Isn't it amazing how the world works? As Jesus was offering the Jews a more humane and mature type of "sacrifice" to the Father, forces were at work to silence and censor him. We are all facing our "Garden of Gethsemane" moment. Do we live by faith, by works, or by a combination of the two. The ancient concept of "imitation Christo" seems meaningless when Jesus took a whip to the bums in the Temple and then allowed himself to be nailed to a cross.
Jesus embodies all that is good in us. It is time to believe that we can have Him living in us.
By offering himself as a symbolic sacrifice to his father, he saved lots of sheep and birds. Jesus, like all men, was a complex man who recognized his obligation as the heir of two tribes to eliminate the Romans. At the same time, his inclination was to raise havoc at the temple - but his head was telling him to pray. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.
By putting sacrifice in scare quotes in your first post and describing it as symbolic in your second are you suggesting that it was not a genuinely atoning sacrifice? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I have to admit I still don't really know what you are getting at.
I suppose our temptation to work for our salvation could be compared to Christ's temptation to choose a way other than the cross, for the 'cup to pass from' Him. If that is what you mean then that is interesting and insightful.
I do think that the idea of imitating Christ runs into serious problems when the Christ of our pious imagination faces off with the Christ of the Gospels. But I am still not at all sure that I understand what you are saying.
I did not put quotes around the word "symbolic" because Jesus' sacrifice was clearly symbolic. It issued in a new, non-pagan style of worship. Imagining that a piece of bread magically turns to the flesh of Christ and a 1/2 ounce of juice can turn into blood are very bizarre examples of symbolic sacrifices. Those who believe Jesus died for their sins should appreciate his sacrifice. Those who believe he died because the Romans and the Pharisees wanted him dead, should appreciate him no less.
The word symbolic to me implies that either the death and hence the sacrifice are not real, which I don't think that you mean to imply, or that it was not genuinely propitiatory, that is only necessary in a secondary sort of way i.e. as a lesson or guide or something like that. I still haven't figured out if you mean that or something else. Christ's sacrifice put an end to sacrifice by achieving what they sought and failed to achieve, peace between God and man. It differed from previous sacrifices in being a more true sacrifice not a less true as symbolic implies.
I absolutely believe in the communion of the saints, the real presence in the Eucharist. It baffles me that anyone can suppose that they are a Christian and also suppose that they do not receive the body and blood of Christ. This is embedded in every creed and every statement of faith. Now, I do not believe that bread and wine physically is, in any sense, the body and blood of Christ.
There are two correct ways to look at communion and two main incorrect ways. The first correct way is the old catholic, before the innovation of transsubstantiation. Roughly, 'There is bread and wine in communion and the body and blood are received. We do not know how this is a mystery(sacramentum).' The second correct way is Calvin's, 'There is bread and wine physically present in communion and the body and blood of Christ is received spiritually in communion.' provided that we understand that 'spiritually' is just a slightly more specific way of saying mysterious. It is a description of a mode of being that we do not understand or generally perceive. Both natural and supernatural are present and neither displaces or eradicates the other.
The two main ways to misunderstand communion are to have the supernatural displace the natural as transsubstantiation, 'There seems to be bread and wine but this is not real only apparent. The only reality is the body and blood of Christ.' And the pietistic/modern evangelical in which the natural displaces the supernatural and may be called the fundamental reality, 'There is only really bread and wine but it symbolizes or reminds us in some way of Christ.' These two errors, BTW, are the fundamental failings of Romanism and the modern church and once seen clearly can be seen running through everything that they do.
The modern church's neglect, approaching total abandonment, of communion is significant in the highest degree. No longer do churches pass around full plates encouraging men to receive of Christ's fullness. Rather the center of worship is passing around an empty plate with the understanding that the kingdom depends on their contribution.
You are a good writer and an analytic thinker. In my 75 years, I have been raised Free Methodist, baptized as a Baptist and then again as an Adventist. My search for meaning continues as I read Mme.Blavatsky's ISIS UNVEILED and reconsider Buddhism. I have been accused of being simple more often than cagey.
I was taught from my earliest days (most of my known male ancestors were Mennonite ministers and my grandfather was a Free Methodist circuit rider) that Jesus is my savior and whenever I am spared embarrassment or harm, I thank him.
Nevertheless, when it comes to Jesus' motives (or even his reality), I can only say what an orthodox Jewish friend used to say when asked about Jesus and the crucifixion, "I wasn't there".
