Not sure what kind of confirmation you are looking for kniz but I’d be happy to elaborate if you be a bit more specific.
Kniz,
Don’t have time at this moment to go through and get you quotes, references, etc…Just wanted to let ya know that I wasnt ignoring your question. When I get the kids fed, tucked in, and down for the night I will sit down and do the research. But in the meantime, suffice it to say, that just like throughout the whole bible, it rather depends on WHOSE words you are going to put more stock in. One prophet says one thing, and another one says a totally different thing. Most of my references will come from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But I will also look for the one you mentioned as well as others.
Mayor quimby, (ignore previous reference to Kniz if it happened to post before I cancelled) duh
Don’t have time at this moment to go through and get you quotes, references, etc…Just wanted to let ya know that I wasnt ignoring your question. When I get the kids fed, tucked in, and down for the night I will sit down and do the research. But in the meantime, suffice it to say, that just like throughout the whole bible, it rather depends on WHOSE words you are going to put more stock in. One prophet says one thing, and another one says a totally different thing. Most of my references will come from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But I will also look for the one you mentioned as well as others.
Here you go, Mayor Quimby,
A blood sacrifice was A way of gaining atonement. However, it was not the ONLY way.
For example, a sin-offering could be made from flour (Leviticus 5:11).
Furthermore, forgiveness for sins can be attained through repentence and fasting (see Jonah).
Another method is prayer. See Hosea 14:3.
In fact, reading Isaiah 1 gives one the impression that God does not want one to go out and sin and bring sacrifices by rote for atonement. What God wants from us is not really a sacrifice but a “broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart.” (Psalms 51:17-18)
Lastly, keep in mind that a blood sacrifice was only acceptable for an unintentional sin (Leviticus 4:1). An intentional sin requires repentence and prayer.
[slight hijack]
Abraham’s test
The fact that God was telling him to offer a human sacrifice was the test. Here he was, railing all his life against idolatry and human sacrifice and, lo and behold, God asks him to do the same thing he’s been fighting against. Whether or not he would agree to do as God commanded or say “Hey, God, you know what? You don’t make any sense! Leave me out of your plans!” was the real test Tornado Siren. It wasn’t because God was telling Abraham that blood sacrifices are necessary… Isaac’s blood was never shed.
[/slight hijack]
Zev Steinhardt
Found lots of verses, but I dont think its really necessary to post them all here. I think the major problem here is there are so many different people talking about the same thing in the bible. According to the law handed down to the people of Israel by Moses, some transgressions require a blood sacrifice, and others do not. There doesnt seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which do and which don’t. Personally, I think Moses was just getting old, and he was babbling, but thats just me. But suddenly along comes Jesus, and he becomes the one great sacrifice. The one that ends the whole silly notion of sacrifice. The beginning of a new era, and a kinder and gentler god for all.
And yes, Zev…I know the whole Abraham thing was just a test…but I love mentioning it since it just gives me one more thing to mention to Christians when they talk about how loving their God is. It’s a bad habit. Forgive me?
It is my understanding that it was not the death of Jesus that stopped the blood sacrifices. The only place to sacrifice was at the Temple in Jerusalem (it was done at Bethal, but I don’t think in Jesus’ time.) Anyway it was when the Romans took Jerusalem around 66 A.D. that the Temple was destroyed. That stopped sacrifice, but then later 120/140 A.D. the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple and this time the Jews were thrown out of Jerusalem.
I was told that they were allowed in Jerusalem one day a year and that they would go to the Wailing Wall, since it was all that was left of the Temple. Is this true?
Well, like I alluded to and Zev confirmed (thanks Zev!) there was a ryhme and reaons to the sacrifice. These are a people who were brought up with a rhyme and reason for everything! I don’t think you could get 613 commandments otherwise. Anyway, I was simply stating the Judaic principle on sacrifice as I understood it.
I would say that it’s not whose words in the bible you put more stock in, it is whose interpretation of those verses you find more credible.
And again I ask; given that human sacrifice is a no-no in the OT and there was very specific requirements for sacrifice (location, type of animal, method of death, disposal of body), how can the death of a sinless man sacrificed to a god be seen any different than the death of a sinless baby sacrificed to a god?
One difference is that the man is capable of giving meaningful consent.
Good point Libertarian. Although it could be argued that Jesus didn’t necessarily have that option, either having that consent taken away by Rome or by God himself (hence the prayeer asking to “take this cup from me” and having his request denied). Could Jesus have disobeyed and ran from his impending capture and crucifixion?
If Jesus came to fulfil the law, not change it, how can this be done by breaking the law? The law specifically outlaws human sacrifice and thus the human Jesus (I’m not sure where you stand on the fully God-fully man doctrine Lib) could not serve as a sacrifice.
