The Blood of Christ - Salem-News.Com

(PASO ROBLES, Calif.) - Christianity evolved as a plan by a coterie of Judaic sectarians convinced its philosophy of One God for All Nations should replace Judaism’s One God of the Jewish Nation.

The cult hoped initially to exalt the Jewish God by making him the God of All Nations, a concept unacceptable to Jewish leaders who may have objected to being less than Jehovah's Chosen People. The Cult-concept must have seemed audacious to them at best, and impossible in any event; obviously the Jewish leadership miscalculated.

All Religions are the result of mythological constructs and are tied to the communities that invent them. Except for the expansive Religions of the Book, other communities are beholden to gods of parochial invention, be they symbolic or of cerebral concoction both of which involve emotional and psychological processes that satisfy particular needs of the community and range from the primitive to the more enlightened variety.

Christianity is an example of enlightened-construction, and Mexico’s hinterland provides an example of the primitive where, Southwest of Mexico City, I came upon a small stone-shrine built over a spring by people who placed a value on the spring worthy of its contribution to their lives. Kiva people of the pueblos, because of their communal and spiritual Nature, fall between the extremes. Frank Water’s book, “The Man who Killed the Deer,“ is a wonderful example of what I mean.

The Book of Isaiah presumes to be prophecy [a prediction of a future event that is believed to reveal the will of a deity] but has a manifesto quality about it [a public written declaration of principles, policies, and objectives, especially one issued by a political movement, such as a cult intent on creating a new political entity, the Catholic Church.

Isaiah’s Prophecy seems squarely to place him in the camp of the Coterie. The deity in his Prophecy is the Cult, and Isaiah expounds at length on the expectation of the group’s ideology by putting words in the mouth of the “Lord,” that refers to the Cult or to Jesus interchangeably.

Isaiah refers to the emergence of the Lord [Jesus] in wondrous terms, but elsewhere speaks of his arrival [not yet the Christ] in “little more than a year.” His Prophecy is a mine of nuggets that need to be sifted adroitly from the verbal-rubble if their worth is to be realized. An example is [Isaiah: 49; 1-3] where Jesus is referring to God [the Coterie] followed immediately [49; 4-forward] by the Coterie in a reversal of roles. In [49; 1-3] Jesus is presented as saying poetically [with additions]:

And he said to me, “you are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

The passage seems to refer to the time before the Judaic elders rejected the cult-concept, and before Isaiah’s Prophecy became a diatribe against them. It is a metaphor that involves figures of speech or symbolism that does not literally represent real things. His Prophecy contains many metaphors he uses to inject mystery and supposed miracles performed by Jesus that dissolve in light of logic and attention to detail. The significance of the phrase “The Blood of Christ,” for example, is confounding even to many believers, which makes it a worthy subject for explanation.

It is easy to say that Christ died for our sins, but what exactly does that mean? The Bible speaks of Jesus as the “essential man.” to which can be added, “the sacrificial lamb,” for that is exactly what he became. But how many of us think of ourselves as sinners, and how exactly does Jesus’ sacrifice involve us? The answer to the quandary is detectable if followed from beginning [Isaiah: 49; 1-3-above] that describes the arrival and training of Jesus by the Coterie, to his crucifixion [Isaiah: 53; entire - edited] that refers to Jesus’ crucifixion - before the fact - when he says, again with additions:

“he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors [as King of the Jews]; yet he bore the sin of many, [and] made intercession for transgressors” [Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do].

Isaiah supposedly is prophesying, but because what he describes of Calvary is exact, even to defining details, one might conclude that the role of the Christ was conceived in advance, including how he should die. If the why can be known, so too might be the significance of his blood.

His calling and his preliminary training, suggested above, was followed by a series of events to assure the Coterie of Jesus’ commitment to his role before he became the Christ. They consisted of several scenarios beginning with his baptism by John the Baptist, after which “angels” of the Lord approached Jesus saying, “this is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Next, Jesus was returned to the wilderness, the community of his birth, for forty days to test his dedication to worship only the God of [the Coterie]. Having satisfied the Coterie of his devotion, Jesus next was provided with disciples and was sent among the Jews to preach and to draw attention to himself, succeeding in causing elders to view him as a rabble rouser, and non-conformist, as the Coterie expected and desired.

Persistent behavior patterns and habitual thinking are the result of ingrained tendencies that make people reluctant to change lifestyles, especially those who are accustomed to accepting what is “given” them to believe in silence and without question [most religious members cling to their traditions]. And even [Isaiah: 30; 15] says with a Christian twist, “in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” Today’s Evangelists have laid claim to such thoughts, and insist that those who abide by their preachments are the only “true Christians;” and refer to intellectuals as instruments of the Devil.

