It boils down to that he messed up. He's still going to heaven but I'm interested in the symbolism of it. That he didn't go into the inheritance of Abraham because of it.
so the symbolism that you get to interpret as you want. Got it.
By context it should be reasonably clear he did do it. Her death became a lament in that region of Israel for years afterward.
You mean the context as you understand it. The text doesn't say what you want it to say.
Then he was a sacrifice by the Word of God. God called him a sacrifice and God can't lie.
Can you show me where God called him a sacrifice? In the Hebrew, please.
Their lives were redeemed and the Egyptian firstborns were not. It doesn't get more plain than that.
They were declared special because they were saved -- not murderable. I don't see how you invent that.
By God they are. For example the symbolism of Psalm 44 compares martyrs (those killed for God's sake) to sheep and we know sheep are used for sacrifices.
Psalm 44 mentions sheep that are slaughtered and eaten. There is no mention of sacrifice. What did you have in mind, supper?
Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. (Psalm 44:22)
And shockingly, the text does NOT use any word that means "sacrifice". Crazy, right? Almost like it is specifically NOT saying "sacrifice."
God receives them as a sacrifice. They are an accepted sacrifice to God.
So you say. Though you say it without any textual evidence.
It is a kind of human sacrifice and it ultimately symbolizes a life devoted to worshiping God by the covenant with Abraham. So a kind of living sacrifice.
No, no kind of human sacrifice. See how you have to say "kind of" to make your theology work? That means "not" but you are twisting it.
The details are important when you're dealing with the things of God. So it's significant that blood is shed in this way. Because you have vaginal blood; women's period and now blood for men as well.
So a woman's period is a sacrifice I guess...
It obviously has to do with reproduction. Making a holy progeny.
Too much Dan Brown for you.
According to Lev. 17:10-11 the blood is for atonement.
No actually what it says. The text says that it is the soul which expiates, not the blood.
The priesthood of Melchizedek is in the Tanakh and predates the priesthood of Aaron or Levi. So are you denying it exists?
oops by you. The text uses a particular word to describe the role Malki-tzedek plays, not a category. It is the same word that is used to describe Yitro. Is there a "priesthood" of Yitro? No. Because that's not what the Hebrew word means. Somehow, your translator didn't explain that to you.
Because it's pretty important if it does exist; it should be taken seriously. Like I said the details are really important in the scriptures. They must be paid attention to.
The words are important. Can you even read them?
Isn't David called a priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110 by God?
oooh, no, not really. You should really study the text better. The use of a specific root doesn't point to the noun you want it to. Study would have revealed that...
So that's also important because it shows the priesthood of the kings of Judah by the Davidic line goes back to Melchizedek.
Ouch. As the "line" of Malki-Tzedek is the line of Shem, then the line goes through Jacob and to all the tribes, but not Yitro who was also called by the same noun root.
This only makes sense as they rule Jerusalem. Or do you deny that? If so; on what basis do you deny that the Davidic line of kings have the priesthood of Melchizedek? Because they were anointed with oil and the Spirit of God.
Because the priesthood vested in the tribe of Levi and David was of the tribe of Judah. Are you new at this?
This is why Zachariah makes them equal with the priesthood of Aaron. He says there are two anointed ones who stand before the Lord instead of just Joshua the heir of Aaron. Now also Zerubbabel the heir of David. (Zecheriah 4:14)
Yes, two from different tribes. You just undid yourself.
No, I don't think he does.
Really? Because even for the small slice of unintentional sins for which ANY sacrifice can atone, God clearly states that a meal offering can suffice (Lev 5:11), meaning that blood is not necessary.
Just because the sacrifice is not yet mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't coming. So of course no one knew Jesus would be the sacrifice for their sins in those days; but they still believed God and so it was accounted to them for righteousness.
So they were all wrong, but God is cool with that because secrets gotsta be kept. Amirite?
But go ahead and list some of these options. Let's see what you're talking about.
You mean besides the meal offering I just listed? Deut 4 and 30 mention prayer and turning back to God through repentance (and that's just in the Pentateuch...if you want to, look at 1 Kings 8 etc)
There was clearly sin before Moses gave the Law. God flooded the world because of sin.
That doesn't answer what sin, according to your metaphor, Isaac was to die for,
Mortality itself is the biggest witness that we are in fact sinners.
Not actually what the text says...
Ultimately however yes it was metaphor. Because Isaac was not going to die. God knew he would provide a sacrifice. Even Abraham predicted it on the way. Because Isaac asked where the sacrifice was and Abraham said God would provide one.
Great, so it isn't parallel to any other death because here, Abe knew that it wasn't a death. Thanks.
even though Abraham himself thought he would sacrifice Isaac.
Wait...you just said the exact opposite. Get your story straight.
So how do you interpret Isaiah 53? No doubt you think it's about Israel as a nation being persecuted by gentiles. So then God uses gentiles to persecute Israel and make Israel a sacrifice according to your understanding of Isaiah 53. So what were you saying about Romans being used by God?
I'm not sure why you drag Isaiah into this, but you clearly haven't read Isaiah through and through -- this isn't about MY opinion of anything. The text makes clear who is speaking. My problem is that you said "God is doing it by himself" but he wasn't -- the Romans did the killing.
It really is a God thing. I don't know why you would scoff at the idea of it being because of God. Unless you're atheist. I know some practicing Jews, even Rabbis are atheists sometimes and only practice for the sake of tradition. It's not unheard of. If so then there is no shame in admitting it.
I'm not an atheist, I just don't believe that God changes his mind and his rules whenever he feels like it the way you do. It is ok to admit that you need a changeable and mortal God to make your theology work -- lots of pagans before you believed that. Own it.
It is put on the horns of the altar as a witness that the animal was slain and was sprinkled with the incense.
Except when it isn't.
The fact the blood is spilled shows the life of the animal was taken because the life is in the blood. Besides there is symbolism in the blood (and life) going back into the earth which the animal came from originally anyway. As the preacher says in Ecclesiastes who knows the spirit of the beast that goes down to the earth. Whereas on the other hand the righteous blood of man cries out from the ground to be avenged like Abel's.
So you play with "symbolism" and explain things the way you need to. That's ok. Everyone needs a fantasy life.