Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Ken Brown]

In almost all cultures that rely on hunting or animal husbandry, there can be found the concept of sacrifice of an animal(s), although they are not all handled the same way. Why is this done? Generally speaking, it's to thank God (or the Gods) for the gift of animals with the hope that God would welcome such sacrifices.

As far as our animal sacrifices were concerned, what many don't understand is that the meat of the animal was eaten by the priests with what's left then passed on to the poor, and only the blood, skin, and some internal organs were burnt.

As far as "innocent animals" are concerned, are you a vegetarian?

BTW, the shedding of blood is not required for atonement as it is only one pathway.

Shalom metis, so you would be in a disagreement with Rashi? He was very clear in what he inferred, that the blood of the animal atones for the sinner. This thinking of Rashi is how Israel and Judah viewed the sacrifice of animals. The animals blood was shed in their place and atoned for their sin (a sin offering), and that is the same thinking that traditional christianity has, but instead of an animal, they have "Jesus" blood being shed in their place atoning for their sin. And as I stated earlier, both Judaism and traditional christianity err in their thinking about sacrifice, but it appears that maybe Judaism is beginning to correct it's error in moving away from the delusional thinking of shedding a substitutes blood for forgiveness/atonement. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ingledsva]

Shalom metis, so you would be in a disagreement with Rashi? He was very clear in what he inferred, that the blood of the animal atones for the sinner. This thinking of Rashi is how Israel and Judah viewed the sacrifice of animals. The animals blood was shed in their place and atoned for their sin (a sin offering), and that is the same thinking that traditional christianity has, but instead of an animal, they have "Jesus" blood being shed in their place atoning for their sin. And as I stated earlier, both Judaism and traditional christianity err in their thinking about sacrifice, but it appears that maybe Judaism is beginning to correct it's error in moving away from the delusional thinking of shedding a substitutes blood for forgiveness/atonement. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Yep, definitely a replacement for human blood.


There are several books out there on the Hebrew originally having Sacrifice of the First Born Son, just as the neighboring tribes did, before going to animal sacrifice.

And of course there are several Bible verses about them going back to it - though usually blaming it on association with the heathens.



*

 

[Sleeppy]

Yep, definitely a replacement for human blood.


There are several books out there on the Hebrew originally having Sacrifice of the First Born Son, just as the neighboring tribes did, before going to animal sacrifice.

And of course there are several Bible verses about them going back to it - though usually blaming it on association with the heathens.



*

Can you provide the sources you have? I'd like to review them.

 

[Ingledsva]

Can you provide the sources you have? I'd like to review them.

Sure. Here is a start -

2Ki 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.


Eze 23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.


2Ki 16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.

We are in fact told in the Bible that the Israelites kept turning back to their original Gods.


From Catholic Encyclopedia -

"The custom of causing one's children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity …"


“In the week's Torah portion, G-d says about the Mishkan( Tabernacle) "V'neekdash Bichvodi", I will be made holy in my honor (loosely translated). The Talmud says to read it that "I will be made holy through my honored ones" referring to Aaron's 2 son's who were killed. Their death was part of the dedication of the Mishkan…”Hypermail Torah-Forum Archive: Re: Human Sacrifice


And here God says HE did it!!!!!! The original?

Eze 20:25 Wherefore - I -gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

Eze 20:26 And - I - polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.


Jewish Ritual Murder, a Historical Investigation, by Hellmut Schramm, Ph.D


THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF THE BELOVED SON

The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity Jon D. Levenson

"Tracing from Canaanite to Christian thought the humiliations, deaths, and exaltations of sons and heirs, Levenson intrigues, astounds, and undermines many dearly held theological beliefs. This tour de force offers fascinating discussions of such matters as child sacrifice and the deity's right to the first-born; the paschal sacrifice and other Israelite rituals as symbolic substitutes for the son and heir."--A. J. Levine, Choice


*

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, so you would be in a disagreement with Rashi? He was very clear in what he inferred, that the blood of the animal atones for the sinner. This thinking of Rashi is how Israel and Judah viewed the sacrifice of animals. The animals blood was shed in their place and atoned for their sin (a sin offering), and that is the same thinking that traditional christianity has, but instead of an animal, they have "Jesus" blood being shed in their place atoning for their sin. And as I stated earlier, both Judaism and traditional christianity err in their thinking about sacrifice, but it appears that maybe Judaism is beginning to correct it's error in moving away from the delusional thinking of shedding a substitutes blood for forgiveness/atonement. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

First of all, Rashi's opinion is Rashi's opinion and is not the final word on the issue of the sacrifices. However, when you read what Rashi wrote, he's dealing with the symbolic value of the issue of the blood sacrifice, and I don't disagree with him on that.

