/lit/ - Literature

>waste time and effort on something that never happened
nah

>>13217856

>>13217845
telephone poles are crucifixes

> Was Jesus Christ's crucifixion a "sacrifice"

I'm going to be honest with you OP, I think, without a DOUBT, that Christ sacrifice is the most important magic event in human history. The guy literally combined everything and made it right. I think he learned mysteries and conjugated the ultimate magical work, he knew what he was doing, no doubt about it. And from the hermetic point of view, the implications of their actions are tremendous for the species. I don't have to be a Christian to realize that. No one has to be a magician to realize that.

>>13217866
Thanks Anno

>>13217856
>implying fiction is not exactly that

Yes, a symbolic sacrifice of sacrifice itself.

1. «SACRIFICE» HAS ONLY ONE DEFINITION: A SACRIFICE IS THE GIVING UP OF SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

2. JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION, AND SEQUENT DEATH, WAS NOT A SACRIFICE; THE SACRIFICE INTERPRETATION IS A JUDEOCHRISTIAN PERVERSION.

THE PHYSICAL DEATH AND RESURRECTION, WAS MEANT TO BE BOTH: SYMBOLICAL, AND INSTRUMENTAL; THE SYMBOLICAL PURPOSE WAS TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT DEATH CAN BE CONQUERED THROUGH THE SPIRIT; THE INSTRUMENTAL PURPOSE WAS TO UNLOCK CHRIST WITHIN JESUS, SO THAT AFTER THE RESURRECTION THE RESURRECTED PERSON WAS NO LONGER JESUS, SON OF MARY, NOR THE FACELESS CHRIST FROM BEFORE BECOMING JESUS, BUT, RATHER: THE SYNTHETIC, COMPLETE, JESUSCHRIST, SO HE COULD THEN ASCEND BACK HOME.

>>13218136
actually the sacrifice is paying the price of the humanity's sin( The original man's sin passed down to us from adam. He sacrificed himself to pay our price. Thats why the blood its such a symbol, because it is our "ticket" to salvation.

>>13218172

I REITERATE: THAT INTERPRETATION IS A JUDEOCHRISTIAN PERVERSION; THE BLOOD OF JESUSCHRIST IS SACRED, DUE TO HIS DIVINE ORIGIN AS THE SON OF GOD, FROM WHICH SACREDNESS DERIVES ITS SYMBOLISM OF PHYSICOPSYKHICAL PURITY, AND OF SALVATION THROUGH TRANSCENDENCE OF PHYSICALITY INTO SPIRITUAL PLENITUDE, NOT AS TOKEN OF EXPIATION.

>>13218136
>>13218278
kek, do buddhists and muslims have a version of these gnostic spergs?

i saw a post on /pol/ last week that really made me think

why is it okay to deny the holocaust, but it's not okay to deny a thousand year old text written by jews that glorifies a jew?

how do we reconcile the dilemma and still be a principled nazi?

>>13218136
So buying something is a sacrifice?"

>>13218353

MERCANTILE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT ENTAIL THE GIVING UP/SURRENDERING OF ANYTHING —THEY ARE MERE EXCHANGES OF EQUIVALENCE—; A SACRIFICE ENTAILS SURRENDER OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY OF EQUAL VALUE, OR MAGNITUDE, TO THAT WHICH IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED, OR OBTAINED; SACRIFICE NECESSARILY ENTAILS DEATH —TOTAL, OR PARTIAL.

MERCANTILE EXCHANGE CONSISTS IN SYMMETRICAL, EQUIVALENT, TRANSFORMATION, AND TRANSFERENCE, OF ENERGY; SACRIFICE ENTAILS EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY IN GREATER QUANTITY, AND/OR QUALITY, THAN THE POWER THAT IS BEING RECEIVED IN TURN.

>>13217889
But what do you mean by "symbolic" sacrifice? Are you saying that sacrifice itself was "made sacred" and then "immolated" in order to appease a deity or solve unrest? Or do you really think a different word ought to be used to represent "symbolic sacrifice" since this usage is somewhat awkward and potentially misleading, since you cannot get rid of something with its equivalent--like trying to immolate the victim and save him at the same time?

