And don’t cite a Christian Bible when you’re trying to make a point about Jewish history. That just bleeds ignorance. Here is a link to the thread where I point out that you have no point with your cite because you missed the boat of the argument.
Dio changed the entire meaning of the holiday with a sentence. Your post is like saying, “Well…I got the 1 and the 2 right, and I knew I was supposed to add, and I wrote the formula down, so I pretty much knew what I was doing!” on a failed math test.
CitizenPained and Dio share an interest in debating religion, so they’ve butted heads a lot in a short time. If she is Packers fan, slept with a guy in his twenties when she was a teen, or thinks kids aren’t pure and perfect, then they will be mortal enemies in no time.
So there was a lamb sacrifice involved historically in Passover?* But the liturgical and theological point was conflated by Dio with a different sacrifice, that is: atonement versus remembrance? And all the snarky comments and argument from authority is over that? Is that the upshot?
If you had stopped here we could have, but you didn’t.
Firstly, there is no significant difference between Christian and Jewish versions of Ezekiel. Feel free to look it up yourself. The boat of the argument was apparently your nitpick about the purpose behind the sacrifice. I say nitpick because while it would be a major error when discussing the historical ritual of Passover specifically, you called it out in a thread challenging the validity of religion in general. Diogenes the Cynic’s point was that religious rituals don’t make sense and he was using the slaughter of a lamb for atonement as an example of something that doesn’t make sense for a non-corporeal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god to require. For some reason you decided the deck chairs on the Titanic weren’t in a reasonable order, and so here we are. In the context of the thread, as a meta-thread about all of the inconsistencies and weirdness of religion, your zealous insistence on clarifying this point, now spanning two threads, about the true purpose of the sacrificial lamb seems to be adding weight to the argument that religion is irrational.
The point was that slaughtering animals and sprinkling their blood on an altar makes no sense OVERALL. Splitting hairs as to which religious purpose people have traditionally used to justify the sacrifice ignores the larger point of it being a nonsensical thing to do at all.
Essentially, yes. Got it in one. Dio stuck his foot in it, and is now in “goalpost moving” mode. As someone said, a few posts previous to yours, (paraphrased) 'Here ya go, everyone who thinks Dio is infallible on biblical matters". This is amusing.
And bringing up rituals they (the Jews, here) followed as late as almost 2000 years ago, and haven’t followed since that time, but equating it with Christian rituals that are still followed to this day, makes his point, how? If you are going to argue for Dio, kindly tell us his alleged point, too, please. Otherwise, let him fight his own battles, and live or die by his own sword.
My point was that the conception of the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice was based on on an interpretation of Jesus as a surrogate for the Paschal lamb. That is a motherfucking GQ fact, son.
I also made a comment that at the root of everything (going back to, and preceding Jewish ritual sacrifices) is an archaic belief that sky gods want dead animals. The basic, primitive silliness of that runs subsequently through Judaism and is present in Christology. When you strip everything away, that’s what you’re left with - “gods want meat,” and that was my ultimate point.
Yes, Dio. I’m aware of the Christian interpretation of “The Last Supper”, as a riff off of the “Passover” it allegedly occurred during. But that was because Paul needed to, somehow, equate “Atonement” with Jewish theology, for his brand of Christianity to go over with his actual audience. It ain’t “GQ”, unless you insist that every idiot Christian sect that comes along gets “GQ fact” status. Yours only barely corresponds with standard middle-ages Catholicism. You are missing the Jewish idea behind the Paschal lamb. It’s not an atonement. It never was an atonement. It’s a blood-sacrifice, true, but it’s blood is solely to mark the Egyptians from the Jews. The blood marks the doorposts of the people the plagues will “Pass Over”, and that’s all it did. Paul did, indeed, try to make the connection between “Passover” and “Atonement”, but he was trying to score points with the Jewish population that he had previously been actively fucking persecuting. Look, Dio, either you accept your own statement that you are dealing with fiction, and then look at Paul as a scammer, or you abandon the idea that it was fiction, and Paul was sincere. You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, a 2000 or more year old point. What’s your point? I’m not getting it. Who’s doing these animal sacrifices, today, that I should care?
It wasn’t Paul, it was the Gospel of John. Paul had a different conception of Jesus as the “first fruit” harbinger of the mass resurrection,
Every Christian sect uses the Gospel of John. It is absolutely a dead solid GQ answer that Jesus is a Paschal surrogate in Christian theology.
It’s not mine, imbecile, it’s the Gospel of John. It’s not middle ages. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and I do. You should shut your fucking cakehole and try to to learn something.
Wrong. Incorrect, Misinformed. That’s not all it was, but that’s PART of waht it was, and that’s what John seized on.
Wrong. Incorrect. Misinformed.
It wasn’t Paul, dumbshit. It was the Gospel of John. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Why are you flapping your mouth?
It was an answer to OP’s question in that thread, halfwit. It was answer as to the theological origin of atoning sacrifice.
I never said anyone was doing animal sacrifices NOW, I was saying that Christian soteriology is rooted in the same primitive assumptions.
Whatever you say. But you strike me as a concern-troll and a rules lawyer. You signed up three weeks ago and have a 37 ppd count. I’m pretty sure you’re a sock of a banned poster, but whatever. You are an idiot and suck at defending Judaism.
OK, I’m really sorry Dio got to have all the attention in his own Pit thread. I’m was OK with keeping it in the other thread and I stuck my reply in there, but now it’s here, so I’ll scoot my tootie over there, though Cheshire pretty much summed it up re: Atonement Holiday: Dem’s da fax and ya got em wrong. The thing is, I just can’t drop it without some kind of defense because then it looks like Dio’s creative memory is correct. Blarney. There it is if anyone remembers what the original debate was over at this point.
Negative. I’m a twenty seven year old female who lives in Denver, Colorado.
:dubious: I’m rubber; you’re glue…?
Calling someone out on their inaccurate ‘fact’ about ancient history is not being a defender of Judaism, and besides, Finn and Bricker seem to have those titles already.
If you would like to Pit me, maybe just start a new thread?
What the fuck? Gee, it just kind of got here? Or did you resuscitate a dying thread with your post here, in which you breathlessly informed everyone that “Dio just made up a new Jewish holiday.”
Even engaging with you in limited discussion has this sticky, yucky feeling. Kind of like wrestling with a tarbaby, or with the inappropriate scout master. Seems like you might be looking for more from this board than a debate. Maybe you’re like one of those apocryphal Western US eagles, looking to lock talons in a free-falling death fuck.
Regardless, I do appreciate you and Cheshire Human offering up a pitch perfect parody of what the Dio Show really is. You make it very easy for he rest of the SDMB to resolve the dilemma I mentioned above. I’d much rather you all kept this kind of shit restricted to the Snark Pit.
