Blood Sacrifices

[Shibolet]

Blood Sacrifices

Blood sacrifices, was it really necessary? No, it was not. It has never been. Moses was probably almost forced to adopt them or he would have never been able to freed the Israelites from captivity in Egypt.

The problem is that Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt used to watch every day animal sacrifices being made and, the span of 430 years is not the same as 430 days. They got so used to sacrifices that they could not understand a religion without sacrifices.

Moses had to make use of the Jewish concept of "Pichuach Nephesh" or he would never succeed to effect the Exodus from Egypt. Pichuach Nephesh is the Jewish allowance to wave a commandment in order to fulfill another more important at the time which was to produce the Exodus.

The truth though is that HaShem never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel if you read Jeremiah 7:22. They were allowed and they stuck so seriously to the culture of the People that they ended up by causing more damages than good throughout the History of Israel in terms of idolatry. So much so that they became the main cause for the exiles of the Jews to other lands.

The worst is that I am not so sure the sacrifices won't return with the rebuilding of the Temple. Bad habits are hard to die.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Welcome to the world of fiction!

[+and-then]

Hebrews 9:22 would disagree: 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It seems a nasty, archaic thing to the modern man but the premise of blood being used is the ultimate symbolism of life itself - without blood there was no life. I'm sure a zoologist could list some animals without blood which are still considered to be alive but I think you get the message. Christ gave the ultimate blood sacrifice and did away with the need for any other when he died on the cross. The symbolism was put paid and now we offer sacrifice through our faith in what we cannot touch or see from day to day. Some will never have faith, seem to be constitutionally incapable of it, but for those who listen, the voice is there and it is sufficient.

[Kenemet]

The truth though is that HaShem never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel if you read Jeremiah 7:22.

That kinda contradicts Genesis... and Exodus and the whole sacrifice made by Cain and Abel which started that bloodshed, and the sacrifices of Jacob (long before the Captivity in Egypt (which didn't happen) and the sacrifices made by Noah when the Ark landed safely and the attempted sacrifice of Issac by Abraham (who then sacrificed the convenient ram instead of his son) and the instructions in Leviticus (all of them)

And of course the other 205 occurrences of the word.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Some will never have faith, seem to be constitutionally incapable of it,

Awww... you noticed!

[ambelamba]

Awww... you noticed!

I used to have faith. Used to.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I used to have faith. Used to.

Some do, some don't. Religion just plays no part in my life at all.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Hebrews 9:22 would disagree: 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It seems a nasty, archaic thing to the modern man but the premise of blood being used is the ultimate symbolism of life itself - without blood there was no life.

That Hebrews quote certainly sounds archaic to me; sprinkling things with blood reminds me more of a fantasy horror film or video game story, kinda bizarre.

Christ gave the ultimate blood sacrifice and did away with the need for any other when he died on the cross. The symbolism was put paid and now we offer sacrifice through our faith in what we cannot touch or see from day to day.

I didn't understand, 'we offer sacrifice through our faith'; what exactly are you sacrificing? 'Reason' I would guess would be sacrificed; I don't mean that snottily, I just mean to the extent that faith is non-rational by definition. I'm not personally too convinced that Jesus really 'sacrificed' much under Christianity but I understand that Christians believe he did, that's admittedly a different subject, but I don't know if I've heard that Christians are likewise 'sacrificing' something. I was just curious if that was what you meant, I hadn't heard of it, and I may be reading it too pedantically; you may have meant 'offer sacrifice' in a very general way, more like just 'offering our faith' maybe.

[Jeanne dArc]

Blood sacrifices, was it really necessary? No, it was not. It has never been.

I agree. Blood sacrifices are barbaric and useless. The Bible, however, says otherwise. Many, many times. And I gather that you place some misplaced authority on that particular book; otherwise I wouldn't even need to mention it.

Moses was probably almost forced to adopt them or he would have never been able to freed the Israelites from captivity in Egypt.

The problem is that Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt used to watch every day animal sacrifices being made and, the span of 430 years is not the same as 430 days. They got so used to sacrifices that they could not understand a religion without sacrifices.

Except that Moses didn't exist, and the Israelites were never in Egypt, so... yeah.

Moses had to make use of the Jewish concept of "Pichuach Nephesh" or he would never succeed to effect the Exodus from Egypt. Pichuach Nephesh is the Jewish allowance to wave a commandment in order to fulfill another more important at the time which was to produce the Exodus.

Except you're talking about Jewish law. Jewish law as you know it did not exist when the book of Exodus was first written, let alone in the fictional time period of the story itself.

