Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 08-08-2003, 06:39 AM

...Ack, I created a thread, Apologetic excuse for human sacrifice: any basis in fact? without knowing that Biblical human sacrifice was already being discussed.

As for the Jews requiring blood sacrifice for atonement: it seems that they required this sometimes at least. The penance for raping a betrothed handmaiden is to offer a sacrificial ram to the priest (Leviticus 19:20-22).

Kilgore Trout · 08-09-2003, 10:56 PM

While Numbers 15:27-31 talks about the sin sacrifice being for unintentional sins, the others methods used for atonement are repentance and charity.

Throughout Leviticus, god commands that only distinct species of animals are permitted as blood sacrifices. The proper species are all clearly pointed out. They are all kosher animals. Humans are not kosher animals. Since god did not say to sacrifice humans for forgiveness of sins, that means you are not supposed to do it or you are disobeying god. While that rules out humans, Leviticus talks further.The sacrifice had to be very quickly done on an unblemished animal, not anywhere like the NTs drawn-out torture with the final "act" done on a very marked up from beatings and whippings body. Also see Leviticus 5:11 along with 17:11.The death is only to be quick from a very sharp knife. Blood must be sprayed upon an altar. If the NT wants to take the blood as literal, then it must also take the altar as well, there was no altar used. Even though there was a Temple at the time jesus was to have "lived", this was not in any way used in the "sacrifice" of jesus. Hebrews 10:4 says the blood of bulls can never take away sins. that is a completely against what it says in the Torah. Lies like that show how the NT has to resort to deceiving tactics that anybody who knows anyhing about the Jewish laws would recognize.

Hosea 3:4-4 and 14:2-3 talks about a time without a temple and that the sacrifices should be replaced by prayer. This is also talked about further in 1 Kings 8:46-50 and Ezekiel 18. More evidence that you don't need blood for forgiveness.

Besides the whole point to the NT's "sacrifice" is to save all from "hell". First the NT creates the "problem" (hell, which is not in any part from the Jewish writings), and the "solution" (jesus, who has no connection with the Jewish messiah as prophecised). The real messiah is only supposed to be a very gifted human,and as written in Jer 31:31-34 it will be known to everyone in the world. The messiah will not be god or god-like or son of god keeping himself a secret except to his "followers". A real leader instead to usher in the "World to Come", a little like the NT's "second coming", except this all will be done on the first and only "coming".

The NT also created their version of a "devil", a corrupted version of Jewish writings of Ha Satan, an angel like all angels, without any free will to lead a rebellion, he is only to serve god.

I also agree with everything abospaum said about why jesus was not a legitimate sacrifice.

Doctor X · 08-10-2003, 12:40 AM

Mark:

Depends on the quality of your library. However, I think you may find his book a good investment--not that expensive--for it is something you will return to.

Regarding the Josiah reform--yyeeeessss to the best of my understanding, though YHWH does demand sacrifice as noted above . . . HEY!! What do you know? The question is whether or not the "YHWH" is from the J [Jawhistic--Ed.] writer or the P [Priestly--Ed.] writer.

So . . . let me pull out my handy copy of Friedman . . .

Exodus 22:28-29--see above in the Collins quote--is listed as the E writer--see how useful a reference it is! . . . checking my RSV . . . no "Lord"--which is the translation for YHWH in the RSV and many other English translations. I do not know if "God" in Ex 22:28 is El or Elohim.

So to return to your question, I would refer you to Friedman on the Josiah reforms because I would basically be repeating him and other sources.

Regarding "Elohim" which is "gods" there is, as far as I know, no iconographic evidence of a singular "Elohim" worshipped as there was for El and YHWH . . . and other gods.

Anyways, it is less than $15, less than 250 pages, and is well worth it.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy · 08-10-2003, 01:09 AM

According to Strong's numbers:

Quote:

Exodus 22:28 (KJV w/ Strong's) - Thou shalt not revile<07043> the gods<0430>, nor curse<0779> the ruler<05387> of thy people<05971>.

H430:
'elohiym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433 [el-o'-ah, el-o'-ah, a deity or the deity: - God, god. -- Ed.]; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Doctor X · 08-10-2003, 01:30 AM

Thanks! When I looketh upon my RSV I wonderethed if "gods" would have "fit."

