Iskander

The ritualistic killing of animals to please or placate the gods is no longer fashionable, but it was the norm in ancient cultures.

Homer describes such sacrifices in the Greek culture and Vedas also describe the sacrificing of animals in ancient India.
It is not odd, therefore, to find animal sacrifice practiced among the Israelites.


Apparently, the killing of the heifer was done as a sin offering for the community.

How is the calf's neck broken, and why? (v. 4)
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/articl...en-and-why.htm

The advice give in Torah was wide ranging, including;

The Book of Injuries
The Book of Acquisition
The Book of Judgments
The Book of Judges

And more

sotto voce

Possibly because of the influence of Christianity.

The animal representing innocence and maximum value, or 'perfection'.

Net2004

bull f shit. yhwh said that animal flesh and blood is not in his recpie, good deeds are. every eucharist day you are spiritually muching on dead flesh and blood so how could it be because of christianity?


was god seeing himself in animals?

proudfootz

Yup.

Probably about as useful in solving crime as dunking people in ponds is in discovering 'witches'...

proudfootz

Here's the 'context' of the calf sacrifice notion:

steve_bnk

JC was the ultimate sacrifical lamb, in Cistian lore aimalvsacifice was no longer needed. JC was the universal sacrifical lamb. A 'sin eater' of sorts. JC died for all sins past present and future.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater

steve_bnk

'...This sort of failure to deal with the actual Bible serves only to give the impression of complete conviction that the Bible is correct..'

Where are you drawing that from? The thread is about the Jewish rules derived from the bible IAW Maimonides. I read his book Guide For The Perplexed..

In typical forum fahion it t can be difficult with some to have discussion on Jewsh lore and history without incessnat reiteration of biblical errors and the fact that god doesnot exist.

It s almost sounds like a pathoiogical fear that somehow relaxed conversation without vigorous denuciation of the bible can make it real.

I am no fan of religion in general, but I am not obsessed with trying to discredit it at every turn.

In thed istant pat hI read Buddhism, Tibetan mysticsim, Egyptian Boppok Of the Dead and others. Jewish lore is no differentt. All interesting stuff. A intesting bit of trivi, the Egyptians had a game that roughly traslates as Fate.

The majority of those on the criticism forum are deep into details, origiins, and inconsistencies of scrptures. Deeper than my knowledge. What interests me is gaining a picture of who they were.

I do not look at the bible as meant to be literal and consistet, but more as allegpory. For example Job was likey allegory for Jews in captivity.

So, if you want to wail that the Abramic god, scripture, and relgion asremyth, no kidding. What's yiour point?

Years back I watched a Bill Moyers show in which philopsohers and psychologists took aprat biblical stories like Cain and Able. There is a psycholgy embededd in the tales. There is more to the bible and religion in general than jiust a superetitious belief in god.

Iskander

The Hebrew Bible is a great literary work .Some uncreative people took this book from the lawful owners and then proceeded to behave like ruminants.

sotto voce

That is exceedingly doubtful. No part of it was written with the intention of creating literary value. It is true to say that some of it was written in figurative expression in order to make abstract ideas more concrete. But these parts are similar to other works of their period that very few even know exist, let alone have read.

So it is not too adventurous to say that, if it were not for Jesus of Nazareth, most of the Hebrew Bible would be akin to other religious works of the period, the interest of antiquarians only; and, before modern times, they among the very few who could read Hebrew. Most of it would not even have been translated into modern languages, until recently, when scholars seek stuff to justify their university budgets! Translations of Song of Solomon would be well regarded for poetic value, and also of the Book of Job, that was admired by Wordsworth, iirc, who of course also knew about Jesus of Nazareth. But the content would be regarded as curio, that of a seemingly failed enterprise. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes would probably be held up more for interesting general moral rather than literary value. If read at all.

I wonder who they might be, both thieves and owners.

Stranger still.

Horatio Parker

In some ways, it makes me respect the elders of say ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, or the Mysteries who forbade the creation of a written record of their sacred beliefs and practices.

Hard to misuse a myth if you aren't allowed access to it.