The truth though is that HaShem never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel if you read Jeremiah 7:22.

So, you're going to take that verse (and the handful similar to it) over the hundreds that say the opposite? Yeah, that makes sense...

The mitzvot given in Exodus expressly demand blood sacrifice a number of times: including human sacrifice (most people don't notice that one).

They were allowed and they stuck so seriously to the culture of the People that they ended up by causing more damages than good throughout the History of Israel in terms of idolatry. So much so that they became the main cause for the exiles of the Jews to other lands.

Except that the reason for the Exile is well-known: Babylon attempted to invade Egypt, failed, Judah withdrew tribute from Babylon in favor of Egypt, and therefore Babylon retaliated and invaded Jerusalem. The Babylonians couldn't have cared less what gods the Hebrews worshipped, it was all about the tax dollars. Incidentally, the Hebrews had just made Yahweh their "one true god" a mere thirty years earlier: so if anything, it would make more sense that the Hebrews were exiled for p***ing off the ancient gods by turning away from them, not the other way around.

The worst is that I am not so sure the sacrifices won't return with the rebuilding of the Temple. Bad habits are hard to die.

Well given the temple described in Ezekiel is explicitly stated to have a sacrificial service (40:43), it wouldn't be complete without it. I for one see no reason to attempt to build a temple fantacized about by a 2500-year-old oracle, let alone match its descriptions so as to include sacrifice and other barbaric superstitions. If I were to build a temple based on an ancient blueprint though, I'd rather like to make a living replica of Karnak or Angkor. Those would be worth building in my opinion; Ezekiel's imagined temple, not so much.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Since this is in the spirituality vs skeptic section while clearing being a religious post... I will refrain from engaging in the religious battle but I will say:

Animal sacrifice is a real thing, performed by various different religious institutions not just the Jewish one. The beliefs as to what animal sacrifice offers are different, but it is important to these religious institutions nevertheless. Go ahead now lets approach that statement skeptically. O_o

[Kenemet]

I should add to this that the Egyptians didn't practice "blood sacrifice."

They did sacrifice animals (for mummies.) What they brought the gods, however, was edible food already prepared.

[Shibolet]

Welcome to the world of fiction!

No, not fiction but non-Jewish misunderstanding.

[Shibolet]

I agree. Blood sacrifices are barbaric and useless. The Bible, however, says otherwise. Many, many times. And I gather that you place some misplaced authority on that particular book; otherwise I wouldn't even need to mention it.

I am aware that throughout the Bible mentions are made that sacrifices were ordained by the Lord; but only because Moses had been the one to adopt them. So, references to God about the sacrifices were only embellishments in honor to Moses.

Except that Moses didn't exist, and the Israelites were never in Egypt, so... yeah.

Moses did exist and so did the Israelites in Egypt. It was regular for Egyptian Pharaohs to erase all records of prior Pharaohs considered betrayers of the country and the people, or simply to attribute to new-comers Pharaohs all the famous deeds of previous ones.

Except you're talking about Jewish law. Jewish law as you know it did not exist when the book of Exodus was first written, let alone in the fictional time period of the story itself.

What about if the book of Exodus was written by Ezra in Babylon? The references are found in many texts for that matter.

So, you're going to take that verse (and the handful similar to it) over the hundreds that say the opposite? Yeah, that makes sense...

Jeremiah was a major Prophet in Israel and, legitimate Prophets were not liars.

The mitzvot given in Exodus expressly demand blood sacrifice a number of times: including human sacrifice (most people don't notice that one).

Nowhere in the Tanach, the Bible demand the sacrifice of humans. On the contrary, they were condemned.

Except that the reason for the Exile is well-known: Babylon attempted to invade Egypt, failed, Judah withdrew tribute from Babylon in favor of Egypt, and therefore Babylon retaliated and invaded Jerusalem. The Babylonians couldn't have cared less what gods the Hebrews worshipped, it was all about the tax dollars. Incidentally, the Hebrews had just made Yahweh their "one true god" a mere thirty years earlier: so if anything, it would make more sense that the Hebrews were exiled for p***ing off the ancient gods by turning away from them, not the other way around.

How about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who had acknowledge God to be the "One True God?"

Well given the temple described in Ezekiel is explicitly stated to have a sacrificial service (40:43), it wouldn't be complete without it. I for one see no reason to attempt to build a temple fantacized about by a 2500-year-old oracle, let alone match its descriptions so as to include sacrifice and other barbaric superstitions. If I were to build a temple based on an ancient blueprint though, I'd rather like to make a living replica of Karnak or Angkor. Those would be worth building in my opinion; Ezekiel's imagined temple, not so much.

