the first King of Akkadian Babylon Zargon (Sargon) the Great.

The real date for his reign (once Egyptian history is restored accurately, by which his story was coraborated) began in 1633 BCE.

It still pre dates Moses' birth around 1567 BCE by 70 years. But, if they were relatively contempories living at largely the same time, it is interresting to me how difficult it could be to determine which came first, and who is the stories true originator.

You believe the Babylonian stone, I believe the perfect word of God.

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

So then, according to your own interpretation, what was the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice? What was it meant to accomplish?

Jesus Chrsit was the Passover sacrifice for mankind. The Lamb of God, perfect without blemish, whose blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins.

That is the Passover. Jesus Christ's death fulfilled the spiritual intent of the physical Passover sacrifice on the DAY OF PASSOVER the year he died!

"The penalty for sin is death" (over 40 times in scripture)
"Sin is the transgretion of God's law (the commandments)" (over 40 times in scripture)

Jesus Christ paid the penalty for sin (death) having never been found guily of it (without sin), that is how He paid the price for us (in our stead), so we can have our sins forgiven (penalty removed) in order to gain access to the spirit of God (God will not dwell in sin), transforming His called out ones (ecclesia) way of thinking into perfect unity with Almighty God's way of thinking over the course of their physical lives.

All growth, all truth, all salvation begins with accepting the Passover sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

That is why he died, in spirit and in truth.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

Oh, I know the traditional reason Christians give for Jesus's death. Akragon has somewhat divergent views, however, which I was trying to clarify.

reply to post by ElohimJD


Yeh most people here know the dogmatic views of the church... just a mishmash of Paul's views and the OT...

Neither of which really have anything to do with what Jesus taught

reply to post by Logarock

The book is all about people that claimed to speak with God. Then culminating with a guy showing up saying he was God and spoke for God and His followers writing about it.

It appears to be one book, but in actual fact it is two books. I don't know why the old testament is joined to the new - piggy-backing onto it. Christians should cut the old testament asunder. Why document the exploits of barbarians? It has proven to be a bad influence.

Jesus did not turn up saying he was God. He said that he was "the son of man." i.e. every human's ultimate possibility - that which we give birth to by "dying" as the animal form or identification with the animal form.

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

So then, according to your own interpretation, what was the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice? What was it meant to accomplish?

To never compromise in your rebellion against the "Synagogue of Satan."

reply to post by FlyersFan


This thread is absurdly amateurish. Is this how you think academics discuss these matters?

You start from an arrogant presumption that only your reality - the fact that you assume that only the physical exists, and that consciousness, or the visions Abraham experienced and exploits he engaged in, has any fundamental spiritual merit- is the right one.

Fact is, neither my nor you presumption is determined. We don't know for certain whether consciousness exists as a substance, or whether its just the physical world; we don't know if a God or a supreme being is responsible for it - we also don't know that He or it isn't. There is so much uncertainty about our assumptions, yet we walk with them, each in our own way, with such rigid confidence.

For me, I'm on the side of "consciousness exists". Though when I talk about other peoples views on the subject, I try to present it in a respectful, albeit, disagreeing, manner. This simply reflects my understanding that nothing is determined. Since this is a basic of existence, I use it as a moral starting point. I'll defend my view, but I'll mitigate the attack. I won't ever become what they call a "fundamentalist" who won't compromise with others, because they are so sure - despite the lacuna in knowledge - that what they possess is the 100% truth.

Here you are calling Abraham - a person revered by close to 2/3rds of the earth - a psychiatric patient. This is a disrespectful way to begin a conversation. You made no effort - but rather, simply showed your childishness - at discussing this subject with any modicum of respect.

Abraham was going to burn him alive and slit his throat as an offering. He planned the murder and deceived his own son to go on an outing with him in order to lure him to the murder spot. Then, at the last minute, “God” told Abraham not to kill the boy.

You know, not everyone takes the story literally. Many kids - religious ones - grow up seeing the story of Abraham as religious allegory. In this sense, the binding of isaac represents a theological concept about man's relationship to God; the writer David Gerlenter in his book, "Judaism: A Way of Being" sees in the story of Abraham an allegory for a new way of seeing things. In ancient pagan cultures, human sacrifice was justified on the grounds that the "gods" or fundamental forces in the world, required some special energetic "gift" - a human - in order to change the course of nature? It's circular logic, yes. But maybe it worked? Or maybe it was a way to regulate human opinion? Or maybe it was both? Anyways. The pagan cultures, because they broke the world down into particularized aspects: power of rain, power of expansion, etc, they naturally felt driven to interfere with these impersonal processes. Which they did via divination/magic/statecraft. Well, the story of Isaac starts off with Abraham telling Isaac that he has to go to mount moriah to make a sacrifice to the lord. The sacrifice, on an allegorical level, is the idea that we have to sacrifice a part of ourselves in order to live a meaningful life. We impose burdens on ourselves by adopting certain assumptions about the world: for example, that there isn't "enough", and the only thing we can do to make things better is to sacrifice something: whether it be a trait like generosity, a belief that kindness is its own reward, that suffering is a horrible evil and that we should better things by perfecting our own nature; these are things we routinely sacrifice. A ritualistic sacrifice of a human being is indeed a metaphor for this inner sacrifice of our "human" i.e uniquely moral, self aware nature. Isaac represents that trait we sacrifice (Yitzhak in Hebrew actually means "He will laugh", indicating a quality which yields future rewards i.e. shape our character in a positive way). Abraham is about to sacrifice him. The name used in this narrative, Elohim, is traditionally interpreted by Kabbalists as indicating a name of judgement, the qualities of nature, natural selection, survival of the fittest. This name actually means "powers" i.e. the variety of conceptual forces acting in nature, taken in their totality; it also has a gematria (numerical value) of 86; the word for "the word" in Hebrew, Hateva, which also happens to mean nature, also has the gematria of 86, strengthening the Kabbalistic interpretation that there must be some theological basis for this belief allegorized in the binding of Isaac narrative.

Anyways, no point arguing with someone as bigoted as you.

This thread is extremely offensive to those people who believe in Abraham, and the threads author has made no effort other than to malign and present Abraham in the most degraded way he can.

Do it with your friends, but it shouldn't be accepted on forums which require civility in discussion.

Akragon

I would say man set up that particular system... God does not need blood... "I will have mercy and NOT sacrifice"

interesting quote
Do you not think Abraham who had a relationship with God wasnt aware of this nature of God.

If you read the story you will note Abraham did know this

borntowatch

Akragon

I would say man set up that particular system... God does not need blood... "I will have mercy and NOT sacrifice"

interesting quote
Do you not think Abraham who had a relationship with God wasnt aware of this nature of God.

If you read the story you will note Abraham did know this

I don't think Abraham had any relationship with the true God.... he had a relationship with an Imposter posing as God... and I've read the story many many times... thanks

He didn't have a clue to the true nature of God, even after the angel stopped him from killing his own son... what happened? He still killed an innocent animal for no reason other then the fact that this so called "god" requires blood, demands it!

In fact no one in the OT had a clue who God is... No one did until Jesus came...

A little background family info.
Families and Power of Nation's,,gets complicated,,



And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

So apparently "the son of Hagar the Egyptian" gets a "great nation"

then,,,,,

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.


because once again, Satan, persuades God,, that if it came right down too it,,Abraham,,would disobey God,, just like Adam,,,

,,,,,we shall see,,,

And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

soo yea,, no one was killed,, except for the,,Ram- Chops ,,lol,,