The Devil had a few names in the bible and one of them was Azazel, who was a goat-demon;
Azazel and the Se'irim
Azazel is the chief of the Se'irim, or goat-demons, who haunted the desert and to whom most primitive Semitic (most likely non-Hebrew) tribes offered sacrifices. The Old Testament states that Jeroboam appointed priests for the Se'irim. But Josiah destroyed the places of their worship, as the practices accompanying this worship involved copulation of women with goats.
The Se'irim, or hairy demons as the word itself means, are mentioned in Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15 as "goat-demons". Isaiah 34:14 says that the "goat-demons" greet each other amoung the ruins of Edom along with Lilith and other wild beasts.
The name 'Azazel' may be derived from 'azaz' and 'el' meaning 'strong one of God.' It is thought that Azazel may have been derived from the Canaanite god, 'Asiz, who caused the sun to burn strongly. It has also been theorized that he has been influenced by the Egyptian god, Seth.
According to the Book of Enoch, which brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located on Mount Hermon, a gathering-place of demons from of old (Enoch xiii.; compare Brandt, "Mandäische Theologie," 1889, p. 38). Azazel is represented in the Book of Enoch as one of the leaders of the rebellious Watchers in the time preceding the flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dying the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity; until at last he was, at the Lord's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Duduael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever (Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4-6, liv. 5, lxxxviii. 1; see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." 1864, pp. 196–204).
“ The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin. ”
There is much popular literature that explores the concept of the Holy Grail. It is not altogether clear that it refers to the cup used at the Last Supper, and thanks to books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and [can't recall the name of the recent best seller], the idea is now popular that the Holy Grail was the actual bloodline of Jesus, passed on through a son He had with one of the Mary's. Not in the Bible, certainly, but who ever said or thought that it was?
Angels, the devil and hell are all in the Bible. Get serious. Purgatory might be a stretch - there are a couple references to being punished until the debt is repaid and some such, but it does have Biblical origins.
The chasm between Catholicism and today's fundamentalist Christians is that Catholics believe the canon of theology INCLUDES the traditions that came down from Christ and the apostles, AS WELL AS the Scriptures themselves. In fact, it is only by the inspired traditions that the early Church "knew" which books to include in the Bible and which to discard.
My view of "this is My Body; this is My Blood," is that Christ was institutionalizing his own "human sacrifice" and making it available to the Church after his death on the cross - without having to deal with the messy details. It is more than a remembrance (which most Protestant sects re-enact in one way or another), but less than a physical replication.
The one point I have not been able to clarify is whether, at the time of Christ, when they "sacrificed" an animal, did they eat it or allow it to be destroyed by the fire? I believe - but do not know - that they ate it later, and if that is the case, then conceptually the Holy Eucharist becomes more understandable. Christ is the sacrificial "lamb," and the Church can re-participate in the sacrifice of the Cross and obtain the atonement through consuming the sanctified bread and/or wine - just as the Jews did when the "sacrificed" a bird or other animal. Christ told his followers to "do this in memory of me," which the Catholic Church purports to do.
"Truth" in the context of the Bible is different from "truth" in the context of a criminal trial.
The stories of Genesis, for example, are mainly allegorical, and are passed on to teach a lesson. They may have some origins in historical events, but they might not. They are not intended to be taken literally, so to say that they are not "true" is true enough. But it shouldn't matter.
Historical books are "true" but may not be entire accurate, since the authors may not have personally seen what happened, or they may have wanted to make a point. Maybe they were focusing on things that a contemporary observer would find odd or unimportant. Did God separate the Reed Sea so that the Hebrews could pass through, then cause the Pharoah's soldiers to drown in it? Maybe not. Maybe they just got stuck in the mud with their chariots, but that didn't make for a very exciting tale so the author enhanced it a bit. Did Christ feed 5,000 people with a couple loaves of bread and a few fish? Or did people just pull out food that they had hidden under their tunics and share it?
Hell, we don't even know for sure whether Babe Ruth "called his shot" in the 1932 World Series, and 30,000 people saw it happen.
You don't think the Sermon on the Mount happened? It's ascribed to a historical site; Karne Hittim, and preached in a traditionally Rabbinic way. Nothing mystical is attached to it; it's a quite ordinary but universal truth; done in a typical manner.
What part is out of context?
loCAtek wrote:You don't think the Sermon on the Mount happened? It's ascribed to a historical site; Karne Hittim, and preached in a traditionally Rabbinic way. Nothing mystical is attached to it; it's a quite ordinary but universal truth; done in a typical manner.
What part is out of context?
The part where the context for the commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself is not the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), because it is part of a completely different discourse (Matthew 22:34-40).
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
It was an accurate representation of race relations in the UK in the 1970's.
Good grief. I don't think I have thought of that show since the 70s. I'll have to have another look at it and remind myself how far we have progressed in comedy since then.
First black girl I ever knocked one out over. (Though unfortunately not literally.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Regardless of who believes what, we ought to keep the terminology straight. Transubstantiation is not the idea that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.
That misunderstanding has become so common that even some dictionaries repeat it. Much to their shame.
The idea that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus is the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is a doctrine of how that transformation occurs.
And the former does not require the latter. It is perfectly possible to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist while at the same time not believing in transubstantiation. The Lutherans do that. The Anglicans (Episcopalians in the US) do that. And they are hardly out of the mainstream.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
loCAtek wrote:You don't think the Sermon on the Mount happened? It's ascribed to a historical site; Karne Hittim, and preached in a traditionally Rabbinic way. Nothing mystical is attached to it; it's a quite ordinary but universal truth; done in a typical manner.
What part is out of context?
The part where the context for the commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself is not the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), because it is part of a completely different discourse (Matthew 22:34-40).
Sorry, I went with the quintessential 'Love they neighbor', which is present in both;
Matthew 5-7:
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect
Matthew 22:34-40
New International Version (NIV)
The Greatest Commandment
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Andrew D wrote:Regardless of who believes what, we ought to keep the terminology straight. Transubstantiation is not the idea that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.
That misunderstanding has become so common that even some dictionaries repeat it. Much to their shame.
The idea that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus is the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is a doctrine of how that transformation occurs.
And the former does not require the latter. It is perfectly possible to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist while at the same time not believing in transubstantiation. The Lutherans do that. The Anglicans (Episcopalians in the US) do that. And they are hardly out of the mainstream.
Thanks for the clarification.
It's still figurative...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
