Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Killing the Shepherd to Save the Sheep
Christianity’s primary doctrine, that of Salvation and Forgiveness of Sins through the Death of Jesus, I contend is not based on any actual metaphysical Truth, but is based upon a metaphor that doesn’t actually follow through.
Paul envisioned the Murder of Jesus as some essential Saving Sacrifice, in the order of the Passover Sacrifice of the Lamb. Of course, Paul, as a Pharisee, had been active in bringing about this ‘sacrifice’ of Christ, and so he was very much interested in demonstrating that this Murder had not only been useful but laudatory. But Christ had never spoken of himself as a Sheep, but as the Good Shepherd. Well, it certainly doesn’t save the Sheep if they turn on their Shepherd and tear him to shreds, as that only afterwards exposes them to the Wolves. Yes, Jesus once spoke of a Shepherd giving his Life for his Sheep, but then we arrive at the same denouement, that the Sheep are subsequently left without a Savior. And then there is the vast moral and ethical difference between the Shepherd falling prey to the Wolves while standing guard over his Sheep, compared to the bazaar event of being killed by His own Sheep, viciously turning upon Him. And then we have to remember that the Messiah was killed not because the Court of the Pharisees had actually proposed this concept of Salvation, acknowledging the Holiness of Christ, and anticipating the effects of a Divine Sacrifice. No. They saw the Rise of a Messianic King as a threat to their influence. Remember, that since Jesus was 12 years old and correcting Pharisees in the Temple, they had resented and hated the Young Man. When it became clear that He had Messianic Pretensions, and that He had a credible following and a growing popularity, he was murdered only so that the Pharisees and Herod could keep their Jobs and protect their own self interests. It is sadly ridiculous to suppose that such a cynical and jaded Murder could be caste in the light of a Religious Sacrament, but that is what the Christian World believes.
So we need to ask ourselves whether a Sheep can ethically lay claim to a Salvation predicated upon either their participation in or condoning of the Murder of their Shepherd? Not hardly!
Then there is the problem, when moving from the Metaphor to the Reality. Christ was not a Sheep… not a Sacrificial Lamb. And He would have had to be. Why? Well, because at the time of Abraham and Isaac, God had determined that there would no longer be any Human Sacrifices… or Abraham determined that way and God acceded. What they say happened is that God had told Abraham to Sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment changed his Divine Mind and had Abraham substitute of goat instead. But sometimes the truth can be found better if the story is told with just a slightly different twist. The way I see it is that it was probably a Test. And Abraham Passed. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham told God to think again, and that such a severe and drastic request would no longer be acceptable to Mankind – that Absolute Righteousness must take precedence even over what must sometimes be the Arbitrary Whims of Divinity. Well, Good. God approved of Abraham’s demonstration of a solid moral center, and from that time on, Human Sacrifices would no longer be acceptable or expected.
So how is it that Paul, a Jew, and every Christian who pretends familiarity with the Bible, including the Old Testament, how is it that they can completely disregard that Pivotal Biblical Event that delivered Humanity from the severity and barbarity of Human Sacrifice. Do people not pay attention when they read? And in listening to Paul, do they accept everything without the least bit of evaluation? Yes, if Paul was another Christ, or even just a Saint. But when one reads the Bible carefully, one finds not one single solitary miracle attributed to Paul. Oh, yes, he shouted at a little old man in Crete until the poor old guy had a stroke. Hardly a miracle. And then once when a young man fell from a third floor window… not more than 10 meters… the young man who obviously had the wind knocked out of himself, stirred and got back up while a group of guys came running on over. Paul, one of the many bystanders, had the presence of mind to claim it as a personal miracle. Well, that hardly qualifies as being in the same league with healing the blind, healing lepers, feeding 5000 out of a single lunch bag, walking on water and raising the dead – all miracles that have been copied by many a true Saint… but not by Paul. So why is Paul allowed any credit?
I could see it if Paul had made any sense, but his theology and history are flawed, and even his metaphors do not follow. The conclusion we can arrive at is obvious, but not very charitable, and that is that Paul’s success depends upon the stupidity of all who believe him, and that is the Entire Christian Establishment.