Borrowing among religions is nothing new, but appreciating the subtleties of tactics takes understanding rather than submissive acceptance and astonishing belief in hearsay. When Jesus is spoken of in the Bible as saying something, it is likely he did not. For Jesus is referred to [before the fact] in scripted Prophecy, or in the Gospels sixty to one-hundred years after the fact, as saying what was written by persons generations removed, and whose purpose was to add to the mythology.

When Jesus asked his disciples, “who do the people say that I am?” All but Peter offered a variety of answers, none of them correct, so Jesus asked, “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter alone identified Jesus as the Christ [Mark: 7; 2-30] in what appears to be a scripted scenario. And when it was time for Jesus to go to Jerusalem, he described to his disciples precisely what would happen after he and they arrived, and while at Bethany, he revealed to them his intended death and resurrection.

He arrived in Jerusalem riding on an ass [obviously a staged event] as humbly he received the accolades of the crowd [cult members?] who spread palm fronds before him in a celebration that today is referred to as Palm Sunday. Jesus was crucified the Friday following - Good Friday [after the Jewish Passover] and supposedly was resurrected - if not in body at least in spirit - on Easter Sunday, the Sunday following the full moon on or after March 21st - the first day of Spring. The significance of dates corresponds to the planting season, and perhaps also the Jewish festival of Passover [where God passed over the Israelites' first-born [Exodus 12:11-27] in an example of religious borrowing.

In Jerusalem, Jesus’ humanity failed him, and on the Mount of Olives he prayed his cup of death be removed, but an angel of the Lord reassured him, and Jesus re-committed himself to his obligation by saying "not mine, but thy will be done." Afterward, in Bethany, while he sat at table with his disciples, a woman anointed him for burial that earned for him the title of the “Christ” [from the Greek; Khristos - christen, to install somebody ceremonially, and give him a new name]. Perhaps on the Mt. of Olives or at Bethany the title of “King of the Jews” was assigned by the Coterie as an essential part of the symbolism cleverly intended to bring Christianity to fruition. The next act involved Judas Iscariot and his purported betrayal.

Judas’ name is similar to Judaism, Judaic, and Judaize [to conform to doctrines, observances, or methods of the Jews], and suggests that his name was intended to promote an idea that painted him as a traitor to Christianity, but who seems to have been a member of the cast devoted to its fulfillment. The recent discovery of the Judas Gospel confirms what should have been known from Isaiah when Jesus, during The Last Supper, told Judas to go and do what he must, the object of which seems not to have been in doubt. When Judas was gone, and in apparent anticipation of the expected, Jesus commented to the remaining disciples that his ‘end is near when he will be glorified.’

Jesus, as Christ, awaited the next scene at Gethsemane where he was identified by Judas, and a disciple is said to have used a sword to cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest. Isaiah describes the tongue as the "sword of the mouth," an instrument of Christian persuasion, not of steel. Jesus admonished his disciple to put away his sword [of persuasion], was arrested, and soon after was presented before Pilate.

Pilate asked him about the title, “King of the Jews,” and Jesus responded obliquely saying, "My kingdom is not of this world" [a line likely given him to recite by the Coterie]. Pilate could find no fault with Jesus, washed his hands of responsibility, and turned Jesus over to the Jews for disposition. But the scene makes sense only if the proceedings were orchestrated by the Coterie whose object was that Jesus must die.

If Jesus' Kingdom was not of the Jewish Community, why would he have been branded "King of the Jews" by Jews?" Why, once it was determined he should be crucified, was he crowned with thorns, and by whom? Isaiah's definition of the wilderness, let us not forget, was the Jewish community, a wasteland of mental-infertility overgrown with weeds, briars, thorns, and decay. Jesus was committed fully to the Christian cause and his role in it as “King of the Jews,” and with his crown of thorns His crucifixion and burial symbolically represented the death of the Old and the Beginning of a New Order within which, metaphorically speaking, Immortality reigns supreme by the Grace of God, and where beyond the Community, Immortal life is impossible.

The plot, as in any good play, ends by wrapping up all the loose ends by constructing the Church, the presumed Resurrected Body of Christ, on the Rock of St. Peter’s Faith. The “The Blood of Christ” is resolved in the understanding that it was shed for, and holds the promise of Life-everlasting to, those who partake of the Eucharist which of His Grace is offered to the elect, but is denied reprobates, the damned who refuse to abide by Christian authority.

