Shadows of Things to Come

[Ben Masada]

SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME

Behold! Ben has finally found something he can say, "I agree with Paul." (Col. 2:17) Paul does not mention animal sacrifices in this text but, I am sure, he had them in mind. I am also of the opinion that animal sacrifices were adopted by Israel as a prophetic activity of things to come. Only that, as Paul was concerned, the culminating fulfillment of the animal sacrifices was the body of Jesus, while IMHO, it was the atonement of Judah by Israel, the Ten Tribes.

Throughout the books of Leviticus and Numbers, many references are made to sacrifices: One for a sin offering and another as a holocaust. Two goats, they were. One was to remain in Jerusalem for the Lord, and the other to be sent to Azazel, Eastward into the desert. (Lev. 16:-9) The choice between the one for the Lord and the one for Azazel, was determined by lot. The one sent to Azazel would make atonement for the one that would remain back in Jerusalem. The Psalmist explains further that the one sent to Azazel, would be understood as being the one rejected by the Lord and the one remaining back in Jerusalem was explained as chosen by the Lord.(Psalm 78:67-69)

Jesus could not fit the puzzle because the Scapegoat sent to Azazel was fulfilled in Israel, the Ten Tribes, when they were, permanently exiled to Assyria. (2 Kings 17:23) It didn't happen to Jesus. That's how atonement was made by Israel for Judah, the Kingdom of the South, that had been doomed for having rejected God's Covenant by making a covenant with Assyria to rescue Judah from Samaria and Syria, that were in preparation to war against Judah.

Judah had been doomed for having adopted the pagan religion of Assyria. (2 Kings 17:13-16) But because the Lord had promised David that his Tribe (Judah) would remain in Jerusalem forever, (I Kings 11:36) the jugdment of God which had been decreed upon Judah, fell upon Israel. [isa. 9:7(8?)] Therefore, Israel had atoned for the sins of "many," meaning those of Judah. (Isa. 53:11,12) That was the Day of Atonement that had arrived. A day worse than the day when the Ten Tribes seceded from Judah. (Isa. 7:17) The day when ancient Israel had lost ten of the twelve tribes. The day when the Scapegoat had been sent to Azazel. The day the prophetic shadows had pointed to.

Ben

[redhen]

I fail to see the morality of Scapegoats and vicarious salvation. How does killing an innocent animal or human absolve you of your immoral actions?

I don't get it.

"By oneself alone is evil done, by oneself is one defiled, By oneself is evil avoided, by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one can purify another."

--Buddha, - Dhammapada, verse 165

Now that sounds more reasonable, and ethical to me.

[Beany]

I found this at questions.org, since I was kinda interested in the purpose of animal sacrifice. According to the web site, sacrifice signals an intention or desire, and it's the intention of desire that's important, not so much the sacrifice itself. Except to the animal, of course, or to a family that would have used the animal for milk or meat.

Since God was now known as both holy and merciful, sacrifice was no longer to be motivated by superstitious fear. It was to be the expression of conscious acknowledgment of guilt, ¹ of belonging to God, and of desiring to be restored to fellowship with Him.

If one were to sacrifice, why not spill one's own blood? Wouldn't that be a more powerful act than taking the life of an innocent animal like a chicken or goat or cow?

Edited June 1, 2013 by Beany

[Grandpa Greenman]

Judah had been doomed for having adopted the pagan religion of Assyria. (2 Kings 17:13-16)

Ben

I'll just save some time and fall on the floor and giggle like a girl.

I have to agree with Redhen and Buddha, two wrongs don't make a right. In my religion I do sacrifice but nothing living, That is taboo in modern Western Paganism. It is something I place value on, silver, wine, cake. The idea is to give something back to the Earth. I you take the life of something live for personal gain you are taking from the Earth, not giving and setting yourself up for bad karma.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Darkwind

[Copen]

God the Father is so holy He cannot look at sin. Because of sin when God looks down at sin His wrath is kindled and there must be death. But when God looks down from heaven to the alter and sees blood, somethings has died because of sin and His wrath is turned away and He is satisfied. So God said, (not some cunning imagination of man) that the blood of a spotless lamb would be sufficient substitute for Israel's sins. (As it first began there was no separation of Judah and Israel.)

