mountainman

Another take on your OP OLDMAN is examining what the notion of sacrifice that may have been in the minds of the citizens of the Roman Empire during the period of "Early Christian Origins". What we need is an authority on the notion of sacrifice, and Eusebius the church historian gives us one, in the name of the author - apparently quite influential and widely published - called Apollonius of Tyana.

The Mystic Rites or Concerning Sacrifices.
[The full title is given by Eudocia, Ionia; ed. Villoison (Venet 1781) p 57]

This treatise is mentioned by Philostratus (iii 41; iv 19),
who tells us that it set down the proper method of sacrifice
to every God, the proper hours of prayer and offering.
It was in wide circulation, and Philostratus had come across
copies of it in many temples and cities,
and in the libraries of philosophers.

Several fragments of it have been preserved, [See Zeller, Phil d Griech, v 127]
the most important of which is to be found in
Eusebius, [Præparat. Evangel., iv 12-13; ed Dindorf (Leipzig 1867), i 176, 177] and is to this effect:

“ ‘Tis best to make no sacrifice to God at all,
no lighting of a fire,
no calling Him by any name
that men employ for things to sense.

For God is over all, the first;
and only after Him do come the other Gods.
For He doth stand in need of naught
e’en from the Gods,
much less from us small men -
naught that the earth brings forth,
nor any life she nurseth,
or even any thing the stainless air contains.

The only fitting sacrifice to God
is man’s best reason,
and not the word
that comes from out his mouth.

“We men should ask the best of beings
through the best thing in us,
for what is good -
mean by means of mind,
for mind needs no material things
to make its prayer.
So then, to God, the mighty One,
who’s over all,
no sacrifice should ever be lit up.”

Noack [Psyche, I ii.5.] tells us that scholarship
is convinced of the genuineness of this fragment.
This book, as we have seen, was widely circulated
and held in the highest respect, and it said that
its rules were engraved on brazen pillars
at Byzantium.

mountainman

Manuscript evidence and the texts (plural) ....

Like most others here, are you restricting your analysis to the manuscripts of the books of the canonical new testament? What do other manuscript sources from the same period of "Early Christian Origins" say about these things?

Read the Gospel of Peter. Jesus trecked down to Hades after he was rescued from the tomb by a pair of gigantic figures whose heads reached to Heaven. The Cross walks and talks. Jesus speaks to Adam in Hades, etc, etc, etc. Its as if someone resurrected Homer to tell the story of the new testament. This account tells us that the scribes who compiled the earliest manuscript were themselves two resurrectees - Leucius and Karinus - whom the authorities had rounded up after their release from the tombs in Jerusalem. The tallness of the "whopping yarns" is extraordinarily vivid and extremely academic Greek. The Gnostic authors appear to have taken the books of the NT canon apart and recombined permutations of textual elements with extreme novelties. According to Photius, it may have been an entire series of books entitled "The Travels of the Apostles".

The answers to these questions you are asking depends upon which source you are examining. Are the canonical books more valuable as "evidence" than the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" for example? Are the "sins of the living" anything like the Buddha's "suffering of (living) sentient beings" for another example?

mountainman

Satire and parody. See DeConick - its her argument.

In order to perceive the satire and parody one needs to understand the historical political context during which the authorship was conducted. This implies knowing the precise chronology, and if possible the author and where that author was in the social / political / religious milieu of that epoch.

You must know Elijah that context is extremely important --- particularly so for literary "political satire". What was the sacrifice of Jesus if it was not also political? It is widely rumored that the "Early Christians" thought of themselves as a "tribe within a tribe", a "state within a state". They were in fact described as a "new and strange nation". More ironically, had Emperor Julian survived his Persian military "expedition"/"war" then we would perhaps have no "Christians" in the world today, since Julian legislated c.361 CE that they be called by the name of "Galilaeans". The "imperial Christian soldiers" of the 4th century denigrated the ancient and highly revered Greek civilisation, city by city, temple by temple, shrine by shrine, library by library, and book by book. This is the dark political context of "Constantine's Bible".