Christianity’s primary doctrine, that of Salvation and Forgiveness of Sins through the Death of Jesus, I contend is not based on any actual metaphysical Truth, but is based upon a metaphor that doesn’t actually follow through.
Paul envisioned the Murder of Jesus as some essential Saving Sacrifice, in the order of the Passover Sacrifice of the Lamb. Of course, Paul, as a Pharisee, had been active in bringing about this ‘sacrifice’ of Christ, and so he was very much interested in demonstrating that this Murder had not only been useful but laudatory. But Christ had never spoken of himself as a Sheep, but as the Good Shepherd. Well, it certainly doesn’t save the Sheep if they turn on their Shepherd and tear him to shreds, as that only afterwards exposes them to the Wolves. Yes, Jesus once spoke of a Shepherd giving his Life for his Sheep, but then we arrive at the same denouement, that the Sheep are subsequently left without a Savior. And then there is the vast moral and ethical difference between the Shepherd falling prey to the Wolves while standing guard over his Sheep, compared to the bazaar event of being killed by His own Sheep, viciously turning upon Him. And then we have to remember that the Messiah was killed not because the Court of the Pharisees had actually proposed this concept of Salvation, acknowledging the Holiness of Christ, and anticipating the effects of a Divine Sacrifice. No. They saw the Rise of a Messianic King as a threat to their influence. Remember, that since Jesus was 12 years old and correcting Pharisees in the Temple, they had resented and hated the Young Man. When it became clear that He had Messianic Pretensions, and that He had a credible following and a growing popularity, he was murdered only so that the Pharisees and Herod could keep their Jobs and protect their own self interests. It is sadly ridiculous to suppose that such a cynical and jaded Murder could be caste in the light of a Religious Sacrament, but that is what the Christian World believes.
So we need to ask ourselves whether a Sheep can ethically lay claim to a Salvation predicated upon either their participation in or condoning of the Murder of their Shepherd? Not hardly!
Then there is the problem, when moving from the Metaphor to the Reality. Christ was not a Sheep… not a Sacrificial Lamb. And He would have had to be. Why? Well, because at the time of Abraham and Isaac, God had determined that there would no longer be any Human Sacrifices… or Abraham determined that way and God acceded. What they say happened is that God had told Abraham to Sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment changed his Divine Mind and had Abraham substitute of goat instead. But sometimes the truth can be found better if the story is told with just a slightly different twist. The way I see it is that it was probably a Test. And Abraham Passed. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham told God to think again, and that such a severe and drastic request would no longer be acceptable to Mankind – that Absolute Righteousness must take precedence even over what must sometimes be the Arbitrary Whims of Divinity. Well, Good. God approved of Abraham’s demonstration of a solid moral center, and from that time on, Human Sacrifices would no longer be acceptable or expected.
So how is it that Paul, a Jew, and every Christian who pretends familiarity with the Bible, including the Old Testament, how is it that they can completely disregard that Pivotal Biblical Event that delivered Humanity from the severity and barbarity of Human Sacrifice. Do people not pay attention when they read? And in listening to Paul, do they accept everything without the least bit of evaluation? Yes, if Paul was another Christ, or even just a Saint. But when one reads the Bible carefully, one finds not one single solitary miracle attributed to Paul. Oh, yes, he shouted at a little old man in Crete until the poor old guy had a stroke. Hardly a miracle. And then once when a young man fell from a third floor window… not more than 10 meters… the young man who obviously had the wind knocked out of himself, stirred and got back up while a group of guys came running on over. Paul, one of the many bystanders, had the presence of mind to claim it as a personal miracle. Well, that hardly qualifies as being in the same league with healing the blind, healing lepers, feeding 5000 out of a single lunch bag, walking on water and raising the dead – all miracles that have been copied by many a true Saint… but not by Paul. So why is Paul allowed any credit?
I could see it if Paul had made any sense, but his theology and history are flawed, and even his metaphors do not follow. The conclusion we can arrive at is obvious, but not very charitable, and that is that Paul’s success depends upon the stupidity of all who believe him, and that is the Entire Christian Establishment.