Another thing to consider about the Elohim is that it is not so much that there is many gods, but that El is the head of all other gods. Even in the J text of Genesis--wandering about the Garden--"Hey, where are you Adam?"--YHWH states:

Quote:

"Behold, the man has beome like one of us, knowing good and evil; . . .

Gen 3:22

So who is "us?" Apologists claim "angels" but this is not supported by the text. There is no "royal we" in Hebrew. Looking for a reference to tell me what "Lord God" is I find Cross:

Quote:

In both Ugaritic and biblical literature, the use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the divine council. The familiar "we" of Gen. 1:26, "Let us make man in our image. . ." Gen. 3:22, "Behold the man is become as one of us. . . ," and Gen. 11.7, "Come, let us go down and let us confound their language. . . ," has long ben recognized as the plural address used by Yahweh in his council.

--J.D.

abospaum · 08-11-2003, 08:04 AM

Check out the following link for lots more on blood and sacrifices not being required for salvation.

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/blood.html

This is obviously a Jewish site which counters every Christian arguement saying that these things are required.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-12-2003, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout
Throughout Leviticus, god commands that only distinct species of animals are permitted as blood sacrifices. The proper species are all clearly pointed out. They are all kosher animals. Humans are not kosher animals.

I'm aware of lists of kosher and unclean animals, but I wasn't aware of a subset of kosher animals approved as sacrificial animals. Or are you assuming that, because all the sacrificial animals mentioned happen to be kosher, any kosher animal is OK?

And how sure are you that humans aren't kosher? I created a thread on this: "Long Pig": is it kosher?

It seems that humans aren't mentioned in either category, and while the status of unmentioned animals is somewhat vague, my reading of it is that foods are kosher unless stated otherwise.

If there WAS a kosher-only restriction on sacrifices at a time when human sacrifices were being performed, that would explain why the kosher status of humans was left deliberately vague.

abospaum · 08-12-2003, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I'm aware of lists of kosher and unclean animals, but I wasn't aware of a subset of kosher animals approved as sacrificial animals. Or are you assuming that, because all the sacrificial animals mentioned happen to be kosher, any kosher animal is OK?

And how sure are you that humans aren't kosher? I created a thread on this: "Long Pig": is it kosher?

It seems that humans aren't mentioned in either category, and while the status of unmentioned animals is somewhat vague, my reading of it is that foods are kosher unless stated otherwise.

If there WAS a kosher-only restriction on sacrifices at a time when human sacrifices were being performed, that would explain why the kosher status of humans was left deliberately vague.

While not every animal on the earth is listed as being kosher or not kosher, guidelines are set. Since humans do not chew their cud and do not have hoofs, let alone cloven hoofs, they are not kosher. Note that certain birds and fish are listed outside of the land animal descriptions. Humans are not kosher.

Not kosher means not clean. Also God gives very specific lists of what animals are acceptable for sacrifice. If it is not on the list then it is not acceptable.

Any animal offered for sacrifices must be without blemish. That is a physical blemish. If someone were whipped and beaten and made to wear a thorn of crowns they would not be considered unblemished.

Also if you read my last link that I posted you will see that there were two examples of humans sacrificed in the OT and God was not pleased.

So just because something is listed does not make it kosher.

Doctor X · 08-12-2003, 05:35 AM

Welcome to the forums!

However, it has been previously posted where sacrifice was demanded . . . and he was pleased.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-12-2003, 06:27 AM

Leviticus 11:3 appears to be an attempt to clarify the otherwise messy situation regarding cloven-footed and/or cud-chewing beasts:

Cloven-footed cud-chewers: kosher.
Cloven-footed non-cud-chewers: non-kosher.
Non-cloven-footed cud-chewers: non-kosher.

See the following verses:

Quote:

Leviticus 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Non-cloven-footed non-cud-chewers are not being addressed here.

And none of this is relevant to humans anyhow: we are not "among the beasts", according to the Bible.

And I'm not addressing Jesus here, as his era was long after the practise of human sacrifice had ceased.

