|
|
October 22nd, 1957
Received by Dr Samuels
Washington D.C.
I am here, Jesus.
Tonight I wish to write on why it is that no blood, be it of man or beast,
has the efficacy of redeeming mankind of sin, as taught in some of the
churches.
This thought is at the apex of what is called the mass, as practiced
in the Catholic church, and is the basis for what is known as the communion
in other churches. This rite has no foundation in Judaism and it is written,
falsely, that it was I who instituted the ceremony at the Last Supper,
but the church likes to point to some unimportant incidents in the old
Scriptures as indicative of the future rite, which I shall explain as
having no relationship to the mass and simply a severe distortion of the
facts to accord with the church's views.
The church also states that the efficacy of the blood sacrifice is plainly
written in the Old Testament, and since that book is sacred and the word
of God, then it is factual, and beyond any doubt, that such a rite does
cleanse of sin. The statement referred to, of course, is that "the
life is in the blood," taken from the sacrificial
code in Leviticus. This statement, and what it really means, demands that
mankind should obtain the explanation its importance requires.
Worship of Deity through a blood sacrifice, dating from an era prior
to the dawn of our civilization, was quite widespread. It meant the placating
of angry gods and the letting loose of certain virtues which the blood,
especially of human beings, was supposed to possess. The barbarous peoples
of those days, living daily close to death by violent means, either through
warfare or in struggle with wild animals, were quick to observe the relationship
of shed blood and loss of life, and it was therefore not strange that
in time blood and life were thought of as being synonymous. Of course,
there were other ideas pertaining to the source of life, for it was also
noticed that there was no breathing in death, and some cultures entertained
the nation that life was in the breath. The important thing to remember
is that neither of these barbarian conceptions is sacred, but that they
were merely primitive attempts to understand the source of life.
The Hebrew people subscribed to the idea of the efficacy of blood simply
because it was widely accepted at the time and not because it was true
or sacred. And so practices based on this concept developed as a sociological
growth, divorced and separated completely from religion. Hence the Hebrews
spilled blood of animals on the ground, and made sure that meat for consumption
contained no blood, as prescribed in their daily laws.
The great contribution which the Hebrews made to the practice of the
blood sacrifice was the rejection of human sacrifice, as found in the
story of Abraham. This was a great humane advance, but the fact that animal
sacrifice was offered, as written in the Old Testament, did not make that
sacrifice sacred, nor did it make it in any way true that the shedding
of animal blood cleansed from sin. Then, as always, sin could only be
cleansed by a penitent soul seeking forgiveness in prayer to the Father.
The priestly class among the Hebrews was naturally in favor of retaining
these primitive views, not because they were true, because they were not,
but because it was in the perpetuation of these rites that priests made
their livelihood, for certain parts of the sacrificed animals were reserved
for the priests. Such a class, devoted to the religious instruction, purity
and ethical conduct of the people to whom they ministered, was to be encouraged,
of course, but it is not hard to see that in time this priestly class,
or many among that class, began to lose sight of the moral and ethical
standard of living in which they were supposed to guide the people, in
favor of those ritualistic activities to which they were the sole heirs
and which gave them in their own eyes a unique importance; and it is for
this reason, when the national life was destroyed by the Babylonian captivity,
that the religion, or, better said, the rituals connected with their religion
became dominant and all important. And it was thus that these priests
invested many of the old primitive Hebrew customs with the aura of religion
and sacredness. And after the return to Judea from Babylonia, the priests
and scribes rewrote many of the old stories to suit the fancy of the priestly
class, and thus it was that the brutal primitive concept of the blood
sacrifice of animals for sin was retained with such vigor by the priests,
as being vitally connected with their food, activities and importance.
The entire concept of the remission of sin through the shedding of blood
is therefore based on a crude primitive custom and is in no way sacred
or holy or the word of God as accepted blindly by the Catholic church,
whose mass is simply a continuation of this primitive concept.
The prophets of Israel and Judah, aware of the falsity of the sacrificial
system, attempted repeatedly to teach the people the religion of ethical
and moral conduct. For Micah,
in the days of Israel, declared that these things alone were necessary
to righteousness: to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with
God. And the psalmist said: "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest
not." Then said I: " Lo,
I come. I delight to do Thy Will." And other prophets, with sayings
coming from God's messengers, wrote in a similar way. I will stop now,
but I shall continue with this subject in my next sermon.
Jesus of the Bible
and
Master of the Celestial Heavens
|
|