Here is my non-obscure answer to your question about what the YHWH has done: He created time, space, you, me, and everything else. He is always creating and I see him more as an elemental force, the Ultimate Mind, and not as a magical spirit that picks favorites and performs miracles willy-nilly.
Christianity has no monopoly on decency or morality.
You are right that Christianity has no monopoly on decency or morality. I would argue that the church, even a somewhat ideal earthly church, is not moral or decent par excellence.(that is an awkward way to say that but I will let it stand) For morality and decency, you are better off with Islam or Buddhism or probably there are others who excel at lawkeeping, perhaps Orthodox or Reform jews or something that I am less familiar with.
The church is the best at one thing and has the monopoly on one thing, the Gospel of Grace, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection from the dead.(one thing three names) A curious and for us inconvenient thing about the Gospel is that it can't be used for anything other than what it does. It won't make people behave, won't build or sustain civilizations, it's not a floor wax or a dessert topping. It only is what it is and only does what it does. And every time we try and harness it for other things we make a train wreck.
While chopping heads off non-believers does not strike me as decency, I do not want to get off the track.
An ideal Earthly church, IMHO, would be one that distributes psylocybin to the worshippers at the beginning of a Service and orchestrates the presentation like an old Moody Blues' album.
Any organized religion seems designed to pull its members away from direct involvement with YHWH. By presenting old stories to old people that have heard them hundreds of times does little to edify the dying and bores the young.
More of a Pink Floyd man myself. That seems like an excellent way to get in touch with powers and principalities and the rulers of this dark world but the Scriptures liberate us from all of these self-appointed, self-deluded, and self-serving middlemen and allow us access to the Mediator who has nothing to gain from us and everything to give to us.
There is no direct access to the Father. 'No man comes to the Father but by me.' There are lots of pretenders and lots of self serving mediators, but 'no one has seen the Father at any time, the Son has revealed Him', and done that through His Prophets and Apostles, unless you were walking g around Paelstine 2000 years ago. As for old stories heard hundreds of times, I think that I have demonstrated that the Sermon on the Mount contains numerous treasures not generally appreciated, to say the least. I mean it might bore the young but honestly boredom expands the mind far more than mushrooms.
When I talked about the different types of earthly treasure or idolatry I should've mentioned health more explicitly. Consider it added.
Isn't it amazing how the world works? As Jesus was offering the Jews a more humane and mature type of "sacrifice" to the Father, forces were at work to silence and censor him. We are all facing our "Garden of Gethsemane" moment. Do we live by faith, by works, or by a combination of the two. The ancient concept of "imitation Christo" seems meaningless when Jesus took a whip to the bums in the Temple and then allowed himself to be nailed to a cross.
Jesus embodies all that is good in us. It is time to believe that we can have Him living in us.
I am not sure that I know what any of that means. Care to elaborate?
By offering himself as a symbolic sacrifice to his father, he saved lots of sheep and birds. Jesus, like all men, was a complex man who recognized his obligation as the heir of two tribes to eliminate the Romans. At the same time, his inclination was to raise havoc at the temple - but his head was telling him to pray. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.
By putting sacrifice in scare quotes in your first post and describing it as symbolic in your second are you suggesting that it was not a genuinely atoning sacrifice? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I have to admit I still don't really know what you are getting at.
I suppose our temptation to work for our salvation could be compared to Christ's temptation to choose a way other than the cross, for the 'cup to pass from' Him. If that is what you mean then that is interesting and insightful.
I do think that the idea of imitating Christ runs into serious problems when the Christ of our pious imagination faces off with the Christ of the Gospels. But I am still not at all sure that I understand what you are saying.
I did not put quotes around the word "symbolic" because Jesus' sacrifice was clearly symbolic. It issued in a new, non-pagan style of worship. Imagining that a piece of bread magically turns to the flesh of Christ and a 1/2 ounce of juice can turn into blood are very bizarre examples of symbolic sacrifices. Those who believe Jesus died for their sins should appreciate his sacrifice. Those who believe he died because the Romans and the Pharisees wanted him dead, should appreciate him no less.
The word symbolic to me implies that either the death and hence the sacrifice are not real, which I don't think that you mean to imply, or that it was not genuinely propitiatory, that is only necessary in a secondary sort of way i.e. as a lesson or guide or something like that. I still haven't figured out if you mean that or something else. Christ's sacrifice put an end to sacrifice by achieving what they sought and failed to achieve, peace between God and man. It differed from previous sacrifices in being a more true sacrifice not a less true as symbolic implies.