And for you to say that Judaism erred with the issue of the sacrifices reflects a misunderstanding that you have about how Judaism actually works. Not only do we use symbolism, metaphors, allegories, etc. a great deal in our traditional writings, there simply is no official interpretation on the issue of sacrifices or other issues because of our use of a commentary system. Until you understand that approach and its implications, you will never understand Judaism.

 

[outhouse]

First of all, Rashi's opinion is Rashi's opinion and is not the final word on the issue of the sacrifices. However, when you read what Rashi wrote, he's dealing with the symbolic value of the issue of the blood sacrifice, and I don't disagree with him on that.

And for you to say that Judaism erred with the issue of the sacrifices reflects a misunderstanding that you have about how Judaism actually works. Not only do we use symbolism, metaphors, allegories, etc. a great deal in our traditional writings, there simply is no official interpretation on the issue of sacrifices or other issues because of our use of a commentary system. Until you understand that approach and its implications, you will never understand Judaism.

Not only that, it shows complete ignorance on how diverse first century Judaism actually was.

he is trying to pigeon hole the whole culture in one little egg.

 

[Ken Brown]

First of all, Rashi's opinion is Rashi's opinion and is not the final word on the issue of the sacrifices. However, when you read what Rashi wrote, he's dealing with the symbolic value of the issue of the blood sacrifice, and I don't disagree with him on that.

And for you to say that Judaism erred with the issue of the sacrifices reflects a misunderstanding that you have about how Judaism actually works. Not only do we use symbolism, metaphors, allegories, etc. a great deal in our traditional writings, there simply is no official interpretation on the issue of sacrifices or other issues because of our use of a commentary system. Until you understand that approach and its implications, you will never understand Judaism.

Shalom metis, let me try to help with your understanding of Judaism, and sacrifice. Here is a quote from the Pentateuch & Haftorahs by Dr. J H Hertz from page 562 on the "Jewish Interpretations of Sacrifice:"

Alongside the symbolic interpretation of sacrifice is the so-called juridical. It is advocated by Ibn Ezra and to some extent by Nachmanides. Its essence is: As a sinner, the offender's life is forfeit to God; but by a gracious provision he is permitted to substitute a faultless victim, to which his guilt is, as it were, transferred by the imposition of hands. Many Christian exegetes adopted this interpretation, and built the whole theological foundation of their Church upon it.

So it appears that Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and to come extent, Nachmanides believed the sacrifice was "substitutional." This is delusional thinking on their part, and as Dr. Hertz states, traditional christianity followed in their footsteps, building their church upon this false doctrine. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[nash8]

Assume what you will. If you receive money from someone else, they sacrificed that money in order to give it. If you go to the bank for a loan, the bank must sacrifice the amount to be given, in order that you receive it. So, if the people turn away, it is because they haven't understood that their sacrifice would be synonymous with an investment in that case.. All you would need to do is show them a dictionary, or a thesaurus.


What is Salary Sacrifice?


AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia

Actually in the case of the bank, they don't have to sacrifice anything. It's a practice called fractional reserve lending. The banks are able to lend out way more money then they actually have. So in actuality, the banks are able to not make a sacrifice while still lending out the money. One could argue that dependent upon the strength they hold within the economy, a bank could have more or less "sacrifice", but those banks that hold prominence within our economy, it has already been proven time and again that they make little to no sacrifice in lending money.

Not relevant to any discussion here.

Other then commeting on possible motives for bias.

There is no connection to a well known popular historian begging a friend to release his other friends, and making a claim that Pilate "could have"

Pilate "could have" done anything he wated, but keeping peace was his number one job as his life depended on it. he had a reputation for being to brutal, the bible contradicts historical knowledge in every aspect of the trial including letting some Jew go free.

The trial itself is debated oalong the lines of apologist thinking it was real, and critical historians claiming it as a literary creation.

But I believe that you yourself said that Pilate was formally reprimanded for being to brutal, would this not have been a perfect chance to demonstrate his "compassion".

And I believe that it was also you that said that arresting the wrong Jew during Passover could have started a riot. I assume that crucifying the wrong Jew could fall under the same category?

Also, I agree with Badger's assessment of precedent. It is a strong foundation of legal argument, why not with historical argument as well?

 

[outhouse]

But I believe that you yourself said that Pilate was formally reprimanded for being to brutal, would this not have been a perfect chance to demonstrate his "compassion".