>>13218408
I am not happy with your distinction. Supposing sacrifice entails death: in any ritual sacrifice, it is not the performer of the sacrifice who is killed, but an arbitrary victim. By your definition, the priest has sacrificed nothing, and only the victim has sacrificed anything. But in any case the reward goes to the priest and his people, and not to the victim.

>>13218136
Also, your interpretation (not saying its wrong) is contradicted by both Eastern and Western orthodoxy, which says that Jesus was divine by birth and not merely through the crucifixion.

>>13218464
anon, you're talking to a half-caste spic tripfag who wrote a cringy short story about being cucked when he tried to get a job at mcdonalds so now he larps as a bizarre gnostic warrior on a Laotian forum dedicated to tracking the mating rituals of endangered leopards.

I don't think he even understands half the english words he even uses which is why his posts are always so goddamn pedantic. do you really expect him to know actual church doctrine?

>>13218447
>I am not happy with your distinction. Supposing sacrifice entails death: in any ritual sacrifice, it is not the performer of the sacrifice who is killed, but an arbitrary victim. By your definition, the priest has sacrificed nothing, and only the victim has sacrificed anything. But in any case the reward goes to the priest and his people, and not to the victim.

THE SACRIFICE CONSISTS IN THE ENTIRE ACT, THE WHOLE RITUAL, NOT IN SOME PARTICULAR OF IT —WHO, OR WHAT, IS BEING SACRIFICED, AND BY WHICH CRITERIA THAT THING, OR ENTITY, WAS CHOSEN FOR SACRIFICE, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THE DEFINITION OF SACRIFICE.

THE NOTION OF SACRIFICE IS IN ITSELF AN EVIL IDEA; THE BENEVOLENT DIVINE DOES NOT REQUIRE BLOOD; ONLY MALEVOLENT DEMONS REQUIRE BLOOD.

>>13218464

1. IT IS OF COURSE, AND ONLY LOGICAL, THAT JUDEOCHRISTIANITY WOULD CONTRADICT CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY.

2. I AM NOT DENYING THE DIVINITY OF JESUS; HIS DIVINITY IS SELFEVIDENT SINCE HE WAS CONCEIVED BY CHRIST HIMSELF.

3. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT JESUS BECAME DIVINE VIA CRUCIFIXION; I AM STATING THAT, THROUGH JESUS' DEATH —ID EST: PHYSICAL DEATH—, CHRIST BECOME FULLY MANIFEST —ID EST: SPIRITUAL REBIRTH—, AND THE PERSONALIZATION AS JESUSCHRIST —ID EST: THE PERFECT PERSON— WAS REALIZED.

>>13218627
>... CHRIST [BECAME] FULLY MANIFEST...

>>13217845

>No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

It's not even Scriptural, neither is the Original Sin he is supposed to fix, by the way. That he did take it again, not even as God but as Man, nullifies sacrifice. The idea of Atonement is a literal joke like "King of the Jews", both ironically imposed on Jesus precisely because he rebuked them in his broader rebuke of Judaism. It's appalling that people actually concede that Atonement makes little to no Theological sense, but that its absence would mean "God does not love them" or "Jesus died for nothing", as if love is a zero-sum nightmare, utter delirium, Satanism and beyond.

>>13219656

The Doctrine of Atonement is merely the reversal of vampirism. The zero-sum state of affairs where the blood gained by the subject is the blood lost by the object is merely inverted into an equally awful state of affairs where the blood vomited by the subject is the blood gained by the object. The master formally becoming the slave maintains, even reinforces, the master-slave relation and, moreover, celebrates the zero-sum aspect. Whereas Jesus does not teach mere reversal of the parties, but INVERSION of the relation. The total-sum between the good of God and the good of Man, to the destruction of zero-sum itself, and even to the destruction of loss itself.

>>13217845
God sacrificed himself for us to make us sacred. He paid a ransom for our souls and won against death by his divine nature in order to make us win over it too and live eternally. It was the purest sacrifice to oppose the most awful original sin of Adam.