show_no_mercy

Psalm 82 seems to be a demotion of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

1 God presides in the [council of God];
he gives judgment among the gods:
2 "How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah

3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 "I said, 'You are gods;
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

The gods of the Canaanite pantheon (Asherah, Baal, Chemosh, etc.) -- along with YHWH, the god of the Jews -- were all sons of Elyon (El Most High). This is yet another Psalm taken out of context by Christians, but I wouldn't expect anyone living in the 1st century to know about the Canaanite origins of the YHWH cult which eventually spawned Judaism. So it's understandable...

jgreen44

Nevertheless, Yahweh did sanction, condone, reward and even order human sacrifice on occasion.

- Exodus 22:29-30

29 You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.

30 You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.

- 1 Kings 16:34 (two "foundation sacrifices" ordered by Yahweh)

In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; he laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by Joshua the son of Nun.

- 2 Samuel 21 (Aztec style harvest sacrifice ordered by Yahweh)

1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the LORD. And the LORD said, "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."

3 Thus David said to the Gibeonites, "What should I do for you? And how can I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the LORD?"

5 So they said to the king, "

6 let seven men from his sons be given to us, and we will hang them before the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD." And the king said, "I will give them."

9 Then he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before the LORD, so that the seven of them fell together; and they were put to death in the first days of harvest at the beginning of barley harvest.

- 2 Kings. 3:26-27 (Yahweh rewards a sacrifice to the Moabite God, Chemosh)

26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom; but they could not.

27 Then he took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

- Judges 11:29-40 (With the spirit of the Lord upon him, Jephthah vows to "give to the Lord" the first thing that comes out of his house)

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. ...her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin."

And what does Hebrews say about Jephthah?

Hebrews 11

32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,

33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions,

34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

The NT says that Jephthah, a practitioner of human sacrifice who murdered his own daughter, was a great guy, a man of faith.

jgreen44

But Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Therefore, He fully was not sacrificed and fully did not die. Yet he also fully died and fully blasphemed. This all makes perfect sense. Does it not?

bacht

Lev 17.11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

don't know if there is any further explanation in the Tanakh, I guess blood sacrifice was almost universal in those days

aa5874

Your post is a most BLATANT HORRENDOUS mis-representation.

Exodus 22.29-30 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with SACRIFICE through DEATH of the FIRST BORN.

On the eight day the FIRST BORN SONS were CIRCUMCISED.

In the NT story book, JESUS was circumcised on the EIGHT day and 2 BIRDS were SACRIFICED.

Luke 2:21-24 -

This is another BLATANT HORRENDOUS mis-representation of 1 Kings 16.

Just look at the preceeding verse I KING 16.33 Yahweh did NOT ORDER any sacrifice by the death of humans in 1 KINGS 16.34.

Again, a HORRIBLE mis-representation of 2 SAMUEL 21. It was NOT Yahweh but the Gibeonites that requested the SLAYING.


Again, this is probably the worst case of mis-representation of 2 Kings 3.

The Moabites were almost totally destroyed by the Israelites so much so that the king of Moab had to kill his own son hoping that it would be a sacrifice to the God of the Jews.

There is no indication at all that the God of the Jews rewarded the king of Moab for killing his own son.

Again, a GROSS misrepresentation of Hebrew Scripture. The vow was made by Jephthah not by Yahweh.

There is no LAW or Commandment of God that JEWS must sacrifice through the death of a human.

Now, please look at ONE of the COMMANDMENTS of God for JEWS.

Exodus 20:13 - You have completely FAILED to show that the Laws of the God of the Jews did involve sacrifice only through the killing of a human being.

And who wrote Hebrews?

OLDMAN

Didn't God command the Jews to kill all the Canaanites?
Seems like the Jews have killed a lot of people even today.
Of course, there was that boy Jesus killed when he was younger......
But the commandment is clear "Thou shall not kill".
Not in self defense, war, or even stoning people, as they are told they can in many verses of the holy book.

Gawen

aa,

Exodus 22:29-30

29 You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.

30 You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.
Does this mean that they had to circumcise oxen and sheep?