When Jesus came and shed His innocent, spotless blood the apostles realized at Pentecost that all those lambs and goats were foreshadows of what Jesus would someday do.

Now, the two goats are foreshadows of Jesus and the devil, Lucifer. Jesus remained a substitute in Jerusalem - not just for the Israelites but for all His chosen, which includes Gentiles. Lucifer had showed his evil self when he recruited 1/3 of the angels in heaven to try to snuff out the life of Jesus as He was born in Bethlehem by getting all little boys 2 years of age and under to be killed. As Jesus hung on the cross there was war in heaven. The devil tried to capture heaven with his army of angels. They were defeated and forever cast out. Lucifer is the goat that was lead into the wilderness to die.

The sins of the people were confessed and placed on the head of the goat that remained - Jesus.

Amen and God bless us all is my prayer

[redhen]

God the Father is so holy He cannot look at sin. Because of sin when God looks down at sin His wrath is kindled and there must be death. But when God looks down from heaven to the alter and sees blood, somethings has died because of sin and His wrath is turned away and He is satisfied.

Why would you worship such a bloodthirsty god? That's no different than any other of the other gods that demanded animal and human sacrifice.

[libstaK]

God the Father is so holy He cannot look at sin. Because of sin when God looks down at sin His wrath is kindled and there must be death. But when God looks down from heaven to the alter and sees blood, somethings has died because of sin and His wrath is turned away and He is satisfied.

That is grotesque, the notion that God cannot look at sin also is grotesque it is an attribute of creation that sin exists, the fruit that brought into being was IN the Garden.

So God said, (not some cunning imagination of man) that the blood of a spotless lamb would be sufficient substitute for Israel's sins. (As it first began there was no separation of Judah and Israel.)

When Jesus came and shed His innocent, spotless blood the apostles realized at Pentecost that all those lambs and goats were foreshadows of what Jesus would someday do.

Actually I think the original sacrificed animals were foreshadows of the depths of bloodlust to which humanity would eventually stoop - a sign of deep chasm between man and God which eventually led to the ultimate proof of separation, death of innocence - but that's just me.

[White Crane Feather]

I think we think to much. Here... meat is yummy. If I kill one of my goats and burn it the yummy smells will float up to the gods, or if I leave it on this sacred spot it will end up missing. The gods must love meat so maby I can gain their favor by giving them meat.

Add human creativity and ritualistic behavior and wamo, over time you have animal sacrifice. I have seen some animal 'sacrifices' where they eat the animal after killing it. That's not a sacrifice that happens everyday on the farm.

I dont think it's that complicated.

[redhen]

I think we think to much.

Yeah, don't think too much, you might hurt yourself.

Here... meat is yummy. If I kill one of my goats and burn it the yummy smells will float up to the gods, or if I leave it on this sacred spot it will end up missing. The gods must love meat so maby I can gain their favor by giving them meat.

Yup. it's called superstition, and I had thought we had left this all behind. Silly me.

Edited June 2, 2013 by redhen

[Ben Masada]

I fail to see the morality of Scapegoats and vicarious salvation. How does killing an innocent animal or human absolve you of your immoral actions?

I don't get it.

"By oneself alone is evil done, by oneself is one defiled, By oneself is evil avoided, by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one can purify another."

--Buddha, - Dhammapada, verse 165

Now that sounds more reasonable, and ethical to me.

Yes, as I can see you have missed the point meant by the thread. The literal killing of animals was never meant to clean the people of their sins. Animals were used only to prophesy the historical events of the People as a kind of explanation why things happened as if it were the result of design. Every year throughout thousands of years since Abraham two goats were used on the day of atonement. One to be let go into the desert to symbolize Israel the Ten Tribes being taken into Assyria toward the East through the desert. The other to symbolize Judah who would remain in Jerusalem. Since your question above is related to the animal per se and not to whatever it meant to the People I could turn the question why so many millions kill innocent animals to eat when others don't have to for being vegetarians. Well, we are not talking Buddhism but people who eat meat. So, it makes no difference whether one kill to eat or to sacrifice. The point here is not why the animal is killed but what it is meant for.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

I found this at questions.org, since I was kinda interested in the purpose of animal sacrifice. According to the web site, sacrifice signals an intention or desire, and it's the intention of desire that's important, not so much the sacrifice itself. Except to the animal, of course, or to a family that would have used the animal for milk or meat.

