I was just reading Hebrews chapter 2 and this verse stuck in my head. One of those sticky readings where you feel like you're not understanding what you're reading so it churns about in your mental regions repeating itself. I started at this verse and read it over and over again for some reason and then something clicked.
I have been wondering about Communion for a while now. "This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Seems gruesome. I mean why have sacrifice at all? Why do tribes the world over feel the need to sacrifice to some deity so that their sins will be forgiven, or mercy be shown, or the sun rise, or crops be fruitful? Let’s assume:
(a) - There is a metaphysical existence beyond the physical one we know about.
(b) - There is purpose to our lives.
There seems to be this void in life that desires learning, or contributing, or being a part of something; regardless of that something having been identified or not. It strikes me that there has to be a consciousness in order to attain (b). So (b) wouldn't really be a problem, or question, or void, if it weren't for our consciousness. So:
(c) - There must be consciousness for (b) to be found.
[ a bit of © explained; I say “found” as it pertains to “life” because I am talking about the actions, intuitions, conclusions and whatnot of Human beings; it is yet to be discovered if rocks have the same existential crises that we do. If one day we discover that earthquakes are what rocks do in order to satisfy this sense of bloodletting, so be it.]
Now, Humans have a tendency to want to be in control. I know I want to be in control of a situation and hate it when things go awry. People get sick and, "hodgepodge!" People get stabbed and, "Why the heck is this happening?!?!" People get evicted and, "this sucks.." Whatever "should be" train you're riding there is a dire sense of wrongness when it is derailed and death tells us this catastrophe is unavoidable. It's arguable then, that if (a) were to exist surely it must be trying to reinforce (b). This leads us to conclude that:
(d) - (a) has or has had some control in setting up © and it’s relationship to (b).
Losing control however seems to often be regarded as one of the best things for (c) to attain (b).
This seems to ring of (b) not only being a requirement in (c) but something beneficial. So if (a) seeks to point (c) towards the realization of (b) we can, I believe, safely conclude that (a) is not indifferent to us, but seeks our betterment. Like a teacher with their pupil, (a) has used (d) to initiate (c)'s attainment of (b). It feels safe to say:
(e) - (c) will return, or enter, or interact with (a) after death.
To what purpose are we to be improved upon if not (e). To that end death becomes to (c) not an end, but beginning or a change of state akin to moving from sleep to wakefulness.
Now that's a whole lot of backdrop for me reading Hebrews chapter 4. But it has a purpose. The verse that specifically stood out for me was 14:
Let's ignore the bit about the devil having the power of death for now as it gets a little deeper and I've yet to really think much about his place - as of now it's more or less just the required source of loss/suffering/death. What initially struck me probably wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for an earlier realization that sometimes translations are strange as anything. I don't know the source, but this is oooooooold language. I read stuff just two centuries old and get confused. Multiply that by ten. So a lot of things I've heard time and again are almost needlessly convoluted. That first part here is just saying I am born of my parents. Their blood and flesh made my blood and flesh. And it was this that suddenly hit me.
If (a) created death as the door that allows for (e) then it would make some kind of sense that (c)'s inherent desire to attain (b) would lead to blood sacrifice; knocking at the door of death as it were. Why would (a) implement such a thing then? Only if (e) exists and death is not as final as (c) feels it is. Of course the obvious, “WHAT?” for me is that if someone came to the conclusion of coming nearer to attaining (b) and “comuning” as it were with (a), why would that person not just shed their own blood? I imagine it would have something to do with our lacking (b) and the void of filthiness that it leaves in us. We would want something that isn’t dirty to go before (a) otherwise it would feel profane; our blood would feel inadequate as opposed to something pure. Something that didn’t have the vacuous pit as found in people.
My realization as it were: The communion is in one sense me reminding myself that I am not of this world. That while I HAVE blood and flesh, I am born of a new "blood and flesh" that is part of (a), and (e). In Mark 3:12 we have Jesus saying,
I have been wondering about Communion for a while now. "This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Seems gruesome. I mean why have sacrifice at all? Why do tribes the world over feel the need to sacrifice to some deity so that their sins will be forgiven, or mercy be shown, or the sun rise, or crops be fruitful? Let’s assume:
(a) - There is a metaphysical existence beyond the physical one we know about.
(b) - There is purpose to our lives.