>>13217845
>The topic of discussion today is this: Was Jesus Christ's crucifixion a "sacrifice"?
Yes. He is the Lamb of God, his body became the new Temple. He is truth and the bread of life. After he was born his parents placed him into a manger. Look up what a manger is.

>a trough (see trough sense 1a) or open box in a stable designed to hold feed or fodder for livestock

/thread

Little unknown FACT
Jesus didnt die that day, he was in a state of appearing dead because of opiates ingested through the wine he got from the Romans...

>>13218335
Leave the house and you'll discover that criticizing religion is perfectly fine whereas holocaust denial is either illegal or a sure way to be stigmatized as a loon

>>13218136
>THE INSTRUMENTAL PURPOSE WAS TO UNLOCK CHRIST WITHIN JESUS, SO THAT AFTER THE RESURRECTION THE RESURRECTED PERSON WAS NO LONGER JESUS, SON OF MARY, NOR THE FACELESS CHRIST FROM BEFORE BECOMING JESUS, BUT, RATHER: THE SYNTHETIC, COMPLETE, JESUSCHRIST, SO HE COULD THEN ASCEND BACK HOME.

>the life of Jesus was some kind of hero's journey to gain entrance back into heaven
He's not Thor, you ignoramus. And Jesus was fully man and fully divine in life. He lived according to his father's will, and gave his life freely for all mankind. He evidently struggled with accepting his destiny - the cup his father gave him - while praying in the garden, but he ultimately accepted arrest and execution. It was not an episode of Quantum Leap or conforming to his father's will that made him divine.

You are a brainlet and you are filtered.

>>13222672
Why should I care for the opinion about JesusChrist of someone who names himself “sinner”?

>>13217856
>'knowingly' skirts the issue
typical

>>13217845
>typically regard the act as primitive etc.
Which is precisely why the modern practice is either left unnamed or called something else- daily myriads of animals to 'science,' for instance- the appeased 'deity' not Knowledge but Ignorance fwiw.
Christ offers himself as a sacrifice (this doubles as an assertion of authority btw); and what becomes sanctified (made holy) is man. This is the root act of Trinity, too, so a very important moment.

>>13222742
Because a sinner is what I am, every day.

See also:
>Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

>>13217845
Like all great and true tragedy's of religion they are of symbolical form composed of many layers. It is most certain that the concept of Jesus's sacrifice did inherent the sacrificial lamb from the Old Testament as Christ is often depicted as a Lamb of God sent to the slaughter. He Sacrificed himself for the sake of others sins, to purify our existential existence by a total pessimistic suffering, to reaffirm existence by its meaninglessness. Than we also have the Sacrifice of the Individual, to spiritual revelation, as the sacrificial is a archetypal myth found among all corners of the world.

Jesus's death was that of both the carnal self sacrifice by assertions of meaning by suffering and so with this individual revelation and restoration to life by self-rejection.

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0126.htm#d0e1158

>>13218136
This was something hinted at throughout the entirety of the New Testament, the Son of Man shall carry his cross to become the Son of God.

>>13218172
>>13218278
I would not say it is a perversion but of allegorical nature. What is spiritual enlightenment if not the cleansing of sin?

>>13218408
That would be of a contradictory nature anon, to give something greater for a lesser in return is a sacrifice but a wronged sacrifice.

Rather I see it as containing an element of personal interest usually, such as nostalgia. In the case of Chris it is the rejection of the individual for that of the Collective, the sacrificial for that of the Greater good.

>>13218447
>I am not happy with your distinction. Supposing sacrifice entails death: in any ritual sacrifice, it is not the performer of the sacrifice who is killed, but an arbitrary victim. By your definition, the priest has sacrificed nothing, and only the victim has sacrificed anything. But in any case the reward goes to the priest and his people, and not to the victim.
That is because it is the sacrifice of the individual to that of the greater good, to that of the collective self.

>>13223423

TYPICAL JUDAIZED MORBID LOGIC.

>>13222672

he's saying that the duality of his status as man and as god was reduced to something singular. your whole tangent on how he struggled precisely shows that he needed to reconcile the two aspects of himself

>>13223527

CHRISTIANITY IS HEROICAL, NOT SACRIFICIALISTIC, AND SELFABNEGATIVE AND PERSONALISTICAL, NOT ANTINDIVIDUALISTIC/COLLECTIVISTIC.