Since God was now known as both holy and merciful, sacrifice was no longer to be motivated by superstitious fear. It was to be the expression of conscious acknowledgment of guilt, ¹ of belonging to God, and of desiring to be restored to fellowship with Him.

If one were to sacrifice, why not spill one's own blood? Wouldn't that be a more powerful act than taking the life of an innocent animal like a chicken or goat or cow?

If we had to adopt the attitude of commiseration because of the innocence of animals, millions of people would go hungry for lack of food. There is nothing we can do if the animal must be killed to serve man. And to spill one's own blood would be tantamount to commit suicide. The life that is sacred is the human life and not that of the animal.

[Ben Masada]

I'll just save some time and fall on the floor and giggle like a girl.

I have to agree with Redhen and Buddha, two wrongs don't make a right. In my religion I do sacrifice but nothing living, That is taboo in modern Western Paganism. It is something I place value on, silver, wine, cake. The idea is to give something back to the Earth. I you take the life of something live for personal gain you are taking from the Earth, not giving and setting yourself up for bad karma.

Karma works only according to preconceived notions. what it means for someone is almost never the same as for others.

[Ben Masada]

God the Father is so holy He cannot look at sin. Because of sin when God looks down at sin His wrath is kindled and there must be death. But when God looks down from heaven to the alter and sees blood, somethings has died because of sin and His wrath is turned away and He is satisfied. So God said, (not some cunning imagination of man) that the blood of a spotless lamb would be sufficient substitute for Israel's sins. (As it first began there was no separation of Judah and Israel.)

When Jesus came and shed His innocent, spotless blood the apostles realized at Pentecost that all those lambs and goats were foreshadows of what Jesus would someday do.

Now, the two goats are foreshadows of Jesus and the devil, Lucifer. Jesus remained a substitute in Jerusalem - not just for the Israelites but for all His chosen, which includes Gentiles. Lucifer had showed his evil self when he recruited 1/3 of the angels in heaven to try to snuff out the life of Jesus as He was born in Bethlehem by getting all little boys 2 years of age and under to be killed. As Jesus hung on the cross there was war in heaven. The devil tried to capture heaven with his army of angels. They were defeated and forever cast out. Lucifer is the goat that was lead into the wilderness to die.

The sins of the people were confessed and placed on the head of the goat that remained - Jesus.

Amen and God bless us all is my prayer

Not according to the Scriptures. Jeremiah says in 31:30 that no one personally can die for the sins of another. The reason why Jesus was crucified had nothing to do with cleansing any one of his or her sins but because his own disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. (Luke 19:37-40) Even the Jewish authorities had nothing to do with it. The Pharisees even tried to save Jesus from the cross by asking him to rebuke his disciples to stop with their nonsense before it was too late. Since Jesus told them he could not do anything to stop them, he was arrested, judged and condemned to the cross on the political charge of INRI.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Ben Masada

[redhen]

Yes, as I can see you have missed the point meant by the thread. The literal killing of animals was never meant to clean the people of their sins.

“This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering^[a] and a ram for a burnt offering" -- Leviticus 16:3

Since your question above is related to the animal per se and not to whatever it meant to the People I could turn the question why so many millions kill innocent animals to eat when others don't have to for being vegetarians.

No, my comment was specifically concerning vicarious salvation, the transfer of your sins onto an innocent animal, or human.

Well, we are not talking Buddhism but people who eat meat. So, it makes no difference whether one kill to eat or to sacrifice. The point here is not why the animal is killed but what it is meant for.

Right, and as I pointed out, it was for the atonement of sin.

[Ben Masada]

I think we think to much. Here... meat is yummy. If I kill one of my goats and burn it the yummy smells will float up to the gods, or if I leave it on this sacred spot it will end up missing. The gods must love meat so maby I can gain their favor by giving them meat.

Add human creativity and ritualistic behavior and wamo, over time you have animal sacrifice. I have seen some animal 'sacrifices' where they eat the animal after killing it. That's not a sacrifice that happens everyday on the farm.

