Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gundulf · 07-03-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

So, does the Bible teach animal sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn the practice? Yes. Does it condone human sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn it? Yes.

Why does this pose a problem?

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

spamandham · 07-03-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

...the story of Jephthah and his daughter in Judges 11 was what I was thinking of specifically, and it's backed up by Leviticus 27:28-29.

To a lesser extent, I would say the story of Abraham and Isaac also counts, even though he didn't go through with it.

...possibly Exodus 13:12 as well.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-04-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

Well, if no one had been willing to kill Jesus, will you please tell us how sins would have been remitted?

Killing animals (Old Testament), and Jesus (New Testament), for the remission of sins are barbaric and absurd concepts that were copied from pagan rituals. The only rational way that sins can be forgiven is remorse by the person who commits the sin. The notion of third party involvement by animals and Jesus, who by the way had no part in committing sins, is ridiculous.

mountainman · 07-04-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Killing animals (Old Testament), and Jesus (New Testament), for the remission of sins are barbaric and absurd concepts that were copied from pagan rituals. The only rational way that sins can be forgiven is remorse by the person who commits the sin. The notion of third party involvement by animals and Jesus, who by the way had no part in committing sins, is ridiculous.

Eusebius quotes Apollonius of Tyana as an authority "On Sacrifice".
The fragment quoted by Eusebius was taken from a book that was
published by the author Apollonius, in the first century, but which
appears to be no longer extant. (See above).

So we know that the modern perception of the totally unnecessary role
of sacrifice was in fact available at one stage, in the ancient world,
and in fact in the first century, through this preserved quote.

The question is why didn't the new testament texts contain the
clearly superior and vastly superior wisdom concerning sacrifice,
seeing that, by all ancient historical accounts, the books of
Apollonius were extant, at least until the fourth century, and
even more so, since Philostratus (c.220 CE) published his
"Life of Apollonius", which further raised the profile of the
first century author in the empire at that time.

Cege · 07-04-2007, 07:34 PM

Gundulf, I'm curious to know if you were familiar with the story of Jephthah, who was annointed for battle by the "Spirit of the Lord", sacrificing his daughter (she isn't named in the book of Judges) as a burnt offering to God?

It's a story I wasn't aware of until about 2 years ago and I still find it mind boggling.

John Kesler · 07-13-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

The Bible definitely condones human sacrifice. In Reading The Old Testament, An Introduction (or via: amazon.co.uk), author Lawrence Boadt discusses the practice on pages 197-198 of the paperback edition, my emphasis:

Quote:

The people responsible for carrying on the ancient traditions of the conquest emphasized that the victories came from God and that Joshua and the tribes followed God's direction carefully and always dedicated their military victories as a sacrifice to God in thanksgiving for his aid. This is the terrible custom of the "ban," called in Hebrew a herem, in which the Israelites were to slay everyone in the defeated towns. It was practiced to show that Israel put all its trust in God alone during the war and sought nothing for itself.

Walter Brueggemann, in An Introduction to the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), pages 117-118 of the paperback edition, states with my emphasis:

Quote:

The particular articulation of this violence that appears to be rooted in YHWH is expressed as herem...This is the ancient conviction that things offered to YHWH as booty captured from the enemy must be "utterly destroyed." This term herem recurs in the narrative of Joshua 10 where it is translated "utterly destroy":

[Text available here---JK]

This notion, well entrenched in Israel, is a way whereby raw military violence and the will of YHWH are intimately linked...

Susan Niditch writes much about "the ban" in War In The Hebrew Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk). She points out that herem was not unique to the Israelites, and the famous Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone provides a non-Israelite example. The emphasis is mine.:

Quote:

