The Book of The Law Study Group 3.51

[Always Wondering]

I have been reading Liber 888 and trying to wrap my head around this sacrifice thing. I guess I was kind of hoping Crowley would help me get to some essoteric meaning of it all, but it appears that it was just something many of the ancients did, if not out of superstition, then to save thier own butts.

For Christians to argue that the Book of the Law is evil while thier Bible is the word of God is laughable to me. I know from experience that they are the ones that send their small children to Sunday School to learn from a "respected leader", that a parent had been willing to kill his child, because asked by "God". How evil is that? And it was a damn lucky thing people went around killing cute little lambs instead. Talk about fodder for therapy.


AW

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by Grigori

It's interesting to me that that this verse says Horus picks at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. This gives me the idea that is specifically the perspective of Christ while on the cross that should be considered, or at least the perspective that lead to the crucifixion (or appreciation of the crucifixion).

But which Jesus do you pick? The three Synoptics and John all present a different Jesus aimed at different audiences. Do we have to mash them altogether, contradictions and all, and bring them under one name? (Gemini again?)

The Jesus of Mark is like an apocalyptic prophet. And his death is one of abandonment, despair and bitter anguish.

The author of Matthew, who clearly plagiarised Mark, has a different angle and tries very hard to present Jesus and his actions as the fulfillment of the Old Testatment prophets. (Sometimes he tried a bit too hard. Did that butchered genealogy really fool any potential Jewish converts? And Jesus riding a donkey and a colt is a comical misreading of Zachariah 9:9 )

The author of Luke (Paul?) is preaching to gentiles. And although he also plagiarised Mark, his Jesus is a total chatterbox all the way to his final moments. The Jesus of Luke is wordy and verbose and full of confidence. In fact Luke's Jesus doesn't feel abandoned at all. He talks to his "Father" several times and appears to be in direct communion with him throughout the crucifixion and the events leading up to it.

John's Jesus is very different from the Synoptic Jesus. He's some sort of gnostic cosmic avatar who has existed from the beginning. Not only that John is determined to present Jesus as the Passover Lamb and fiddles with the timeline to make it happen! (In the three Synoptics Jesus celebrates the passover with the disciples - the famous last supper. But this doesn't happen in John because he brings the crucifixion forward and has Jesus killed on the same day the passover lambs are slaughtered.)

[LRichard]

Aeon418, excellent synopsis of the Synoptics and John regarding Jesus! Paul's Jesus is even further removed from the varied suggestions of his being an actual human being. To Paul, he was a supernal entity who conferred salvation on the "chosen" ones, an exremely Gnostic concept which paradoxically was adopted by many Protestants.

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by LRichard

Paul's Jesus is even further removed from the varied suggestions of his being an actual human being.

In my opinion Paul himself is completely removed. His version of Christianity is a totally different animal. For example it's baffling how you can have Matthew's Jesus being so strict about the observance of Jewish law side by side with Paul's condemnation of the same (Galatians 5:4). But then neither author would ever have guessed that their writings would have been assembled by later generations into a compilation (the Bible) and presented as a unified message.

[Aeon418]

What is the significance of Jesus death? Surely it's obvious, or is it?

Originally Posted by Mark 10:45

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

According to Mark the death of Jesus is an atonement for the sins of others. Supposedly sinful mankind is in debt to God. But Jesus, through an act of self-sacrifice, will pay off this debt and thereby redeem us.

For some reason Luke, who plagiarised Mark, does not include this rather important little detail in his gospel. But the author of Luke is also credited with the book of Acts where a surprise is waiting.

Originally Posted by Acts 2:36-38

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Acts 3:17-19

"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Hang on a minute! In Mark we are told Jesus is going to pay the bill for us. That's the whole point of his sacrifice, right? But in Acts Luke informs us that we are still up to our necks in debt (sin) and need to repent in order for this debt to be wiped out. Huh?