The success of the Protestant Movement, among other things, caused the Roman See to soften its stance, but the Religious Right, the American “Evangelical Holy See” of Republican persuasion, seeks to push the envelope of its misguided plan to hasten the Second Coming of Christ - World Domination - when Christianity will force its will on all who must either submit or suffer the consequence. [The final passage of Isaiah’s Prophecy describes the result of Apocalypse].

Unity through Diversity, with mutual respect for all, will produce better and longer-lasting results than absolute obedience to absolute authority such as the Religious Right and the Evangelical Holy See of the Republican Party, using Geo. W. Bush, as its instrument, would impose on Americans. No wonder Bush will not admit to having erred during his Administration; he believes he represents God‘s will, as he is given to believe it by Evangelist Pretenders whose misguided faith this essay purports to prove; namely,

------------------------------------------------
Kenneth G. Ramey was a 79-year old "writer without a Website" who is generating excellent, provocative articles on the subject of religion and world affairs. We are pleased that Ken's "lone wolf" presence as a writer in the world has been replaced by a spot on our team of writers at Salem-News.com. Raised in Minnesota and California during the dark years of the Great American Depression, Ken is well suited to talk about the powerful forces in the world that give all of us hope and tragedy and everything in between. You can write to Ken at: kgramey@sbcglobal.net

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

qui vivi January 30, 2009 8:59 pm (Pacific time)

DB and Dan both hit the nail on the head, but criticize the author for his education being impolite, and for doing what Historians do. Why knock it?

Henry Ruark January 31, 2009 11:13 am (Pacific time)

To all: Re "free speech", Founders clearly meant for that right to be responsibly supported by the same foundations of accountability as are clearly connected with all others so defined as "rights". Search of The Federalist Papers and the other seminal works for both Constitution and Bill of Rights will support that indestructible conclusion. One (the "right") without the other ("accountability" for how it is applied) can only leave open to ANY malign intention potent protection for that intention. I.e., malignant-eers can --and ofter DO !-- find a way to hide behind their cannily constructed protection via simply claiming the "right" without any pat of the process of clear responsibility for its application. Anonymity or use of synonymous name to avoid clear responsibility (and thus checkable accountability) is "the name of the game" --easy on usual Internet connection, thus so highly popular now. ANY insightful observer of the political process in this nation since World War II can surely detect that perverted process in operation via "free speech" --with defense in the claim of "faith" as weapon. That's why some "faiths" are so openly antagonistic to others and to political stance they hate-and-fear to openly advocate practices far from either "religious" or "Christian" in any sense. That's why "the Southern strategy" was resurrected by Nixon, for clearly malign purposes clarified by events since then, reinforcing Far Right prejudice and pretense carried over from time prior to the Civil War. To very large extent, those now seeking same invalid protections seek to do so since otherwise they defeat their purpose of malign damage to ongoing, developing, and self-perfecting democracy.

Henry Ruark January 31, 2009 9:13 am (Pacific time)

To all: My Comment to D. revolves on this definition, supplied here to clarify dialog in its true dimension: faith (as in "religion") n. : "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Anyone is welcome to whatever choice they may make in this regard, with due attention to what that may mean in prosaic human relations too often shaped by prejudice and heavy reliance on whatever escape is achievable via reference to "my faith" when conflict doth arise. True adherence is one level demonstrable by personal action; "escape" another, also demonstrable by political act or lack of it, as in denying good faith med/attention for all children -- or initiation of preemptive attack on another nation for political purposes.

Henry Ruark January 31, 2009 8:08 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dorsett: Thanks for that kind and helpful Comment. I agree with you completely re freedom of speech, with simple addition of responsibility and accountability via full known ID in the dialog. Otherwise I think mine gains both substance and easier understanding from yours --which for me points up again precisely how and why this S-N open, honest, democratic wave of the communications future is doing its job...and why we need to know even more about those who demand "freedom" but never read the opposite side of that golden coin: responsibility and accountability for special interest involved. At least the tea-brewers in Boston Harbor knew all about the British East India combine and its ongoing corporate contribution to their woes. Your civil,rational/reasonable participation admired and most helpful, sir.

qui vivi January 30, 2009 9:00 pm (Pacific time)

DB and Dan both hit the nail on the head, but criticize the author for his education being impolite, and for doing what Historians do. Why knock it?