I am Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab for thirty years, and I became king after my father. And I made this high-place for Kemosh in Qarcho . . . because he has delivered me from all kings, and because he has made me look down on all my enemies. Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Kemosh was angry with his land. And his son reigned in his place; and he also said, "I will oppress Moab!" In my days he said so. But I looked down on him and on his house, and Israel has been defeated; it has been defeated forever! And Omri took possession of the whole land of Medeba, and he lived there in his days and half the days of his son: forty years. But Kemosh restored it in my days. And I built Baal Meon, and I built a water reservoir in it. And I built Qiryaten. And the men of Gad lived in the land of Atarot from ancient times; and the king of Israel built Atarot for himself, and I fought against the city and captured it. And I killed all the people of the city as a sacrifice for Kemosh and for Moab. And I brought back the fire-hearth of his uncle from there; and I brought it before the face of Kemosh in Qerioit, and I made the men of Sharon live there, as well as the men of Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, "Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout his campaign against me; and Kemosh drove him away before my face. And I took two hundred men of Moab, all its division, and I led it up to Yahaz. And I have taken it in order to add it to Dibon. I have built Qarcho, the wall of the woods and the wall of the citadel; and I have built its gates; and I have built its towers; and I have built the house of the king; and I have made the double reservoir for the spring in the innermost part of the city. Now the innermost part of the city had no cistern, in Qarcho, and I said to all the people, "Each one of you shall make a cistern in his house." And I cut the moat for Qarcho by using Israelite prisoners. I have built Aroer, and I constructed the military road in Arnon. I have built Beth-Bamot, for it had been destroyed. I have built Bezer, for it lay in ruins. And the men of Dibon stood in battle formation, for all Dibon were in subjection. And I am the king over the hundreds in the towns which I have added to the land. And I have built Beth-Medeba and Beth-Diblaten and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I brought there . . . flocks of the the land. And Hauranen, there lived
. . . Kemosh said to me, "Go down, fight against Hauranen!" I went down
. . . and Kemosh restored it in my days . . .

Niditch remarks on page 32 of the paperback edition:

Quote:

One of the closest simplest biblical parallels to the above excerpt from the Mesha Inscription is offered by Num 21:2-3. Israel confronts the Canaanite enemy, the king of Arad and his forces who have already taken some Israelites captive. Israel makes a vow, the real thrust of which is obscured by the NRSV. Compare the NRSV and then our translation: "Then Israel made a vow to the Lord and said, 'If you will indeed give this people into our hands, then we will utterly destroy their towns.'" Why should such a vow of wanton destruction please the deity? Rather Israel promises something for something, a deal that the deity presumably cannot resist--not wanton, meaningless destruction but an offering for his use and devotion...Israel is promising a sacrifice to God, the cities and their content. So the Moabite king had promised his enemies to his deity.

Niditch continues on pp 34-35, with my emphasis:

Quote:

One group of biblical writers, like many modern scholars, tries to make sense of the ban in terms of justice in a way that discloses their own discomfort with the sacrifice tradition. But in another set of ban texts, no matters of justice are discussed. The understanding prevails in these texts that God has demanded that all that breathes be devoted to him in destruction. In this category are:

Deut 2:34-35, the defeat of Sihon. Note that all humans are killed--men, women, and children--but that livestock is kept as spoil "for yourselves as well as the booty of the towns we had captured."

Deut 3:6-7, the defeat of Og. Again all humans are killed but livestock and booty are kept.

Josh 6:17-21, the destruction of Jericho in which all living things except Rahab and her family are killed (6:21-22). The town is burned but silver and gold and vessels of bronze and iron are "sacred (qodes) to the Lord, going into "treasury of the Lord" (6:19,24).

[Three other examples skipped--JK]

In all of these passages, the ban involves the killing of all human beings regardless of age, gender, or military status. In Hazor, Jericho, and Ai, the burning of towns is involved, in the case of Jericho, livestock. In most cases, however, booty is kept for the people's own use and towns are not necessarily razed. It is a mistake, in fact, to regard the cases in which booty is said to be taken or cities said to be spared cases of a partial or broken ban. The ban in the texts cited above is properly defined as the devotion of conquered humans to God as in the case of the Mesha Inscription and Numbers 21:2-3. Only this definition explains the ban's emphasis on killing humans. In giving humans to God, the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves. To the contrary, the best sacrifice, the biggest sacrifice, is the human life, as confirmed by the tale of Jephthah's daughter. The Israelites keep only lesser animal and inanimate material for themselves, though even these may in some cases be devoted to God as in the Achan incident.

Niditch also points out that such passages as Exodus 13:2 and 22:29 are examples of "less nuanced statement[s]" regarding human sacrifice:

Quote:

13:1 Yahweh said to Moses: 2 Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine.

22:29 You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, page 221: "The origin of the custom of sacrificing the first-born is not known. But it was a widely adopted usuage among Semitic peoples..."