SACRIFICIALISM IS EVIL AND TYPICALLY JEWISH; NEGATION OF INDIVIDUALITY, IN PRO OF THE IMPERSONAL COLLECTIVE, IS EVIL, AND LOGICALLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY.

>>13223611
>CHRISTIANITY IS HEROICAL, NOT SACRIFICIALISTIC, AND SELFABNEGATIVE AND PERSONALISTICAL, NOT ANTINDIVIDUALISTIC/COLLECTIVISTIC.
Of course but this thread still runs deep within Christianity, by saying what I said it does not negate the individual but rather uplifts his importance.

>SACRIFICIALISM IS EVIL AND TYPICALLY JEWISH; NEGATION OF INDIVIDUALITY, IN PRO OF THE IMPERSONAL COLLECTIVE, IS EVIL, AND LOGICALLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Yea anon no it isn't, to Self sacrifice for the greater good is not Evil. For a selfish race such as the Jews this would be the antithesis to their mentality.

One must aim for a balance between the Collective and the Individual for one needs the other. The human life is of the greatest value and that is why the collective is even more so valuable.

As Hitler once said something along these lines: "Your race is the most valuable object in your possession".

>>13223654

1. YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN; YOUR LOGIC IS JUDEOCHRISTIAN.

2. YOU SEEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF HEROISM, AND SACRIFICE, OF INDIVIDUALITY, AND EGOISM, OF TOTALITY, AND COLLECTIVITY, OR OF GOOD, AND EVIL, FOR THAT MATTER.

>>13223681
>1. YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN; YOUR LOGIC IS JUDEOCHRISTIAN.
Yes anon I am a Christian and anon stop with the caps they were only necessary to your original post outlining your argument.

>2. YOU SEEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF HEROISM, AND SACRIFICE, OF INDIVIDUALITY, AND EGOISM, OF TOTALITY, AND COLLECTIVITY, OR OF GOOD, AND EVIL, FOR THAT MATTER.

I can anon, I am simply stating what is present within the particular myth of Christ's sacrifice. Please explain to me.

As well you must remember we are both Aryans tied by blood and this is our creed.

wow so edgy
>was a sacrifice a sacrifice
hmm never thought about it that way before. am i smart now?

>>13223749
We are debating the definition of the sacrifice anon.

>>13223492

None of this is Scriptural, most of it not even Doctrinal.

>>13223511

What is a house divided against itself if not Ireland?

>>13223654

You are a Pauline Antichrist.

Let us consider the anatomy of a sacrifice:
1) a deity is to be freshly appeased
2) a victim is chosen, typically a helpless one such as a child, young virgin, animal, or prisoner
3) the victim as well as the priest are ritually purified through elaborate magical techniques
4) the killing is finally carried out
5) typically, signs are sought after once the victim has been killed to discover the efficacy of the sacrifice

Now, I have to ask: what does all this have to do with the modern notion of "sacrifice", as in giving one's life for another, etc.? If I accused modern institutions as involving real sacrifice, i.e., the ritual slaughter of individuals for the sake of a deity or power, I would be suspected of bringing up conspiracies. But then it is ok to say that a soldier sacrificed himself (notice: I cannot say "was sacrificed"--this would sound too sinister). The implication here is that "self-sacrifice", so called, is acceptable, whereas real sacrifice (the killing of one by another) is barbaric. What then, is "self-sacrifice"? Presumably, in such a case the individual would act both as the priest and the victim, ritually slaughtering himself to appease the gods so as to renew societal order and health with his blood. But this is not at all what we mean when we say "self-sacrifice", because such an idea is quite dark.