There seems to be this void in life that desires learning, or contributing, or being a part of something; regardless of that something having been identified or not. It strikes me that there has to be a consciousness in order to attain (b). So (b) wouldn't really be a problem, or question, or void, if it weren't for our consciousness. So:
(c) - There must be consciousness for (b) to be found.
[ a bit of © explained; I say “found” as it pertains to “life” because I am talking about the actions, intuitions, conclusions and whatnot of Human beings; it is yet to be discovered if rocks have the same existential crises that we do. If one day we discover that earthquakes are what rocks do in order to satisfy this sense of bloodletting, so be it.]
Now, Humans have a tendency to want to be in control. I know I want to be in control of a situation and hate it when things go awry. People get sick and, "hodgepodge!" People get stabbed and, "Why the heck is this happening?!?!" People get evicted and, "this sucks.." Whatever "should be" train you're riding there is a dire sense of wrongness when it is derailed and death tells us this catastrophe is unavoidable. It's arguable then, that if (a) were to exist surely it must be trying to reinforce (b). This leads us to conclude that:
(d) - (a) has or has had some control in setting up © and it’s relationship to (b).
Losing control however seems to often be regarded as one of the best things for (c) to attain (b).
"The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"" - Nietzsche
This seems to ring of (b) not only being a requirement in (c) but something beneficial. So if (a) seeks to point (c) towards the realization of (b) we can, I believe, safely conclude that (a) is not indifferent to us, but seeks our betterment. Like a teacher with their pupil, (a) has used (d) to initiate (c)'s attainment of (b). It feels safe to say:
(e) - (c) will return, or enter, or interact with (a) after death.
To what purpose are we to be improved upon if not (e). To that end death becomes to (c) not an end, but beginning or a change of state akin to moving from sleep to wakefulness.
Now that's a whole lot of backdrop for me reading Hebrews chapter 4. But it has a purpose. The verse that specifically stood out for me was 14:
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
Let's ignore the bit about the devil having the power of death for now as it gets a little deeper and I've yet to really think much about his place - as of now it's more or less just the required source of loss/suffering/death. What initially struck me probably wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for an earlier realization that sometimes translations are strange as anything. I don't know the source, but this is oooooooold language. I read stuff just two centuries old and get confused. Multiply that by ten. So a lot of things I've heard time and again are almost needlessly convoluted. That first part here is just saying I am born of my parents. Their blood and flesh made my blood and flesh. And it was this that suddenly hit me.
If (a) created death as the door that allows for (e) then it would make some kind of sense that (c)'s inherent desire to attain (b) would lead to blood sacrifice; knocking at the door of death as it were. Why would (a) implement such a thing then? Only if (e) exists and death is not as final as (c) feels it is. Of course the obvious, “WHAT?” for me is that if someone came to the conclusion of coming nearer to attaining (b) and “comuning” as it were with (a), why would that person not just shed their own blood? I imagine it would have something to do with our lacking (b) and the void of filthiness that it leaves in us. We would want something that isn’t dirty to go before (a) otherwise it would feel profane; our blood would feel inadequate as opposed to something pure. Something that didn’t have the vacuous pit as found in people.
My realization as it were: The communion is in one sense me reminding myself that I am not of this world. That while I HAVE blood and flesh, I am born of a new "blood and flesh" that is part of (a), and (e). In Mark 3:12 we have Jesus saying,
“If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things”
That speaks to me that the flesh of blood of Christ is, in classic Biblical nature, both literal and metaphoric. Literal in that Jesus’s body was broken, and His blood was shed; metaphoric in that the Communion we partake in is indicative of a spiritual correlate. So, the door that is between (c) and (a)/(e) is now open because it's maker, (a), took on the ABILITY to die with, alongside, and for, (c).
How’s THAT for needlessly convoluted! :D Let me know if any of this sounds totally heinous or absurd or if I’m just real off the mark. It happens. I’ve been thinking about starting to write posts where I go through explaining how I found out I was wrong. That’s kind of where most of this comes from but maybe a more direct :I started thinking this way, read up on things, discovered I was wrong. Yay for learning!” +nathan
Love of pickles! Happy Merry Christmas Year!
How’s THAT for needlessly convoluted! :D Let me know if any of this sounds totally heinous or absurd or if I’m just real off the mark. It happens. I’ve been thinking about starting to write posts where I go through explaining how I found out I was wrong. That’s kind of where most of this comes from but maybe a more direct :I started thinking this way, read up on things, discovered I was wrong. Yay for learning!” +nathan
Love of pickles! Happy Merry Christmas Year!
No comments:
Post a Comment