He was thrown from his position, which amounts to dishonor and possibly death.

It also happened long after the crucifixion.

And I believe that it was also you that said that arresting the wrong Jew during Passover could have started a riot. I assume that crucifying the wrong Jew could fall under the same category?

Nope.


It was the attendants choice to die a miserable death if they crossed a line. One man did.

How they handled it, stopped an all out war. Romans soldiers in the temple could have started a riot, hanging a peasant would not start anything.

Also, I agree with Badger's assessment of precedent. It is a strong foundation of legal argument, why not with historical argument as well?

Its not though.

One time event, and only one man survived out of hundreds of thousands of jerws who died on a cross or stake, and it was not Pilate who did so.

It is imagination, as the books ALL tell a different tale.

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, let me try to help with your understanding of Judaism, and sacrifice. Here is a quote from the Pentateuch & Haftorahs by Dr. J H Hertz from page 562 on the "Jewish Interpretations of Sacrifice:"

So it appears that Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and to come extent, Nachmanides believed the sacrifice was "substitutional." This is delusional thinking on their part, and as Dr. Hertz states, traditional christianity followed in their footsteps, building their church upon this false doctrine. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Whether it's delusional on their part, your part, my part, or all of our parts is both conjectural and unfalsifiable, which are two general characteristics of religion in general. Interpretations are interpretations and not intrinsically facts.

BTW, I gave my interpretation previously on this matter and essentially said that I saw the use of animal sacrifices as being mainly symbolic, especially when we look at these practices from a cross-cultural perspective. I see much the same thing with the Christian concept of Jesus' "sacrifice" as well. But the idea of Jesus being a literal sacrifice really doesn't make sense if taken literally in light of what's found in both Torah and Tanakh. OTOH, I'm not saying that either Torah and Tanakh are correct.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whether it's delusional on their part, your part, my part, or all of our parts is both conjectural and unfalsifiable, which are two general characteristics of religion in general. Interpretations are interpretations and not intrinsically facts.

BTW, I gave my interpretation previously on this matter and essentially said that I saw the use of animal sacrifices as being mainly symbolic, especially when we look at these practices from a cross-cultural perspective. I see much the same thing with the Christian concept of Jesus' "sacrifice" as well. But the idea of Jesus being a literal sacrifice really doesn't make sense if taken literally in light of what's found in both Torah and Tanakh. OTOH, I'm not saying that either Torah and Tanakh are correct.

This is basically what I was saying. It doesn't relate to the 'heifer sacrifice' at all.

 

[metis]

This is basically what I was saying. It doesn't relate to the 'heifer sacrifice' at all.

Nor I.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nor I.

Yes..eaxactly. Exampled by..
1. Jesus as Divine/different
2. Jesus with resurrection/different
3. Jesus with followers outside of temple adherents/different


The similarity just isn't there.

 

[Ken Brown]

Whether it's delusional on their part, your part, my part, or all of our parts is both conjectural and unfalsifiable, which are two general characteristics of religion in general. Interpretations are interpretations and not intrinsically facts.

BTW, I gave my interpretation previously on this matter and essentially said that I saw the use of animal sacrifices as being mainly symbolic, especially when we look at these practices from a cross-cultural perspective. I see much the same thing with the Christian concept of Jesus' "sacrifice" as well. But the idea of Jesus being a literal sacrifice really doesn't make sense if taken literally in light of what's found in both Torah and Tanakh. OTOH, I'm not saying that either Torah and Tanakh are correct.

Shalom metis, your interpretation IS your interpretation, and it really doesn't matter does it, unless your interpretation is correct. Properly understanding sacrifice is of paramount importance, and twisting the use of sacrifice INTO a substitutional practice is what I oppose. Both Judaism and false christianity has done this with sacrifice, making it substitutional (at least the "juridical" part of sacrifice). This was my initial complaint that you objected to, and you stated that I did not understand Judaism and it's explanation of sacrifice.

There is a proper way of looking at sacrifice and how though it, one's sins are atoned for, and a sinner is cleansed, being made righteous, but it is not a substititional cleansing or righteousness, for the Scriptures are very clear about substituting righteousness:

Eze 14:13 - 14:14
(13) 'Son of man, when a land sinneth against Me by trespassing grievously, and I stretch out My hand upon it, and break the staff of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast;
(14) though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the L-rd GOD.

