Did Jesus offer an alternative to Temple mediation?

[Elijah John]

Did Jesus offer his teachings as an alternative to Temple based, blood mediation to God?

Did he do this by teaching direct access to the Father?

Or by offering himself as a replacement to Temple, priestly mediation, i.e. as an alternative mediator to God?

[brianbbs67]

We have always had direct access to the Father. Despite what others tell. Just read the OT. There was no mediator there, unless the people asked for it. (Moses) Even then, direct access was available. I view Christ as more of an advocate then mediator. Its always good to have a Jewish lawyer, it seems.

[marco]

Did Jesus offer his teachings as an alternative to Temple based, blood mediation to God?

Did he do this by teaching direct access to the Father?

Or by offering himself as a replacement to Temple, priestly mediation, i.e. as an alternative mediator to God?

At no point did he suggest that he was the God to whom prayers should be offered. He suggested his teaching was the way towards God. Of course this might suggest that he was the unique way to God, but his offering of the Lord's Prayer tells us that he advocated direct access to God. He possibly meant that what he was selling was sufficient for people to know and find God, without unnecessary rules and regulations. It would then be unlikely that he instituted an even more complex route to the Father, through redemption and sacrifice.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Did Jesus offer his teachings as an alternative to Temple based, blood mediation to God?

No, he offered his teachings to point out that offering a sacrifice is not a way to sin, but points to self sacrifice. Once the sacrifice of one's self is accomplished, there is no one left to commit sin. Adam was created in the image of God to reflect God. The Mosaic law and Christ both point out this fact. The Mosaic law points out that God is not afar off, but right in front of your face. Christ points out that he only does or says what he sees the father doing or what is given to him by the father.

It is impossible to sin with an acute awareness of the presence of God. The only way to sin is to do what Israel did and stand "afar off" from God's presence. When God begins to manifest within a human being those who have something to hide are going to have to get moving in another direction. Adam stops reflecting God and hides.

Did he do this by teaching direct access to the Father?

Temple sacrifice doesn't grant one direct access to the father. Only when one denies oneself (i.e. self sacrifice) can the father be seen in the icon of God.

Or by offering himself as a replacement to Temple, priestly mediation, i.e. as an alternative mediator to God?

God calls all to be priests mediating God. In Exodus he calls all of Israel to be priests in his kingdom.

[marco]

No, he offered his teachings to point out that offering a sacrifice is not a way to sin, but points to self sacrifice. Once the sacrifice of one's self is accomplished, there is no one left to commit sin.

I see no meaning in your first sentence and the second seems patently false.

It is impossible to sin with an acute awareness of the presence of God.

Well Satan seems to have achieved the impossible, being acutely aware of the beatific presence. It's interesting to present theories about man and God. Some say that man melts when he sees God- that's as valid as anything else you've postulated.

[shnarkle]

No, he offered his teachings to point out that offering a sacrifice is not a way to sin, but points to self sacrifice. Once the sacrifice of one's self is accomplished, there is no one left to commit sin.

I see no meaning in your first sentence...

Christ echoes the prophets before him in his contempt for not only their self righteousness, but their abuse of the sacrificial system which wasn't used to motivate them to refrain from sinning, but as a way to sin with impunity. This is still the case today with many who profess that any and all sins they will ever commit are covered.

and the second seems patently false.

Why? It takes a sinner to commit sin. Christ and Paul both point out that when the self is denied or sacrificed, sin is impossible. This is a pervasive theme throughout the bible. The new creature is created to keep God's commandments. It's all they can do, therefore there is no need for a sacrificial system anymore.

It is impossible to sin with an acute awareness of the presence of God.

Well Satan seems to have achieved the impossible, being acutely aware of the beatific presence.

Not quite. An acute awareness of the beatific presence doesn't allow one to distinguish themselves from it. Once that occurs, THEN Lucifer ceases to bear light, but must then grasp for it, which is where we get the word CHeRuB, and other words such as GRaB, GRoPe, etc. Satan cannot be the bearer of light AS Satan. He cannot bear the beatific prescence.