John J. Collins states that, "Exodus 22:28-29 [in the Hebrew test--JK] appears to require the sacrifice of the firstborn and does not provide for substitution in the manner of the parallel text in Exod 34:19-20," while The Jewish Study Bible remarks on page 157, regarding Exodus 22:28 that, "no provision for redemption [of first-born sons] is mentioned."

Human sacrifice was practiced by the Israelites; you just have to know where to look.

Cege · 07-14-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Gundulf, I'm curious to know if you were familiar with the story of Jephthah, who was annointed for battle by the "Spirit of the Lord", sacrificing his daughter (she isn't named in the book of Judges) as a burnt offering to God?

It's a story I wasn't aware of until about 2 years ago and I still find it mind boggling.

Still would like to know if Gundulf was familiar with this human sacrifice story in the OT...

stuart shepherd · 07-15-2007, 08:07 AM

The Jews had bulls...the Christians have Jesus who was a better sacrifice than a bull.

Take a closer look at this analogy.

The bull had to be perfect; no blemishes on its hide and its genitiles intact.
The Bull had its throat cut in the Temple couryard and was allowed to bleed out completely.
The bull was skinned and the hide was given to the High Priest.
The stomach and intestines were removed and taken outside the city and burned up.
The bull was cut into pieces.
The pieces were carried up and placed on the Altar in the temple coutyard and burned up completely.
The sacrifice of the bull was done by the levite priests on duty in the temple.

On the other hand, Jesus' skin was marred by his beating, he was circumcised, his throat wasn't cut, he didn't bleed out, he was not skinned, his alimentary tract wasn't removed, he was not cut into pieces, and his body wasn't completely burned up.
Unlike the bull Jesus' execution took place outside the city and not in the temple courtyard.
The sacrifice of the bull was by the levite priests. The execution of Jesus was by Roman soldiers.

I just don't see the analogy between Jesus and the bull?
It would seem that the only thing they had in common was they both died.

The New testament writers just told a great Bull story.

stuart shepherd

Cheerful Charlie · 07-15-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Did Bible writers borrow the pre-existing practices of animal (Old Testament) and human (New Testament) sacrifices from pagan rituals? If so, I believe that that is suspicious.

Hebrews 9:22 says "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission," and yet the Bible teaches against murder. Why would a moral God forbid murder, but insist that someone must murder his son so that peoples' sins could be forgiven? Surely requiring violence for the remission of sins is not a legitimate concept.

Ezekial 20

23I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
24Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
25Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

God made 'em do it.

CC

Cheerful Charlie · 07-15-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

So, does the Bible teach animal sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn the practice? Yes. Does it condone human sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn it? Yes.

Why does this pose a problem?

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

Ezekiel 20

23I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
24Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
25Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

The Israelites did offer their first born to Moloch. Cause God made 'em do it. God says so. At least Ezekiel claims God said so.

CC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2007, 07:34 PM	#25
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Gundulf, I'm curious to know if you were familiar with the story of Jephthah, who was annointed for battle by the "Spirit of the Lord", sacrificing his daughter (she isn't named in the book of Judges) as a burnt offering to God? It's a story I wasn't aware of until about 2 years ago and I still find it mind boggling.

07-15-2007, 08:07 AM	#28
stuart shepherd Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 315	The Jews had bulls...the Christians have Jesus who was a better sacrifice than a bull. Take a closer look at this analogy. The bull had to be perfect; no blemishes on its hide and its genitiles intact. The Bull had its throat cut in the Temple couryard and was allowed to bleed out completely. The bull was skinned and the hide was given to the High Priest. The stomach and intestines were removed and taken outside the city and burned up. The bull was cut into pieces. The pieces were carried up and placed on the Altar in the temple coutyard and burned up completely. The sacrifice of the bull was done by the levite priests on duty in the temple. On the other hand, Jesus' skin was marred by his beating, he was circumcised, his throat wasn't cut, he didn't bleed out, he was not skinned, his alimentary tract wasn't removed, he was not cut into pieces, and his body wasn't completely burned up. Unlike the bull Jesus' execution took place outside the city and not in the temple courtyard. The sacrifice of the bull was by the levite priests. The execution of Jesus was by Roman soldiers. I just don't see the analogy between Jesus and the bull? It would seem that the only thing they had in common was they both died. The New testament writers just told a great Bull story. stuart shepherd

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.