I dont think it's that complicated.

The point though is that God has nothing to do with animal sacrifices. It was adopted by men to mean the historical events of their own people as if by design. God is used only to give force to their pious reasons.

[Ben Masada]

“This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering^[a] and a ram for a burnt offering" -- Leviticus 16:3

No, my comment was specifically concerning vicarious salvation, the transfer of your sins onto an innocent animal, or human.

Right, and as I pointed out, it was for the atonement of sin.

You still haven't got it. Blood of animal sacrifices never served to atone for sins. And there was no use of human blood to effect atonement. Again, the animal sacrifices were used according to Judaism to prophesy important events in the History of the Jewish People as the split of the Tribes and later the eradication of ten of them as the option not to reject all of them. Prophetically speaking, the Lord had, so to speak, promised David that his Tribe of Judah would remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever because of how David lived his life. Then when if came time for nations to conquer others among themselves, Israel the kingdom of the North had to go not because it was divinely determined but because of the way they conducted their affairs of State and of Morality. Judah the kingdom of the South was different and got saved from being destroyed. This event was translated in prophetic terms as if it were divinely designed. That's all.

[ellapenella]

It's not as though Yeshua himself did not disagree with so much of the hypercritical religious teachings of the corrupted temple officials ,of his time ,and before his time , because he did disagree with so much of it.

As for the sacrifice's , Yeshua taught that God desires mercy and Love ,not sacrifice.

Yeshua did not come to patch up the old religious system of Judaism with it's rules and traditions. "If he had his message would have damaged it" His purpose was to bring in something new. Yeshua's message did not fit into the old rigid legalistic system of religion.

[Ben Masada]

It's not as though Yeshua himself did not disagree with so much of the hypercritical religious teachings of the corrupted temple officials ,of his time ,and before his time , because he did disagree with so much of it.

As for the sacrifice's , Yeshua taught that God desires mercy and Love ,not sacrifice.

Yeshua did not come to patch up the old religious system of Judaism with it's rules and traditions. "If he had his message would have damaged it" His purpose was to bring in something new. Yeshua's message did not fit into the old rigid legalistic system of religion.

That's not what text says. Take a look at Mat.5:17-19. It says in there that Jesus came to confirm Judaism down to the letter; even down to the dot of the letter. This language that Jesus did not come "to patch up the old religious system of Judaism with its rules and traditions" only reminds me of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which is considered by some Scholars as a form of Christian Anti-Semitism. And for the sacrifices being not what God desires but mercy and love, I agree with him and the prophets who upheld the same policy without having to agree with Paul whose reason in mind was Replacement Theology.

[ellapenella]

I have no idea of who that lady is that you mentioned. But , do i have to remind that they killed him ? So please don't try to convince me that he was all about what they were doing , because he was not.

[ellapenella]

@ Ben Massada

When you mention Paul in the last post , are you referring to the Apostle Paul?

From my perspective, what was being said in regards to Christ regarding his message as in "If he had his message would have damaged it" is in fact in agreement to your last post.

I think there's a lot of circumstances in the letters of the bible that are not "in my view and understanding" of God . There's just no way that some of the things that were done according to the "law" was actually in accordance with God.

For instance , I don't believe that God would deny anyone that seeks God yet according to the "law" many were denied. It's just not what Christ taught. I always felt that things were manipulated by the ruthless leaders in the bible letters, that they even manipulated in the name of the Divine .

Have you seen on the documentary of Solomon , David and their family ? I seen it for the first time the other night . I was so unaware of just how ruthless they were and could be. I find difficulty in believing that either of them were worthy in the manner in which the bible speaks of them, as though they were men after Gods heart, the apple of his eye? I seriously question those notions.

[redhen]

You still haven't got it. Blood of animal sacrifices never served to atone for sins. And there was no use of human blood to effect atonement.

Ok, tell me how I misinterpreted this teaching, which I already cited.

“This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering" -- Leviticus 16:3

Now I'm no Biblical scholar, but it sounds to me like Aaron is instructed to sacrifice a bull for a sin offering. So how am I misreading this?