Daniel January 30, 2009 8:39 pm (Pacific time)

For me the test of any religion, for the individual , is if it opening your heart . I believe God , the good one , is in the heart of all philosophers who have contrary philosophies . Why does man want to reduce god to his or her concept . My guy has a better understanding of what cant be understood than your guy does , so your going to suffer , i am CHOSEN your not , thats what it boils down to . All or most religions speak of Gods oneness and Gods all knowingness and then reduce god to their concept . Must Gods creation be reduced by sectarian blindness . All religions have saintly followers who understand with their heart Gods love and they also have too many callous non believers who use knowledge as a weapon . If your a believer glorify God thru song and word , open your heart and try not to cause suffering in Gods name !

Dorsett Bennett January 30, 2009 3:53 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark: My understanding about the separation of church and state in the United States Constitution felt with the prohibition of the establishment of a ‘state’ church such as existed in most countries in Europe at that time: Lutheran in Sweden; Anglican in England; and for all practical matters Catholic in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, etc. While a majority of the founding fathers were in fact Christian, or at least operated within a Christian-based ethical construct (Thomas Jefferson for example), while some others were animists. There are several historical documents, including treaties, which specifically hold that the United States is NOT a Christian nation as such. I realize that many of my fellow Christians will be offended by this statement, but the facts are the facts. This saying is "In God We Trust," and not, "In Jesus Christ We Trust." All that being said, the author of this article was impolite in his comments about Christians. But that is his right under freedom of speech. Someone pointing out his impoliteness is also protected speech. Dorsett Bennett

Henry Ruark January 29, 2009 5:42 pm (Pacific time)

Stephen et al: Faith is faith and fact is fact. Problem is that when one holds faith as inviolable, then fact can make no dent --that's the definition of faith, in some minds. No attack meant, none possible here; only acceptance and then avoidance of issues troubling you since no way to change without attacking your faith, which, as you demonstrate here, is if not invulnerable surely so painful-to change it becomes, in all practicality, an impossibility. That's why both faith --and sometimes propaganda-- overpower the rational and reasonable no matter how true they are to their definition. Can only wish you well and point out no attempt to either attack or disprove yours. You will have to live with it, and with consequences flowing from it, too. That has been world tragedy ever since Reformation and the Enlightenment.

stephen January 28, 2009 6:19 pm (Pacific time)

IF, the author would have said "seperation of church and state" I would be in total agreement. But, he DID NOT. He put down those who believe. There IS a difference. I am finding your posts to be very mis-informed and one sided. The author did not mention seperation of church and state, not once. He used opinions to put down those who believe. Go read it again before replying. I am not attacking, I am stating FACT, and if you prove me wrong I will go away. But you cant. This article had NOTHING to do with seperation of church and state, but beating up those who believe. You are now unreliable. prove me wrong?

stephen January 28, 2009 6:13 pm (Pacific time)

separation of church and state is well respected. but to put down personal belief is not accepted. But that is the democratic way isnt it? Accept gay rights (which I am for), but attacking a persons personal beliefs in regards to spirituality is an open field of criticism. Again, henry, I dont want to rule the world, but it seems as tho you, and many others on this website do. I can be gay, but I cant be Christian. thanks, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I suppose democracy is whatever I am told what to do for my best interest. democracy is hypocrisy

Henry Ruark January 28, 2009 8:52 am (Pacific time)

D.Bennett: Thank you, sir, for reasoned, rational, remarkable comment on wellknown worldwide faith-driven situations, not by any means unique here. One of greatest acts of wisdom by Founders was separation of church and state, under attack ever since by those who will, if possible, promulgate what is supported to-the-death for them by "faith" --however it is described for them, at the moment or much longer. The Constitution provides also for solid dialog, via First Amendment, for which we can thank whatever God we individually happen to choose. Your participation strengthens our intent and action here,is deeply appreciated, sir.

Anonymous January 28, 2009 6:22 am (Pacific time)

This article exemplifies the poor academic rigor of those who prefer to be controversial rather than truthful. Of course, as mentioned by others, the author is deliberately offensive. Why take the time to speak hospitably about other beliefs when you don't examine your own research or presuppositions? First, the move from a nationalistic God to a supreme God was not a Christian move but occurred well before the time of Christ in the ancient world and not only within Judaism. In Judaism it is evidenced in the writings of Isaiah (or the school of Isaiah.) Isaiah expresses a monotheism which asserts one God above all others and understands other God's as false. This began at least 4 centuries before Christianity. Jesus is said to have even read Isaiah in the temple which shows its centrality in Judaism at the time of Jesus. It is difficult to argue that Jewish leadership objected to the book of Isaiah. Second, the author makes the embarrassing move of assuming a self-awareness to social movements. Yes sometimes there are points consciousness in social movements. For example, Martin Luther King provided a point of consciousness to the American civil rights movement. But this is not as likely in the ancient world and can never account for huge theological shifts. The slower the media and transportation the less self aware a movement can be. Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism, or Zoroastrian beliefs can not decide to change themselves. Nor can they decide to re-position themselves among other competing ideas. Liberal or not liberal this article is just embarrassingly bad. At least when a Rush Limbal carries on with offensive disregard for different cultures and religions we recognize ignorance and coercion. Unfortunately, this article will be thought by many to be academic or at least thoughtful. And yeas I'm a Christian, but I'm offended more as an academic. I'm disappointed that the spirit of our country right now seems to be despair and hostility towards other beliefs.