In a dream or vision. That's how Prophet Ezekiel witnessed the Temple being rebuilt. The truth is that he never returned to the Land of Israel. He and Daniel lived the rest of their lives in Babylon.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Shibolet

[Shibolet]

Since this is in the spirituality vs skeptic section while clearing being a religious post... I will refrain from engaging in the religious battle but I will say:

Animal sacrifice is a real thing, performed by various different religious institutions not just the Jewish one. The beliefs as to what animal sacrifice offers are different, but it is important to these religious institutions nevertheless. Go ahead now lets approach that statement skeptically.

The Jewish People have ceased offering animal sacrifices since more than 2,000 years ago. If not yet, soon enough we will lose that characteristic of our old religion which I hope will happen. We have been doing well enough without the sacrifice of animals since then.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Shibolet

[Shibolet]

I should add to this that the Egyptians didn't practice "blood sacrifice."

They did sacrifice animals (for mummies.) What they brought the gods, however, was edible food already prepared.

...from animals they had sacrificed all the same.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Shibolet

[XenoFish]

I will only accept animal sacrifice in the name of BBQ.

[Skep B]

The Jewish People have ceased offering animal sacrifices since more than 2,000 years ago. If not yet, soon enough we will lose that characteristic of our old religion which I hope will happen. We have been doing well enough without the sacrifice of animals since then.

Well, except for the rampant antisemitism. I'm not saying the sacrifices were tied to it, but the correlation's there.

[Grandpa Greenman]

I will only accept animal sacrifice in the name of BBQ.

In the name of John Barleycorn, I call forth Beer! To go with the holy BBQ.

[XenoFish]

Unto this smoking furnace I sacrifice this baby....back ribs. lol

[Kenemet]

...from animals they had sacrificed all the same.

Sacrifice is naming an animal to the deity and killing it in the name of the deity so that the deity can consume it/its energy. The Egyptians didn't do that -- they made offerings of parts of food animals and offerings of mummified animals. But the food offerings were not from sacrificial/sacred animals.

[Leonardo]

Hebrews 9:22 would disagree: 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Except for women's blood, apparently.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Hebrews 9:22 would disagree: 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It seems a nasty, archaic thing to the modern man but the premise of blood being used is the ultimate symbolism of life itself - without blood there was no life. I'm sure a zoologist could list some animals without blood which are still considered to be alive but I think you get the message. Christ gave the ultimate blood sacrifice and did away with the need for any other when he died on the cross. The symbolism was put paid and now we offer sacrifice through our faith in what we cannot touch or see from day to day. Some will never have faith, seem to be constitutionally incapable of it, but for those who listen, the voice is there and it is sufficient.

I don't think it has been understood that faith comes in all shapes and sizes, and there will always be faith in everyone. There will always be faith in other spiritual matters, not just in one. And that means, something else, just as good is there for those who will listen in all manners of having faith. Sorry, I just don't think that can be pin pointed into two simple categories, as I feel I'm an example for this. *shrugs* ​

Awww... you noticed!

You wear it well. ​

Since this is in the spirituality vs skeptic section while clearing being a religious post... I will refrain from engaging in the religious battle but I will say:

Animal sacrifice is a real thing, performed by various different religious institutions not just the Jewish one. The beliefs as to what animal sacrifice offers are different, but it is important to these religious institutions nevertheless. Go ahead now lets approach that statement skeptically. O_o

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Edited June 21, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright

[GlitterRose]

Blood Sacrifices

Blood sacrifices, was it really necessary? No, it was not. It has never been. Moses was probably almost forced to adopt them or he would have never been able to freed the Israelites from captivity in Egypt.

The problem is that Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt used to watch every day animal sacrifices being made and, the span of 430 years is not the same as 430 days. They got so used to sacrifices that they could not understand a religion without sacrifices.

Moses had to make use of the Jewish concept of "Pichuach Nephesh" or he would never succeed to effect the Exodus from Egypt. Pichuach Nephesh is the Jewish allowance to wave a commandment in order to fulfill another more important at the time which was to produce the Exodus.

The truth though is that HaShem never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel if you read Jeremiah 7:22. They were allowed and they stuck so seriously to the culture of the People that they ended up by causing more damages than good throughout the History of Israel in terms of idolatry. So much so that they became the main cause for the exiles of the Jews to other lands.

The worst is that I am not so sure the sacrifices won't return with the rebuilding of the Temple. Bad habits are hard to die.