I absolutely believe in the communion of the saints, the real presence in the Eucharist. It baffles me that anyone can suppose that they are a Christian and also suppose that they do not receive the body and blood of Christ. This is embedded in every creed and every statement of faith. Now, I do not believe that bread and wine physically is, in any sense, the body and blood of Christ.
There are two correct ways to look at communion and two main incorrect ways. The first correct way is the old catholic, before the innovation of transsubstantiation. Roughly, 'There is bread and wine in communion and the body and blood are received. We do not know how this is a mystery(sacramentum).' The second correct way is Calvin's, 'There is bread and wine physically present in communion and the body and blood of Christ is received spiritually in communion.' provided that we understand that 'spiritually' is just a slightly more specific way of saying mysterious. It is a description of a mode of being that we do not understand or generally perceive. Both natural and supernatural are present and neither displaces or eradicates the other.
The two main ways to misunderstand communion are to have the supernatural displace the natural as transsubstantiation, 'There seems to be bread and wine but this is not real only apparent. The only reality is the body and blood of Christ.' And the pietistic/modern evangelical in which the natural displaces the supernatural and may be called the fundamental reality, 'There is only really bread and wine but it symbolizes or reminds us in some way of Christ.' These two errors, BTW, are the fundamental failings of Romanism and the modern church and once seen clearly can be seen running through everything that they do.
The modern church's neglect, approaching total abandonment, of communion is significant in the highest degree. No longer do churches pass around full plates encouraging men to receive of Christ's fullness. Rather the center of worship is passing around an empty plate with the understanding that the kingdom depends on their contribution.
Every action, word, or song has a symbolic meaning. Prayer has a symbolic meaning. Was Jesus' death necessary? Ask God.
The Eucharest? While I once enjoyed partaking of the sacraments, they now remind me of vampires.
You are a good writer and an analytic thinker. In my 75 years, I have been raised Free Methodist, baptized as a Baptist and then again as an Adventist. My search for meaning continues as I read Mme.Blavatsky's ISIS UNVEILED and reconsider Buddhism. I have been accused of being simple more often than cagey.
I was taught from my earliest days (most of my known male ancestors were Mennonite ministers and my grandfather was a Free Methodist circuit rider) that Jesus is my savior and whenever I am spared embarrassment or harm, I thank him.
Nevertheless, when it comes to Jesus' motives (or even his reality), I can only say what an orthodox Jewish friend used to say when asked about Jesus and the crucifixion, "I wasn't there".
Here is my non-obscure answer to your question about what the YHWH has done: He created time, space, you, me, and everything else. He is always creating and I see him more as an elemental force, the Ultimate Mind, and not as a magical spirit that picks favorites and performs miracles willy-nilly.
Christianity has no monopoly on decency or morality.
You are right that Christianity has no monopoly on decency or morality. I would argue that the church, even a somewhat ideal earthly church, is not moral or decent par excellence.(that is an awkward way to say that but I will let it stand) For morality and decency, you are better off with Islam or Buddhism or probably there are others who excel at lawkeeping, perhaps Orthodox or Reform jews or something that I am less familiar with.
The church is the best at one thing and has the monopoly on one thing, the Gospel of Grace, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection from the dead.(one thing three names) A curious and for us inconvenient thing about the Gospel is that it can't be used for anything other than what it does. It won't make people behave, won't build or sustain civilizations, it's not a floor wax or a dessert topping. It only is what it is and only does what it does. And every time we try and harness it for other things we make a train wreck.
While chopping heads off non-believers does not strike me as decency, I do not want to get off the track.
An ideal Earthly church, IMHO, would be one that distributes psylocybin to the worshippers at the beginning of a Service and orchestrates the presentation like an old Moody Blues' album.
Any organized religion seems designed to pull its members away from direct involvement with YHWH. By presenting old stories to old people that have heard them hundreds of times does little to edify the dying and bores the young.
More of a Pink Floyd man myself. That seems like an excellent way to get in touch with powers and principalities and the rulers of this dark world but the Scriptures liberate us from all of these self-appointed, self-deluded, and self-serving middlemen and allow us access to the Mediator who has nothing to gain from us and everything to give to us.
There is no direct access to the Father. 'No man comes to the Father but by me.' There are lots of pretenders and lots of self serving mediators, but 'no one has seen the Father at any time, the Son has revealed Him', and done that through His Prophets and Apostles, unless you were walking g around Paelstine 2000 years ago. As for old stories heard hundreds of times, I think that I have demonstrated that the Sermon on the Mount contains numerous treasures not generally appreciated, to say the least. I mean it might bore the young but honestly boredom expands the mind far more than mushrooms.