Eze 14:19 - 14:20
(19) Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out My fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast;
(20) though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the L-rd GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

As everyone should see, substituting righteousness is forbidden. It's not in the thinking or mindset of HaShem to save someone by substituted righteousness, one has to be righteous, as He is righteous, to be saved (Gen 6:9, Gen 17:1, Deut 18:13, 1Jn 3:7). The sacrificing of an innocent sacrifice to "transfer" the sins of the wicked, or to "transfer" the innocence of the sacrifice, is abominable. The true purpose of sacrifice was a means for the sinner to be put to death, and to make sure that whatever caused the sinner to bring the offering, would die WITH the offering, thus cleansing the sinner of their sin. The "imposition" of hands was a means to IDENTIFY with the sacrifice and become ONE with it, and then die WITH it, and it wasn't meant to "transfer" any sin or righteousness. This is WHY Elohim objected to the MULTITUDE of sacrifices that Israel and Judah offered, because they refused to DIE to their sins and kept killing the innocent animals, as they remained in their defiled state of sinning, and didn't become LIKE Noah, Daniel, or Job.

Hopefully this helps to make some sense for you. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ken Brown]

This is basically what I was saying. It doesn't relate to the 'heifer sacrifice' at all.

Shalom disciple, the "heifer sacrifice" IS the Foundation of the Torah. It is the first and most important offering that should be offered in cleansing defiled sinners from death, and separating them from their iniquities.

Yeshua is the symbolic or Spiritual Red Heifer, and it is only by properly understanding HOW He FULFILLS the specific requirements of this Ritual that a sinner can be cleansed from their iniquity, and the defilement of death. Have you ever looked into the specific details and requirements that are found in this Ordinance of the Torah? Why was "cedar wood" required to be cast INTO the midst of the BURNING of the Heifer? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, your interpretation IS your interpretation, and it really doesn't matter does it, unless your interpretation is correct. Properly understanding sacrifice is of paramount importance, and twisting the use of sacrifice INTO a substitutional practice is what I oppose. Both Judaism and false christianity has done this with sacrifice, making it substitutional (at least the "juridical" part of sacrifice). This was my initial complaint that you objected to, and you stated that I did not understand Judaism and it's explanation of sacrifice.

There is a proper way of looking at sacrifice and how though it, one's sins are atoned for, and a sinner is cleansed, being made righteous, but it is not a substititional cleansing or righteousness, for the Scriptures are very clear about substituting righteousness:

Eze 14:13 - 14:14
(13) 'Son of man, when a land sinneth against Me by trespassing grievously, and I stretch out My hand upon it, and break the staff of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast;
(14) though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the L-rd GOD.

Eze 14:19 - 14:20
(19) Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out My fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast;
(20) though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the L-rd GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

As everyone should see, substituting righteousness is forbidden. It's not in the thinking or mindset of HaShem to save someone by substituted righteousness, one has to be righteous, as He is righteous, to be saved (Gen 6:9, Gen 17:1, Deut 18:13, 1Jn 3:7). The sacrificing of an innocent sacrifice to "transfer" the sins of the wicked, or to "transfer" the innocence of the sacrifice, is abominable. The true purpose of sacrifice was a means for the sinner to be put to death, and to make sure that whatever caused the sinner to bring the offering, would die WITH the offering, thus cleansing the sinner of their sin. The "imposition" of hands was a means to IDENTIFY with the sacrifice and become ONE with it, and then die WITH it, and it wasn't meant to "transfer" any sin or righteousness. This is WHY Elohim objected to the MULTITUDE of sacrifices that Israel and Judah offered, because they refused to DIE to their sins and kept killing the innocent animals, as they remained in their defiled state of sinning, and didn't become LIKE Noah, Daniel, or Job.

Hopefully this helps to make some sense for you. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

You totally misunderstand the basic approach on this as it's even specified in Torah that there is more than one path for the forgiveness of sins, whether they be personal or corporate, so there's no desire on my part to continue on with this as you assume you're right even though you admit that you don't understand how we look at it. It's not a matter that the sacrifices were somehow unimportant, but that they are not the only path. If you deny this, you deny what's actually written in Torah.

Secondly, animal sacrifices simply cannot in any way be linked to Jesus' "sacrifice" on anything but a symbolic basis, so the point becomes moot anyway.

Take care.

 

[outhouse]

Shalom disciple, the "heifer sacrifice" IS the Foundation of the Torah. be cast INTO the midst of the BURNING of the Heifer? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Provide sources.

Your still making unsubstantiated claims.

In Jesus time, how many cows were brougt into he temple, what process dod they go through to get there.

How mahy sheep?

How many Goats?