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

08-08-2003, 06:39 AM	#21
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...Ack, I created a thread, Apologetic excuse for human sacrifice: any basis in fact? without knowing that Biblical human sacrifice was already being discussed. As for the Jews requiring blood sacrifice for atonement: it seems that they required this sometimes at least. The penance for raping a betrothed handmaiden is to offer a sacrificial ram to the priest (Leviticus 19:20-22).

08-09-2003, 10:56 PM	#22
Kilgore Trout Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tralfamadore Posts: 246	While Numbers 15:27-31 talks about the sin sacrifice being for unintentional sins, the others methods used for atonement are repentance and charity. Throughout Leviticus, god commands that only distinct species of animals are permitted as blood sacrifices. The proper species are all clearly pointed out. They are all kosher animals. Humans are not kosher animals. Since god did not say to sacrifice humans for forgiveness of sins, that means you are not supposed to do it or you are disobeying god. While that rules out humans, Leviticus talks further.The sacrifice had to be very quickly done on an unblemished animal, not anywhere like the NTs drawn-out torture with the final "act" done on a very marked up from beatings and whippings body. Also see Leviticus 5:11 along with 17:11.The death is only to be quick from a very sharp knife. Blood must be sprayed upon an altar. If the NT wants to take the blood as literal, then it must also take the altar as well, there was no altar used. Even though there was a Temple at the time jesus was to have "lived", this was not in any way used in the "sacrifice" of jesus. Hebrews 10:4 says the blood of bulls can never take away sins. that is a completely against what it says in the Torah. Lies like that show how the NT has to resort to deceiving tactics that anybody who knows anyhing about the Jewish laws would recognize. Hosea 3:4-4 and 14:2-3 talks about a time without a temple and that the sacrifices should be replaced by prayer. This is also talked about further in 1 Kings 8:46-50 and Ezekiel 18. More evidence that you don't need blood for forgiveness. Besides the whole point to the NT's "sacrifice" is to save all from "hell". First the NT creates the "problem" (hell, which is not in any part from the Jewish writings), and the "solution" (jesus, who has no connection with the Jewish messiah as prophecised). The real messiah is only supposed to be a very gifted human,and as written in Jer 31:31-34 it will be known to everyone in the world. The messiah will not be god or god-like or son of god keeping himself a secret except to his "followers". A real leader instead to usher in the "World to Come", a little like the NT's "second coming", except this all will be done on the first and only "coming". The NT also created their version of a "devil", a corrupted version of Jewish writings of Ha Satan, an angel like all angels, without any free will to lead a rebellion, he is only to serve god. I also agree with everything abospaum said about why jesus was not a legitimate sacrifice.

08-10-2003, 12:40 AM	#23
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Mark: Depends on the quality of your library. However, I think you may find his book a good investment--not that expensive--for it is something you will return to. Regarding the Josiah reform--yyeeeessss to the best of my understanding, though YHWH does demand sacrifice as noted above . . . HEY!! What do you know? The question is whether or not the "YHWH" is from the J [Jawhistic--Ed.] writer or the P [Priestly--Ed.] writer. So . . . let me pull out my handy copy of Friedman . . . Exodus 22:28-29--see above in the Collins quote--is listed as the E writer--see how useful a reference it is! . . . checking my RSV . . . no "Lord"--which is the translation for YHWH in the RSV and many other English translations. I do not know if "God" in Ex 22:28 is El or Elohim. So to return to your question, I would refer you to Friedman on the Josiah reforms because I would basically be repeating him and other sources. Regarding "Elohim" which is "gods" there is, as far as I know, no iconographic evidence of a singular "Elohim" worshipped as there was for El and YHWH . . . and other gods. Anyways, it is less than $15, less than 250 pages, and is well worth it. --J.D.

08-11-2003, 08:04 AM	#26
abospaum Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Delaware Posts: 14	Check out the following link for lots more on blood and sacrifices not being required for salvation. http://www.kosherjudaism.com/blood.html This is obviously a Jewish site which counters every Christian arguement saying that these things are required.

08-12-2003, 05:35 AM	#29
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Welcome to the forums! However, it has been previously posted where sacrifice was demanded . . . and he was pleased. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.