Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Aerik Von · 08-03-2003, 08:36 PM

...does this mean we no longer need to clean mold as per said in Levititical laws?

I was reading through and found a bird sacrifice (involving the removal of all household furniture) to cure mold.

Does Jesus's death now cure mold? What is the interpretation of the more bizarre laws like this. Obviously, mold has not dissapeared but the sacrifice has.

Kilgore Trout · 08-04-2003, 09:41 AM

Jesus' death was not a valid sacrifice, because it is strictly forbidden by the Hebrew god to have human sacrifice, this is mentioned many times in their scripture.

Christians can never understand this or just about anything related to Judaism because all of these rules, no matter how odd they might seem today, are only of a concern to Jews. All of the Tanach (old testament), is only supposed to be talking to Jews, it has nothing to do with non-Jews, so non-Jews coming up with different rules and myths (Jesus), is not at all valid, not just to Jews, but to anyone.

No one can or should be able to add to such an already well established religion and culture such as Judaism without at least being a respecting, firm member of that religion. One that is also, very well versed, with help from qualified members, not just people working on their own thinking they can understand such a complex religion as Judaism is.

Rational BAC · 08-04-2003, 11:23 AM

Many Christians just view the OT as a somewhat bizarre prologue for the NT, and pay just the slightest lip service to it.

No disrespect meant. Just apples and oranges.

Aerik Von · 08-04-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Many Christians just view the OT as a somewhat bizarre prologue for the NT, and pay just the slightest lip service to it.

No disrespect meant. Just apples and oranges.

Well, it can't be THAT bizarre to them if they use it to justify his saviourhood and messianic abilities.

Hey, mold is to be cleaned by killing a bird and other nonsense like that. I still have mold. Jesus failed!

Grumpy · 08-04-2003, 04:54 PM

"One more sacrifice before we go?"

"Okay, but this is the Final Sacrifice!"

Aerik Von · 08-04-2003, 07:05 PM

Oh wow. I am speechless. Really.

Bernard Muller · 08-06-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Jesus' death was not a valid sacrifice, because it is strictly forbidden by the Hebrew god to have human sacrifice, this is mentioned many times in their scripture.

Very interesting, Kilgore! I can make a good point from that on my website.
Can you provide the OT (or other) references?

Best regards, Bernard

Secular Pinoy · 08-06-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout
it is strictly forbidden by the Hebrew god to have human sacrifice, this is mentioned many times in their scripture.

According to Doc X:

Quote:

It is now widely recognized that human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Israel much later than scholars of an earlier generation had assumed. Abraham is not condemned but praised for his willingness to offer up his son, even though he is not required to go through with it. Exodus 22:28-29 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. The Judean kings Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:6) are accused of child sacrifice. Their practice cannot be dismissed as due to foreign influence, but had venerable precedents in the cult of YHWH. Nonetheless, by the time of the Deuteronomists this practice had been denounced by prophets (Mic 6:6-8; Jer 19:4-6), and Deuteronomy explicity condemns it as an abhorrent Canaanite custom (Deut 12:31; 18:10). Yet the same Deuteronomy has no qualms about the practice of the ban [". . . the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction."--Ed.], and in fact most of the passages dealing with herem [Ban.--Ed.] are found in the Deuteronomistic corpus.

Bernard Muller · 08-06-2003, 06:46 PM

Secular Pinoy

Thanks, Exodus 13:2,12-13, 22:29-30 & 34:19-20 are very consistent, graphic and scary.
But it looks there was a change of mind in the early Persian era.
Good evidence to prove than Deuteromy was written much later than Exodus. Deut. is probably (like Kings) post exile & second temple according to that, while Exodus/Genesis might be from Josiah times.
I wonder: how can the quotes I gave on Exodus can be interpreted otherwise?
Micah does not appear to condemn the practice but Jeremiah does.
Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X · 08-06-2003, 10:39 PM

Wooo . . . funny . . . I just quoted that reference on another thread.

