The Gospels always speak only of the sacrifices reject them and deny them any positive value. Jesus opposed to the Pharisaic ritualism a sentence antisacrificial of Hosea: "Go , then, to learn the meaning of this word:" I desire mercy, not sacrifice . (Matt. 9, 13). In another passage antisacrificial there is much more than just a moral precept, there is a provision of the sacrificial cult and at the same time a revelation of his role, now finished and lapsed " When offering your gift at the altar if there remember that your brother has the resentment against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go first be reconciled to your brother; back then, and then submit your bid . (Mt. 5, 23-34).
The interpretation of the Passion in key sacrifice, which generally give the commentators of the Palace, not the least adherence to the Gospel text. There is nothing in the Gospels suggests that Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The steps invoked to justify the sacrifice of the Passion conception can and must be interpreted outside of the sacrifice. In the Gospels of the Passion there is indeed presented as an act that brings salvation to humanity, but in any event as a sacrifice. We must recall that only the size of the redemptive passion and abandon that sacrifice. The sacrificial reading of the Passion should be criticized and declared the most paradoxical and most colossal mistake of the whole theology of Christian history, and the one at the same time reveals the impotence of humanity's radical challenge to the violent foundations of their society, even when both of you expressed in more explicit.
Of all the reversals that the Church has imposed on humanity, none is more serious than the reading of the sacrificial death of Jesus in key sacrificial reading of the Gospel text because it subverts the original meaning. Reject the sacrificial reading means taking an anthropological perspective reveals that the text in its original primitive, freeing it from the hypothesis of the sin offering. Thanks for reading sacrificial have existed for twenty centuries, what is called Christianity, a culture that is founded as all cultures, mythological forms based on violence. Christianity is guilty of having produced the and misunderstanding of the Gospel text, based on this misunderstanding hermeneutic of cultural forms have repeated and even sacrifice created a society that reflects the vision of sacrifice, and that the Gospel instead of fighting.
Any sacrificial reading is incompatible with the message of the Gospels, which show no uncertain terms the role that the sacrifice was and is still in all cultures and religions. The revelation of the kind of sacrificial violence highlighted in the gospel makes it quite inconceivable to compromise the Gospel with the sacrifice / violence: such a concept can not conceal that, once again, the true meaning of the Passion and the function that the Gospels attribute to : subverting the sacrifice.
At a superficial reading of some Gospel passages, reading does not appear to meet the sacrificial major obstacles, represented eg. by violent conception of divinity which shines in the Apocalypse. In fact in the Gospels there is nothing incompatible with a reading is not sacrificial. Even those elements whose presence seems contrary to the "spirit of the Gospel" as the apocalyptic theme, can be explained only by assuming the non-sacrificial interpretation, rather than a sacrificial type. " Contrary to popular belief, there is never any contradiction between the letter and spirit, the spirit to achieve surrender enough really, just read the text without adding or removing anything." (Girard).
To confirm the validity of non-sacrificial reading it must be understood that what the Gospels say nothing about God authorizes the inevitable assumption that reading comes sacrificial the Epistle to the Hebrews . This postulate has been formulated by medieval theology and presupposes a need for sacrifice of the Son by the Father. God not only claims a new victim, but claims the victim's most precious and dear, his own son. Reading is not sacrificial effectively demonstrates the absurdity of such a need. This postulate is more successful than anything else, probably to discredit Christianity in the modern world in the eyes of men of good will, that is for men who do not believe, by their actions and their daily behavior, they will the Father.
In fact, the need for sacrificial appears unacceptable to the modern world and contributes significantly to the formation of that feeling of repulsion and contempt towards Christianity "domesticated" touted by the Church. A Christianity based on the Sacrifice is intolerable and has become the stumbling block for excellence in a world quite rebellious towards the sacrificial, and not without justification, even if this uprising is also steeped in sacrificial elements that so far no one has managed to eradicate. A God who requires the sacrifice of his son is a violent God, a god that accepts violence as recorded in the natural order of things. In fact, no step to give the Gospel empowers divinity the least violence.