What does it mean, then, to forfeit one's life for another? Can this rightly be called sacrifice? I believe it is all a matter of perspective, that is to say, a matter of how the saved party looks at their savior. If the saved believes that the savior's death was necessary, that he and no other was the "chosen" victim, who "must" die for our troubles, and that none of us could die in his stead; this then seems to harken back to sacrificial logic, i.e., that his blood was required for us to "be saved" from his or some other's (or perhaps even our own) wrath. If, on the other hand, we reject all this, regarding it as a disgrace to think, either that blood had to be spilled in order to satisfy a tyrannical deity, or in order for us to live out our lives in a comfort disallowed to the sacrificial victims, on borrowed time, as it were, then what did the savior die for? Was his death not in vain if it was not required, or worse, freely given? Are we not to think ourselves like children incapable of fending for ourselves, of dying alongside our savior, not to nourish the soil of a people with blood and ash, but as a consequence of our steadfast commitment to the good?

If we reject the sacrificial logic, and say that there is no deity whose favor continually requires fresh blood, whether this deity by liberty or Moloch, then I can see no place for death in the considerations of the non-sacrificial hero in determining his actions. If I fix myself to right rather than wrong, the meaning of death is abolished, and I act the same whether I die or not. Sacrificial logic on the other hand, requires death.

>>13225510
>sacrificial logic requires
I don't think it requires so much as 'leads' to death. When Christ says 'take up your cross (your burden, your duty) and follow me (whose burden is otherwise light!)' he essentially comnands endeavour to do what's right in all things. Sacrificial logic only comes into play with the realization that if one endeavours to be honest with oneself on all occasions, and follows one's lights in all subsequent actions, one will surely forfeit what's considered the best things in life, and ultimately one's life itself by the great offense one will cause. I haven't thought of Bonhoeffer in awhile.. but check out The Costs of Discipleship.

>>13225838
Correct. The word for self-sacrifice is matyrdom.

>>13225849
*martyrdom

>>13225838
What I mean is, taking up one's cross does not necessitate death; we may die because of our commitment to God or we may not. We should not vainly seek martyrdom at the cost of reason, otherwise we are suicidal and this is surely a grave sin. Sacrifice, on the other hand, in the real sense of the term, necessitates death; the victim must die and his blood must be spilled, as though death were the only measure of goodness, and not good itself. If Christianity is a sacrificial religion, what are Christians but Kamikazees who are only glorified in death? There is really no possibility of a Kingdom of Heaven, then, since martyrdom always requires evil to ennoble it through persecution. Can Christianity exist without persecution? If not then it requires death, just like any heathen god; even like any worldly kingdom.

>>13225942
>does not necessitate death
Correct. I think what's missed here is the central version of sacrifice on which Christ-as-sacrifice is based- that of the scapegoat, which isn't killed but driven out of the community into the desert where it is *presumed* that it will die- of exposure, of thirst, or of the weight of the community's sins the which it has been charged. ..There are classical human correlates in Romulus and Remus, or among the Greeks (Trojans) in Paris, each of whom perhaps ironically is saved (two out of three at any rate) and for whatever further terrestrial purposes..
But of course the GOAT itsef may not die; the worldly presumption is that he must, however, and that's where speculation stops this side of myth in times prior to the New Testament.

>>13226321
Oedipus comes to mind. Christ bearing a sword begins to attain a little clarity. At issue isn't what is 'willed' so much as what must be given circumstances. That freedom of will should be bound up in such a skien of fate! The only way out? Yes or no. That's it, the grand sum of all choosing! Without 'no' there can be no 'freedom' despite the ONLY real choice being 'yes'..
And yes of course means faith and a reliance on providence, or grace.
Choose madness, frens!

>>13223611
>>13223681
Stop screaming in all caps you pseudo-gnostic faggot

>>13225090
It need not be for this same message to be contained within that of the Christian philosophy.

>>13225102
Nothing else kek.

>>13225113
Explain anon, we are all Aryan's.

>>13225510
It most definitely contains such contents of the traditional religious sacrifice but I would not say it is the whole of it. But what is Jesus if not the perfect sacrifice? The pure? More pure than an child or animal. And so sacrificial logic does apply.

This thread belongs on /his/ (possibly /x/ if you want bad answers) stop making this on /lit/ please

>>13227728
Lad. History won't tell us whether Jesus' death was a sacrifice. That is really left up to interpretation of a, wait for it, text.

Bump