[slight hijack]
The purpose for sacrifice in the OT was what? Perhaps a better understanding of this will help in the discussion.
[/ slight hijack]
Mayor
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
The request was granted, not denied.
As to the sacrifice, it was the God Jesus, and not the human Jesus, that was sacrficed. There can be no greater sacrifice for God than to take upon Himself even an infinitessimal sin, but to take on all of it for all time — no words…
Ok, so maybe “denied” wasn’t the greatest choice of words. But the verse shows the Jesus is not doing his own will, but that of the Father. Thus the human Jesus is not consenting, but how could he not obey with that pesky diety side always compelling him. Of course “did Jesus have free will” is another thread entirely, now isn’t it?
I was looking for a good definition of “sacrifice”. They are all similar, but this one seems to fit (from http://www.m-w.com):
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>
So what does God surrender through the cross? What does he lose? How is taking on sin a sacrifice, and what purpose does the horrible death of the human Jesus serve if it is the God Jesus that is being sacrificed?
Jesus’ will coincided with the will of His Father. If — that is, in case — it was the Father’s will to relieve His burden, then Jesus asked that it be lifted. Nevertheless, Jesus freely made the decision — that is, He expressed His own will — that the will of the Father be His own. In other words, had Jesus stopped with the half that you had given, then His own will would be unknown, but because He followed His conditional clause with an imperative, His own will is clearly that His Father’s will be done.
He not only consented, but demanded, that His Father’s will be done. The imperative construct is the most forceful available in language.
Yes. Be proud that you did not let this red herring distract you.
“The wages of sin is death.” Sin destroys Love. The effect of sin is the death of God’s Spirit within a man. Just as there is no greater danger to a man qua animal than the destruction of his body, so there is no greater danger to God qua Love than the destruction of His Spirit.
Had the intensity of the sin God took upon Himself been greater than the intensity of His own Love, He would have ceased to exist.
It was a mercy. Would you have Jesus’ beautiful Spirit stripped from Him merely so that His body could be separate from His essence? He did not come down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day. True, it is horrible that He was tortured, beaten, and crucified for having done nothing wrong. But physical death is the liberation of the Spirit, and it is the Spirit that is alive in the truer sense. The man Jesus would have died of old age anyway, eventually.
If you don’t see the contradiction here…
“there is no greater danger to a man in the character of animal than the destruction of his body…”
And just how does that change the contradiction? How can a great danger be a liberation?
There is no greater danger to a man qua animal than the destruction of his body [, i.e., his] physical death [, which] is the liberation of the Spirit, and it is the Spirit that is alive in the truer sense.
I think you two are misunderstanding each other.
It wouldn’t be the first time, of course, but this time I think it’s on a simple matter of semantics.
Tell me if I’m wrong here:
Jab, you’re understanding Lib’s phrase “no greater danger” to mean that the danger is quite great indeed – “There is no greater danger to the human race than the threat of nuclear annilihation. That’s huge.”
Lib, you’re intending the phrase to mean that the danger is not that great – “There’s no greater danger in eating this pasta than maybe having to get my suit dry-cleaned. See? No biggie.”
IOW: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
Thanks, manhattan. That’s exactly what I meant.
Lib, one of the reasons I find you so frustrating is because you don’t explain things well enough. Using words in obscure ways doesn’t help. (When does love not mean “love”? When Libertarian uses it.) And I swear I have never, EVER before heard anyone use the term “reference frame” the way you do, either.
It’s fine to be succinct, but not to the point of obscurity.
The four basic philosophical reference frames:
[li]Indeterminism (no preferred frame of reference)[/li][li]Determinism (single preferred subjective frame of reference)[/li][li]Idealism (single preferred objective frame of reference)[/li][li]Materialism (no preferred subjective frame of reference)[/li][/quote]
Manhattan
Blessed are the peacemakers. As Jesus said, “the flesh counts for nothing”. Only the Spirit is alive in any meaningful sense.
I will presume to summarize:
As has been noted, Paul virtually co-founded Christianity.
The early gospels make much of Jesus, the healer and excorcist. Jesus, as ultimate shaman, if you will.
Paul cozened to the rationality that is Greek. He could’nt sell Chrisitanity to the cosmopolitan Culture unless there was an element of geometry. Paul “packaged” Jesus for the rationalist Hellenic culture.
After the fact, they interpreted Jesus as the sacrifice, spinning the prophecy accordingly. “Lamb of God”, etc.
How about: Jesus the hippy says “No more death!”
And the Authority sez: “After you, no more. If you’ll do it”
Crap. Avatars happen, they are human as you and me. Better, yes, but only better. Not different.