In contrast, in the Gospels is presented to us a God foreign to any violence. If traces remain in the Old Testament conception of a vengeful God, because of incompleteness of Revelation, the Gospels explicitly deny such a conception, bringing to completion the work of the Old Testament. The basic text, the one that presents God as a stranger to all revenge, desire, therefore, to see people give up the revenge is Matt. 5, 44-45: " You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, so you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust .
Besides the above-mentioned text should also be aware of those who deny God's responsibility in illness, disease, the various disasters that killed innocent victims, and especially in the conflicts. Immemorial practice and unconscious of all primitive religions is explicitly rejected here, that is to attribute to the deity responsible for all evil in the world. The commentators who adopt this interpretation are often accused of building a remote and abstract deity, impassive to the fate men. In fact, in the Gospel text does not have to deal with an indifferent God, but with a God who wants to be known and may be known to men only by obtaining from them what Jesus offers them, that a reconciliation without mental reservations and without sacrificial intermediary, a reconciliation that would allow God to reveal what is, for the first time in human history.
We can therefore say that the insurmountable obstacle to the full revelation of God to men is the sacrificial mentality that permeates humanity and that is the foundation of all its cultural forms. L ' atheism of the modern world is in this perspective, fundamentally incompatible with a non-sacrificial reading. It, because of its skepticism toward any spiritual dimension and transcendent, is unable to reveal the mechanisms of violence, indeed, helps to perpetuate them. Denying the existence of divinity means in fact deny that behind the foundation of the Gospel revelation victimary there is a nonviolent deity. And 'the god who, through his son, in the Gospels reveals the founding violence of all human cultures.
To justify the sacrificial reading is obliged to postulate, between the Father and the Son, a sort of secret understanding that relate to the sacrifice in question: ask the Father to the Son to sacrifice and Children, obey this injunction. This idea is unsustainable incredible secret pact between the Father and the Son is explicitly contradicted by some passages in the Gospel of John: I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know what his master is doing; I call you friends, because all I heard from my Father I have made known to you (John 15, 15).
Here we are faced with the erosion of the sacrificial readings, which have so far prevented the subversive power of the Gospel text to take root among men. The non-sacrificial reading is higher than any interpretation that evokes the sacrifice, because it is the only which reveals the mechanism of violence.
The interpretation of the Passion in key sacrifice, which generally give the commentators of the Palace, not the least adherence to the Gospel text. There is nothing in the Gospels suggests that Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The steps invoked to justify the sacrifice of the Passion conception can and must be interpreted outside of the sacrifice. In the Gospels of the Passion there is indeed presented as an act that brings salvation to humanity, but in any event as a sacrifice. We must recall that only the size of the redemptive passion and abandon that sacrifice. The sacrificial reading of the Passion should be criticized and declared the most paradoxical and most colossal mistake of the whole theology of Christian history, and the one at the same time reveals the impotence of humanity's radical challenge to the violent foundations of their society, even when both of you expressed in more explicit.
Of all the reversals that the Church has imposed on humanity, none is more serious than the reading of the sacrificial death of Jesus in key sacrificial reading of the Gospel text because it subverts the original meaning. Reject the sacrificial reading means taking an anthropological perspective reveals that the text in its original primitive, freeing it from the hypothesis of the sin offering. Thanks for reading sacrificial have existed for twenty centuries, what is called Christianity, a culture that is founded as all cultures, mythological forms based on violence. Christianity is guilty of having produced the and misunderstanding of the Gospel text, based on this misunderstanding hermeneutic of cultural forms have repeated and even sacrifice created a society that reflects the vision of sacrifice, and that the Gospel instead of fighting.
Any sacrificial reading is incompatible with the message of the Gospels, which show no uncertain terms the role that the sacrifice was and is still in all cultures and religions. The revelation of the kind of sacrificial violence highlighted in the gospel makes it quite inconceivable to compromise the Gospel with the sacrifice / violence: such a concept can not conceal that, once again, the true meaning of the Passion and the function that the Gospels attribute to : subverting the sacrifice.