[ellapenella]

That's not what text says. Take a look at Mat.5:17-19. It says in there that Jesus came to confirm Judaism down to the letter; even down to the dot of the letter. This language that Jesus did not come "to patch up the old religious system of Judaism with its rules and traditions" only reminds me of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which is considered by some Scholars as a form of Christian Anti-Semitism. And for the sacrifices being not what God desires but mercy and love, I agree with him and the prophets who upheld the same policy without having to agree with Paul whose reason in mind was Replacement Theology.

I was not referring to chapter. 5 verse 17 , I was referring to Matthew chapter 9 verse 13 . Where Yeshua reminded the Pharisees," who were judging him for having a meal with what they considered to be unworthy people in their attempt to slander Yeshua " So he reminded them of something , he asked them to figure out what it means where it was written by the Prophet Hosea that God desires mercy from us and not sacrifice..

It's not only mentioned in Hosea .

Why would you suggest that it is anti-semitism because Yeshua did not come here to patch up the old religious legalistic system of the Jews with there many laws and traditions ? Were they not hostile towards anyone other that was not a Jew or if a Jew like Yeshua did not live up to their standards of what they wanted for only themselves?

I suppose that Yeshua too was considered to be an anti-Semitic individual , considering the standards , terms and ideologies of most of the Hebrews in his time , even in our time.

I must say that I find their ideologies to be extremely racist . For any individual to think that their religion and culture deserve the very best over the rest of the world that are not of their nationality or whatever is horrible and it's racist .

I am also NOT a Zionist because I am NOT a racist. And so if you want to mention anti Semitic ,naturally it correlates with anti Zionist. I will not allow any doctrine of ideology to indoctrinate my mind and heart in believing that any one person is better than I or anyone else just because they were born a Jew.

One other thing , are you aware of the Talmud ? And if so , do you follow it ?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Reann

[ellapenella]

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Buddha

[Ben Masada]

@ Ben Massada

When you mention Paul in the last post , are you referring to the Apostle Paul? From my perspective, what was being said in regards to Christ regarding his message as in "If he had his message would have damaged it" is in fact in agreement to your last post.

I think there's a lot of circumstances in the letters of the bible that are not "in my view and understanding" of God . There's just no way that some of the things that were done according to the "law" was actually in accordance with God.

For instance , I don't believe that God would deny anyone that seeks God yet according to the "law" many were denied. It's just not what Christ taught. I always felt that things were manipulated by the ruthless leaders in the bible letters, that they even manipulated in the name of the Divine .

Have you seen on the documentary of Solomon , David and their family ? I seen it for the first time the other night . I was so unaware of just how ruthless they were and could be. I find difficulty in believing that either of them were worthy in the manner in which the bible speaks of them, as though they were men after Gods heart, the apple of his eye? I seriously question those notions.

No Reann, Paul was not an apostle. Perhaps a self-called apostle. The Apostles were 12, one got lost, Judas there is, and the 11 elected Mathias to replace Judas as if they could not do with 11. (Acts 1:26) There was a Jewish tradition in the First Century for ambulant Rabbis or Teachers to gather around 12 Apostles according to the 12 Tribes of Israel in order to study Torah in a group ( Minyan) of 10 Jewish adult males. From his experience on the Road to Damascus Paul proceeded to Damascus and Arabia preaching his own private gospel. After 3 years he tried to join the Apostles of Jesus and was rejected as a disciple due to his history of a persecutor of the Nazarenes disciples of the Apostles. (Acts 9:26) That's why I never refer to Paul as an apostle.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Ok, tell me how I misinterpreted this teaching, which I already cited.

“This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering" -- Leviticus 16:3

Now I'm no Biblical scholar, but it sounds to me like Aaron is instructed to sacrifice a bull for a sin offering. So how am I misreading this?

The priests were indeed instructed to offer sacrifices for a sin offering but as a prophetic symbol pointing to the role of Israel. (Israel for Judah and Judah for the rest of the world) If you read the Prophetic books, almost all the prophets were unanimous on the point that sacrifices were not what pleased God but justice and fairness of one by another. And Isaiah especially would say that the only way to have one's sins forgiven was through repentance and obedience to the Law.(Isa.1:18,19)