I agree, Bernard. What I do not know is how much is "keeping a piece of tradition" and how much is constant mythmaking. For example, in the other thread, I discussed the destruction 1 Sam 15:3. Since Exodus is non-historical--and much of the kingly narratives as well--harkening back to a "mythic great time" where one pretends they could sacrifice everyone, seems reasonable. However, including a requirement of human sacrifice in Exodus . . . is that because:

1. The writer believed in it?
2. The writier is using a source that believed in it?
3. The writer is preserving a tradition?

I do not know; however, I have to agree with Collins--the source of the quote--that sacrifice was a part of religion at one point.

Now, I have a "love/hate" relationship with Callahan's Secret Origins of the Bible--since he does not indicate his scholarly sources--however, I find this interesting:

Quote:

This story [Sacrifice of Isaac] has a rather sinister aspect, when one considers that all of chapter 22 may not be part of E. Verses 11 through 15, which refer to the ram caught in the thicket and its substitution as a sacrifice, may have been inserted by a later redactor. That is to say that in the original E document therre may have been no substitution, and God's praise for Abraham, that he had not withheld his son, might have been because he had actually killed Isaac, and that God did indeed accept human sacrifice. . . . The main reason for this is that Isaac disappears from the E material at this point. His dealings with Abimelech, including a wife/sister story and the digging of the "well of the oath" . . . are all from J. In the E version these stories are all attributed to Abraham. Nor does E tell the stories of the rivalry between Jacob and Esau, in which an aged and blind Isaac features prominently. In fact, E does not even mention Isaac coming down the mountain with Abraham.

So--if you believe Callaghan . . . and it would be nice if he cited his sources--you have an earlier account that praises child sacrifice knit with a later account that "revives" him.

--J.D.

Reference:

Collins JJ, "The Zeal of Phinehas: the Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," JBL 122:, 2003, 3-21.

Callahan T. Secret Origins of the Bible. Altadena: Millennium Press, 2002.

08-03-2003, 08:36 PM	#1
Aerik Von Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hell, New York Posts: 151	Since Jesus WAS the final sacrifice... ...does this mean we no longer need to clean mold as per said in Levititical laws? I was reading through and found a bird sacrifice (involving the removal of all household furniture) to cure mold. Does Jesus's death now cure mold? What is the interpretation of the more bizarre laws like this. Obviously, mold has not dissapeared but the sacrifice has.

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

08-04-2003, 09:41 AM	#2
Kilgore Trout Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tralfamadore Posts: 246	Jesus' death was not a valid sacrifice, because it is strictly forbidden by the Hebrew god to have human sacrifice, this is mentioned many times in their scripture. Christians can never understand this or just about anything related to Judaism because all of these rules, no matter how odd they might seem today, are only of a concern to Jews. All of the Tanach (old testament), is only supposed to be talking to Jews, it has nothing to do with non-Jews, so non-Jews coming up with different rules and myths (Jesus), is not at all valid, not just to Jews, but to anyone. No one can or should be able to add to such an already well established religion and culture such as Judaism without at least being a respecting, firm member of that religion. One that is also, very well versed, with help from qualified members, not just people working on their own thinking they can understand such a complex religion as Judaism is.

08-04-2003, 11:23 AM	#3
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Many Christians just view the OT as a somewhat bizarre prologue for the NT, and pay just the slightest lip service to it. No disrespect meant. Just apples and oranges.

08-04-2003, 04:54 PM	#5
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	"One more sacrifice before we go?" "Okay, but this is the Final Sacrifice!"

08-04-2003, 07:05 PM	#6
Aerik Von Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hell, New York Posts: 151	Oh wow. I am speechless. Really.

08-06-2003, 06:46 PM	#9
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Secular Pinoy Thanks, Exodus 13:2,12-13, 22:29-30 & 34:19-20 are very consistent, graphic and scary. But it looks there was a change of mind in the early Persian era. Good evidence to prove than Deuteromy was written much later than Exodus. Deut. is probably (like Kings) post exile & second temple according to that, while Exodus/Genesis might be from Josiah times. I wonder: how can the quotes I gave on Exodus can be interpreted otherwise? Micah does not appear to condemn the practice but Jeremiah does. Best regards, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.