Dorsett Bennett January 27, 2009 10:18 pm (Pacific time)

I remember going for several years [primarily at what I believed was the desire of an ex-wife] to a Sunday school class taught by a biblically scholar full man who was convinced that the ‘Gifts of the Spirit’ ended in apostolic times. I did a topical study on it and wrote a two-page single-spaced refutation of that doctrinal belief, rather than biblical truth. I ended up choosing not to give it to him because I recognized he was convinced of the truth of his position, and nothing I would say was going to shake him in his belief system. Should I choose to take the time and review the arguments of this writer, I suspect I could fairly easily do the same. But it would not affect his belief system. Religious beliefs are funny things. The church today is actually fighting over some of the same issues they fought over 2000 years ago. I am referring specifically to the Gift of Tongues. The Apostle Paul addressed that and other issues affecting the church in the epistle I Corinthians. The charismatics use I Corinthians 12 to beat over the heads of the traditionalists, while the traditionalists use I Corinthians 13 to be over the heads of the charismatics. If both sides would simply read I Corinthians 12-14 together, they might understand the truth of what Paul was saying. But I don't count on it. The famed atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow was a biblical scholar, while for many years I have discovered that many saved individuals are woefully biblically ignorant. Such is the nature of faith/no faith. Dorsett Bennett

Henry Ruark January 27, 2009 8:16 pm (Pacific time)

Snoozer: (You really Oh Boy ?) Your response makes the case re what you claim we stated. Your lack of understanding and determined denial of an exceptional summary from indisputable history is plainly insensitive and UN- or MIS-informed,per your record here starting with open attack as your original faith. You wrote: "there's really one reason to engage in a campaign against religion... prejudice and hatred." That demonstrates yet further precisely the misunderstanding that is your only response to factual materials plainly stated. There is no "campaign" here, with or without your personal attribution of "prejudice and hatred", all three terms found when misunderstanding triumphs over ability to comprehend. FYI, that last is right out of learning psychology, for full dialog via ID to Editor if you feel able to discuss civilly, without your faith-of-attack as motivational driver. When one is unable to detect the difference between flat factual statement and responds to the fear of painful forced cogitation, with whatever is left operative and rational in the necessary facility, one inevitable arrives at the kind of statement you make here. Why not snooze a while longer before masochistically exposing yourself to learned statement from true authority?

stephen January 27, 2009 7:37 pm (Pacific time)

I think salem-news gets the point snoozer. I liked your post, and I do believe that salem-news understands also. they are good people, just disagree with their left/right scenario that does not exist. good people tho. To Tim: if it makes you feel better because the left is winning, enjoy. I am not left/right, I am just searching for truth. And I have come to the conclusion that left/right is not the truth. It is a distraction.

Snoozer January 27, 2009 6:06 pm (Pacific time)

You guys have accused me of being negative and ignorant. And have complained that posters are not respectful to others. This author is deliberately offensive to Christians and others, for no good reason, other than to be obnoxious. If he thinks that he's going to dissuade people of faith, he's mistaken, they're not swayed by his totally off-the wall campaign. Again, there's really one reason to engage in a campaign against religion... prejudice and hatred. I cannot believe "liberals" who are supposedly the bastions of "live and let live" and "respect for all viewpoints" would publish such intolerance and hate.

stephen January 27, 2009 4:10 pm (Pacific time)

Since I am trying to abide by the salem-news rule of not attacking authors, I guess I cant say anything. But it is ok for the author to attack my belief system with very few facts and much opinion. what to do, what to do? :-) In my humble opinion, this was not a good article to post. People have been debating this subject for centuries with no positive outcome. TO author: thank you for using a few facts and many opinions to make me look like a fool because I believe in Jesus Christ. Thank you, keep up the good work, and I appreciate your intelligence.

[Return to Top]