It was an early Canaanite practice not only to sacrifice animals, but also their first born sons. Indeed, it's in the early books of the bible that they believed YHVH demanded this. Later passages begin to contradict this, and then you see that it has become a condemned practice, but they were substituting burnt animal sacrifices.

For instance, Ezekiel 20:25-26 directly indicates that YHWH actually commanded such sacrifices: “I [YHWH] also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live. I caused them to sin by their (own) gifts, by causing (them) to pass through (the fire) all who open the womb [i.e., the firstborn], in order that I might horrify them, in order that they might know that I am YHWH.”

https://www.google.c...9vaTYz5jQO7waiw

Now this is in no means an attack on Abrahamic religion to point this out. It's just that when you look to origins of all faiths, if you go back far enough, you're going to end up with polytheism. YHVH was indeed a part of other pantheons before he was viewed as the one true God by his people. Child sacrifice was widespread back then, and everyone eventually moved away from the practice. It was believed to appease angry gods, which people feared, YHVH included. This was especially done in times of turmoil, as in during war or famine, etc.

Edited June 21, 2015 by ChaosRose

[GlitterRose]

It was an early Canaanite practice not only to sacrifice animals, but also their first born sons. Indeed, it's in the early books of the bible that they believed YHVH demanded this. Later passages begin to contradict this, and then you see that it has become a condemned practice, but they were substituting burnt animal sacrifices.

For instance, Ezekiel 20:25-26 directly indicates that YHWH actually commanded such sacrifices: “I [YHWH] also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live. I caused them to sin by their (own) gifts, by causing (them) to pass through (the fire) all who open the womb [i.e., the firstborn], in order that I might horrify them, in order that they might know that I am YHWH.”

https://www.google.c...9vaTYz5jQO7waiw

Now this is in no means an attack on Abrahamic religion to point this out. It's just that when you look to origins of all faiths, if you go back far enough, you're going to end up with polytheism. YHVH was indeed a part of other pantheons before he was viewed as the one true God by his people. Child sacrifice was widespread back then, and everyone eventually moved away from the practice. It was believed to appease angry gods, which people feared, YHVH included. This was especially done in times of turmoil, as in during war or famine, etc.

Moses was probably almost forced to adopt them or he would have never been able to freed the Israelites from captivity in Egypt.

The problem is that Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt used to watch every day animal sacrifices being made and, the span of 430 years is not the same as 430 days. They got so used to sacrifices that they could not understand a religion without sacrifices.

Also, from what I've read, there is no evidence that Egyptians practiced child sacrifice. Not even human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice in 1st Dynasty Egypt (c. 2950–2775 BCE) is a hypothesis that during the very early stages of Dynastic Egyptian history, the Pharaohs of the 1st Dynasty practised human sacrifice, having courtiers or high officials kill themselves (or be killed) so that they could be buried in the Royal tomb and thus continue to serve the Pharaoh in the afterlife. There is, however, very little evidence that anything like this actually happened. The discoveries at Abydos are indeed somewhat unusual, but the fact remains that there is no indicators of a cultural preference or tolerance of human sacrifice in Egyptian literature and beliefs, and absolutely no evidence at all at any point from the 2nd Dynasty onwards, nor is there is there any indications of such a practice occurring in the pre-dynastic cultures that existed immediately prior to the unification of Egypt. Therefore, the evidence claimed for human sacrifice in the 1st Dynasty must be evaluated in the context of an otherwise remarkably consistent culture that otherwise shows no inclination to such acts at any time or place for a period of 3000 years after this find, no trace of such acts in the cultures immediately preceding it, and nothing more than speculative evidence for such practice at a single time and location.

(Rational wiki on human sacrifice in Egypt).

https://www.google.c....96339352,d.aWw

Animal sacrifice certainly took place, as it was a widespread practice at the time.

Edited June 21, 2015 by ChaosRose

[GlitterRose]

Here is the early verse from Exodus demanding the first of the womb...of everything...to YHVH.

Exodus 13:2King James Version (KJV)

2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

People try to argue that sanctify or consecrate in some versions means that you dedicate the child to YHVH, but you don't "dedicate" the animals. And there are other references such as Ezekiel which make it clear that there was an early belief that YHVH demanded the sacrifice of the firstborn sons.

It even goes on to state that the sons should be allowed to stay with their mothers until the 8th day, and then offered to YHVH. To me, this is even more cruel, because a woman has time to bond with her child first.

Edited June 21, 2015 by ChaosRose