At a superficial reading of some Gospel passages, reading does not appear to meet the sacrificial major obstacles, represented eg. by violent conception of divinity which shines in the Apocalypse. In fact in the Gospels there is nothing incompatible with a reading is not sacrificial. Even those elements whose presence seems contrary to the "spirit of the Gospel" as the apocalyptic theme, can be explained only by assuming the non-sacrificial interpretation, rather than a sacrificial type. " Contrary to popular belief, there is never any contradiction between the letter and spirit, the spirit to achieve surrender enough really, just read the text without adding or removing anything." (Girard).
To confirm the validity of non-sacrificial reading it must be understood that what the Gospels say nothing about God authorizes the inevitable assumption that reading comes sacrificial the Epistle to the Hebrews . This postulate has been formulated by medieval theology and presupposes a need for sacrifice of the Son by the Father. God not only claims a new victim, but claims the victim's most precious and dear, his own son. Reading is not sacrificial effectively demonstrates the absurdity of such a need. This postulate is more successful than anything else, probably to discredit Christianity in the modern world in the eyes of men of good will, that is for men who do not believe, by their actions and their daily behavior, they will the Father.
In fact, the need for sacrificial appears unacceptable to the modern world and contributes significantly to the formation of that feeling of repulsion and contempt towards Christianity "domesticated" touted by the Church. A Christianity based on the Sacrifice is intolerable and has become the stumbling block for excellence in a world quite rebellious towards the sacrificial, and not without justification, even if this uprising is also steeped in sacrificial elements that so far no one has managed to eradicate. A God who requires the sacrifice of his son is a violent God, a god that accepts violence as recorded in the natural order of things. In fact, no step to give the Gospel empowers divinity the least violence.
In contrast, in the Gospels is presented to us a God foreign to any violence. If traces remain in the Old Testament conception of a vengeful God, because of incompleteness of Revelation, the Gospels explicitly deny such a conception, bringing to completion the work of the Old Testament. The basic text, the one that presents God as a stranger to all revenge, desire, therefore, to see people give up the revenge is Matt. 5, 44-45: " You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, so you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust .
Besides the above-mentioned text should also be aware of those who deny God's responsibility in illness, disease, the various disasters that killed innocent victims, and especially in the conflicts. Immemorial practice and unconscious of all primitive religions is explicitly rejected here, that is to attribute to the deity responsible for all evil in the world. The commentators who adopt this interpretation are often accused of building a remote and abstract deity, impassive to the fate men. In fact, in the Gospel text does not have to deal with an indifferent God, but with a God who wants to be known and may be known to men only by obtaining from them what Jesus offers them, that a reconciliation without mental reservations and without sacrificial intermediary, a reconciliation that would allow God to reveal what is, for the first time in human history.
We can therefore say that the insurmountable obstacle to the full revelation of God to men is the sacrificial mentality that permeates humanity and that is the foundation of all its cultural forms. L ' atheism of the modern world is in this perspective, fundamentally incompatible with a non-sacrificial reading. It, because of its skepticism toward any spiritual dimension and transcendent, is unable to reveal the mechanisms of violence, indeed, helps to perpetuate them. Denying the existence of divinity means in fact deny that behind the foundation of the Gospel revelation victimary there is a nonviolent deity. And 'the god who, through his son, in the Gospels reveals the founding violence of all human cultures.
To justify the sacrificial reading is obliged to postulate, between the Father and the Son, a sort of secret understanding that relate to the sacrifice in question: ask the Father to the Son to sacrifice and Children, obey this injunction. This idea is unsustainable incredible secret pact between the Father and the Son is explicitly contradicted by some passages in the Gospel of John: I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know what his master is doing; I call you friends, because all I heard from my Father I have made known to you (John 15, 15).
Here we are faced with the erosion of the sacrificial readings, which have so far prevented the subversive power of the Gospel text to take root among men. The non-sacrificial reading is higher than any interpretation that evokes the sacrifice, because it is the only which reveals the mechanism of violence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment