Questions About Noah's Flood That Beg An Answer.

[mwc]

It seems that these burnt offerings and other "sin offerings" were for the people, not for God. Even the God of the sacrificial system of the OT claimed to have no interest in such offerings (in more than one passage). It seems to me that these offerings were means whereby the person restored the health of his/her conscience and psyche: I have committed a great sin and need relief, so I sacrifice an animal and "make God happy" and "do away with the residual aftermath."

No interest such offerings? What bible are you reading? The punishment for not doing these things FOR THIS GOD was quite severe. A very simple example is Leviticus 16 "3 "Here is how Aharon is to enter the Holy Place: with a young bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering." Does this sound like this is for Aaron's benefit or for the benefit of "the people" so they could "feel good" about themselves? Nope. This is straight up so YHWH wouldn't kill them outright like they did Aaron's two sons just a few lines prior. Another example from a little later on "13 He is to put the incense on the fire before ADONAI, so that the cloud from the incense will cover the ark-cover which is over the testimony, in order that he not die."

 

In addition, many of these sacrifices were to literally feed YHWH as stated outright in the text. An example of this is "3:16 The cohen will make them go up in smoke on the altar; it is food, an offering made by fire to be a fragrant aroma; all the fat belongs to ADONAI. 17 It is to be a permanent regulation through all your generations wherever you live that you will eat neither fat nor blood.'""

 

(Oops. I accidentally quoted from the Complete Jewish Bible but the meaning is the same...only the names are a bit odd looking.)

 

So they needed to be ritually clean by offering a sin offering to YHWH before the offered up the scapegoats. Then they drew lots to see which goat would be sacrificed to YHWH and which would be sent away. Note that the goat that was sent away was not sacrificed. This is your so-called scapegoat but he was sent to Azazel (basically he's the goat that "went away"). Is that jesus? The one that "went away?" The sacrifice was the one that was killed in the tent (later temple) to YHWH. The fate of the scapegoat is unknown.

 

If you're going to try to draw a parallel between these two events (the scapegoat and jesus) you need to be able to do it. So far you haven't made your case. The two are nothing alike. If jesus was sacrificed then he wasn't the scapegoat since the scapegoat is the one that simply "went away" into the wilderness unharmed. If he is the scapegoat then he wasn't sacrificed and his fate is unknown. That's how it worked. This is also forgetting the priest that sacrificed him would have had to had been ritually clean and all that. Of course we know from the gospels that no one involved in the "sacrifice" of jesus was ritually clean nor did that death meet the requirements of a sacrifice on any level but those are "technicalities."

 

Nonetheless, I suggest you at least scan over Leviticus 16 since that's where the whole scapegoat ritual is discussed. Keep in mind that if you use a KJV you will see "scapegoat" in place of "Azazel" so you won't see this "8 Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for ADONAI and the other for 'Az'azel." Kind of makes the meaning a little different than what people are used to seeing.

 

Interestingly, Jesus required that we go a step beyond and "reconcile" with the person we had hurt or the person we had been hurt by -- the instruction about restoring one's relationships prior to giving an offering or making a prayer. Speaking only for myself here, I am "comforted" to know that all my shortcomings and even my most egregious sins (occasions of "missing the mark") have already been reconciled. It is a great hope, for me, to claim what St. Paul taught: we are the righteousness of God by faith. (This former Pentecostal could almost shout about that.)

This is nice. You like what Paul has to say about getting into heaven the easy way. Who doesn't? What person wouldn't like to hear those old hard rules are null and void (for the most part) and all you gotta do is hope really hard? Too bad it's a lie and contradicts what the god of the Jews and his prophet jesus had to say in the gospels. Sure, it's a mixed message, but it doesn't take much reading to get to that bottom line which is "It's your works and those nasty old laws. You just need to understand them so you can follow them all properly."

 

So, I'm not sure where you've decided that the law was something that made everyone "feel" better when you end by going to Paul who complains that the law was a huge burden on everyone designed to make them feel bad and turn to jesus but jesus said he didn't come to change the law and it is works that are important. This makes no sense (oh, we can head down the one is for Jews and the other is for Gentiles route but then we have multiple paths to this god and different rules for different folks and it's a huge mess since apparently he plays favorites).

 

I realize I'm laying it on thick but I can see that you seem to be focused only on this "nice" fluffy version of jesus and it simply isn't so. Yeah, I can pick out this version of jesus too. I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some degree at some point in my life. It doesn't make it true. The book of Acts is the "glue" between these two concepts (gospels and epistles) and it says jesus was a man that performed miracles only because YHWH gave him the power to do them "2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" Would you agree? Of course not. But there it is ready for you to cite my misunderstanding or maybe a contextual issue. Maybe even you'll post something that says he is a god but that creates a contradiction.

 

mwc

[Guest mousie]

I really needed to read that. Thank you for posting that.

[mwc]

I really needed to read that. Thank you for posting that.

Ummm...are you talking to me or CC or everyone?

 

mwc

[Guest mousie]

I was more talking about the ark post, but I'm finding the whole thread interesting.

 

Mousie

[Vixentrox]

Welcome to the forums Mousie.

[currentchristian]

It seems that these burnt offerings and other "sin offerings" were for the people, not for God. Even the God of the sacrificial system of the OT claimed to have no interest in such offerings (in more than one passage). It seems to me that these offerings were means whereby the person restored the health of his/her conscience and psyche: I have committed a great sin and need relief, so I sacrifice an animal and "make God happy" and "do away with the residual aftermath."

No interest such offerings? What bible are you reading? The punishment for not doing these things FOR THIS GOD was quite severe. A very simple example is Leviticus 16 "3 "Here is how Aharon is to enter the Holy Place: with a young bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering." Does this sound like this is for Aaron's benefit or for the benefit of "the people" so they could "feel good" about themselves? Nope. This is straight up so YHWH wouldn't kill them outright like they did Aaron's two sons just a few lines prior. Another example from a little later on "13 He is to put the incense on the fire before ADONAI, so that the cloud from the incense will cover the ark-cover which is over the testimony, in order that he not die."

 

In addition, many of these sacrifices were to literally feed YHWH as stated outright in the text. An example of this is "3:16 The cohen will make them go up in smoke on the altar; it is food, an offering made by fire to be a fragrant aroma; all the fat belongs to ADONAI. 17 It is to be a permanent regulation through all your generations wherever you live that you will eat neither fat nor blood.'""

 

(Oops. I accidentally quoted from the Complete Jewish Bible but the meaning is the same...only the names are a bit odd looking.)

 

So they needed to be ritually clean by offering a sin offering to YHWH before the offered up the scapegoats. Then they drew lots to see which goat would be sacrificed to YHWH and which would be sent away. Note that the goat that was sent away was not sacrificed. This is your so-called scapegoat but he was sent to Azazel (basically he's the goat that "went away"). Is that jesus? The one that "went away?" The sacrifice was the one that was killed in the tent (later temple) to YHWH. The fate of the scapegoat is unknown.

 

If you're going to try to draw a parallel between these two events (the scapegoat and jesus) you need to be able to do it. So far you haven't made your case. The two are nothing alike. If jesus was sacrificed then he wasn't the scapegoat since the scapegoat is the one that simply "went away" into the wilderness unharmed. If he is the scapegoat then he wasn't sacrificed and his fate is unknown. That's how it worked. This is also forgetting the priest that sacrificed him would have had to had been ritually clean and all that. Of course we know from the gospels that no one involved in the "sacrifice" of jesus was ritually clean nor did that death meet the requirements of a sacrifice on any level but those are "technicalities."

 

Nonetheless, I suggest you at least scan over Leviticus 16 since that's where the whole scapegoat ritual is discussed. Keep in mind that if you use a KJV you will see "scapegoat" in place of "Azazel" so you won't see this "8 Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for ADONAI and the other for 'Az'azel." Kind of makes the meaning a little different than what people are used to seeing.

 

Interestingly, Jesus required that we go a step beyond and "reconcile" with the person we had hurt or the person we had been hurt by -- the instruction about restoring one's relationships prior to giving an offering or making a prayer. Speaking only for myself here, I am "comforted" to know that all my shortcomings and even my most egregious sins (occasions of "missing the mark") have already been reconciled. It is a great hope, for me, to claim what St. Paul taught: we are the righteousness of God by faith. (This former Pentecostal could almost shout about that.)

This is nice. You like what Paul has to say about getting into heaven the easy way. Who doesn't? What person wouldn't like to hear those old hard rules are null and void (for the most part) and all you gotta do is hope really hard? Too bad it's a lie and contradicts what the god of the Jews and his prophet jesus had to say in the gospels. Sure, it's a mixed message, but it doesn't take much reading to get to that bottom line which is "It's your works and those nasty old laws. You just need to understand them so you can follow them all properly."

 

So, I'm not sure where you've decided that the law was something that made everyone "feel" better when you end by going to Paul who complains that the law was a huge burden on everyone designed to make them feel bad and turn to jesus but jesus said he didn't come to change the law and it is works that are important. This makes no sense (oh, we can head down the one is for Jews and the other is for Gentiles route but then we have multiple paths to this god and different rules for different folks and it's a huge mess since apparently he plays favorites).

 

I realize I'm laying it on thick but I can see that you seem to be focused only on this "nice" fluffy version of jesus and it simply isn't so. Yeah, I can pick out this version of jesus too. I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some degree at some point in my life. It doesn't make it true. The book of Acts is the "glue" between these two concepts (gospels and epistles) and it says jesus was a man that performed miracles only because YHWH gave him the power to do them "2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" Would you agree? Of course not. But there it is ready for you to cite my misunderstanding or maybe a contextual issue. Maybe even you'll post something that says he is a god but that creates a contradiction.

 

mwc

 

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Actually, Rafiki, they thought they did find it. It's called the "Ararat anomaly". It's a formation on the Nortwestern plateau of Mt Ararat. Its about 180 meters long, and many Christians say it looks like the ark. (Kind of like those people that see Elvis in rock formations on Mars, or Mary on burned tortillas!) I debunked the story though. It sits over 15, 000 feet up Mount Ararat. Breathable air ends at 10,000 feet, making breathing apparatusses necessary. I doubt that Noah possessed that technology. If sea level was where the ark rested, Noah and his zoo would have been trapped on a rocky outcropping in the middle of an ocean. Even if the water level was lower, this thing sits on the side of a mountain. I doubt that Noahs animals were all mountain goats that could negotiate climbing down the side of a cliff. Also, it was measured to be 600 feet(180 meters) long. Genesis' measurements put the ark at 450 feet long.

 

 

Those are great questions, but you will be proved wrong when they find Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat!

 

*sarcasm*

 

I'm definitely not trying to defend Christianity in any way, but I will say that there are some arguments out there that suggest a localized flood and animals only touched by man, but that gets into all of the Hebrew meanings which I don't understand. I know that because I studied Noah's Ark a lot when I was trying to prove to myself that I believed in Christianity. Even if that were so though, that would only answer a couple of your questions. I really like your number 14 though, I've never thought of that.

 

And if anyone knows some good arguments against the localized flood and what not, arguments that really get into the Hebrew meanings, please let me know.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

In other words, "The Sorcery Argument" LOL! I got so frustrated with the 'godditit" response from an apologist, I said, "Ya know, if God is going to work all this sorcery and witchcraft, why didn't he just build the freaking Star Ship Enterprise, put it in a parked orbit, and beam all the animals up?" That would make sense, though!Yeesh! Gotta watch that! I'm slipping!

 

Those are some pretty good questions, pegasus voyager.

 

But, of course, the answer to all of them is goddidit.

 

Deity magic. He may have shrunk the animals down really small. He may have made it rain everywhere except on top of the ark. He may have created a space/time continuum and put all the animals into a state of suspended animation. He may have... well you get it.

To which I respond by asking: why, if he did all that, didn't he just go and do the tiny bit that remained to be done? Like build the ark, hold all the animals above the water, since they can't possibly sin, save all the infants that had no ability to discern their wrongdoing (you know, thinking in their non-linguistic way that the world was made to serve them), maybe strike all the evildoers with lightning (much more precise than a freaking flood), etc.

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

 

 

NOTE: mwc's post appears four times, so I am responded to the last post thinking maybe it has everything in it.

 

Thank you, mwc, for the thorough answer. (Not wordy, thorough!)

 

I don't have much to add; you've said so much.

 

Seeking power is a natural tendency of our species; therefore, you are right, I think, that the priests of the religion(s) of Israel sought power. The many extra-biblical laws that were extrapolated from the Mosaic laws are an example of not only attempts to appease their god and make their god happy, but to have more control over peole's lives. The NT leads us to believe that Jesus abrogated all of these extra-biblical laws and, one could argue, the very foundation of even the Mosaic law. In fulfilling it, he completed it, etc., as the theological arguments go.

 

The centralized sacrifice system would not, likely, appease the individual conscience or assuage the individual guilt, as you wrote. I agree. Perhaps these "on my behalf and behalf of the nation" sacrifices gave people assurances that "someone is doing what we're supposed to be doing"?? Much of religion is a desire to "fix" what appears to be broken and/or to preserve what one has that s/he doesn't want to lose. While I've always enjoyed independence and "approaching the throne of grace with boldness" (as St. Paul put it), it seems there still is quite a market (and that's perfectly fine) for those who want intermediaries in the form of saints, priests, bishops, etc. (I've gotten in trouble in my professional life more than once for not following the chain of command, and instead going right to the big guy at the top.)

 

The scapegoat point you make is right on. The point you make about "Jesus" the name and "Christ" the title (Gk: anointed one) is right on. One thing I really like about the Jewish Bible and Messianic Judaism is the use of "Yeshua" and/or "Yeshua the Messiah" for Jesus, avoiding altoether the Hellenized to English "Jesus Christ." Probably we'd be better off to altogether abandon "Jesus" and "Christ" for "Yeshua" and "Messiah," along with the accretions to that entity of the post-apostolic age.

 

Like you, I "enjoy" reading about the sacrificial system. It's fascinating. Strange to our modern ear, but a trip to read. Sometimes I read the various sacrifices aloud to my partner, who's non-commital on issues religious, and his mouth drops open: "That's in the Bible!!" he says. (I also read aloud, when he'll let me, the beautiful, transcendent and sublime passages! I'm not sure he really listens, however!)

 

Thank you for a great discussion here.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Sorry, mwc, somehow I missed this post. I wasn't ignoring you. Interesting that you quote from the Complete Jewish Bible. I have one of those, too. How did you end up with one -- I'm interested, since not many people have that version?

I tend to use electronic bibles (mainly Crosswalk.com) so it gives me easy access to quite a few versions. Anything they don't have I probably have bookmarked. I feel the Jewish bibles give the more honest OT translations in a lot of ways (although they still like to obfuscate the names of their god and like to see this so I have to switch around to get this info).

 

You did "lay it on thick," but very well. Excellent points, one and all.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't like to get preachy (or wordy but that's probably not going to change much) but it happens obviously. At least I had points to make this time.

 

It seems to me that God doe not need our sacrifices and in fact God is quoted as saying that much by some of the prophets. These sacrifices, I maintain, were for the people. They would not have helped ease the consciences of the people if the command has been: "Sacrifice a bull so that you don't feel so damn bad about yourself." The command came as, "Please the Lord, make the Lord happy." In doing so, the guilt complex we all are plagued with is assuaged. I may be ABSOLUTELY wrong on this, just thinking about it.

I totally see what you're saying. I have since you first said it. The problem is the system is very elaborate and one sided for a simple "I'm sorry" to rid someone of guilt. Keep in mind that sacrifices were non-stop (daily...minimum twice a day) in addition to all the special sacrifices that had to occur. Now, this is fine, except, "normal" people weren't allowed to participate. This was all sort of done on their behalf. So, if I do something wrong, am I truly absolved if there is a forgiveness czar somewhere who simply forgives me? That's his job in some remote place? I know he's doing it every single day for my every wrongdoing maybe up in my state capitol. So I run into your car and I know that the forgiveness czar forgives me. It's really not that satisfying. So then the rituals get more and more complicated. But even then, since I'm disconnected from them other than buying the birds or sheep (or whatever) I'm still really not getting any satisfaction from this sacrifice. Buying the czar's forgiveness cookies aren't helping my psyche either.

 

So, there must be another reason for all this craziness. And the texts I quoted (and there are tons more if I want to pile on) give those answers. The priests were building a business (for lack of a better word). If you read Exodus you will see that, later on, they add a little "tax" for each person to "protect" them from disease. So these guys get free food, money, housing and all they say is they deserve it because they have no inheritance from their god (it's welfare). In addition, this is also for their god. But he needs the best gold, linens, food and other material possessions?

 

It's clear that if there is a god then he does need material objects for some strange reason. If there isn't a god then the priests have figured out the ancient equivalent to the lottery. They are roughly on par to a king, or even better, a god, with this new system. They say "jump," the people say "no," so they say "your god says jump" and then the people say "how high?" because who's going to question the only people that can talk with their god?

 

I won't quote the verses (but I can if you like) in Exodus where all the people were at the foot of the mountain and were in the presence of their god and suddenly decided that they didn't want to talk with this god because they might die. So they said we'll talk with Moses and Moses should be our intermediary (as I said, I'm paraphrasing). Do you think this scene made it in by accident? This is the establishment of the prophet/priest system where "normal" people should fear god and maybe should trust certain people to talk to god on their behalf. It's a powerful scene.

 

Now compare this to a world where anyone could setup a little alter in their field (Abraham at Bethel for example) and make a little sacrifice to their god. Who controls access? One central temple where the elite controls access to your god or your own alter where you control access to your god? Same god mind you but now one way is the right way and the other is wrong and will get you killed (again, the bible shows that you could, at one point, stack some rocks and this alter was good enough). After the Israelites move into the land, they decentralize, for awhile, but there is a priest in each city to carry on the tradition (this is most likely how it really started...a priest in each town and this story came later to "create" the tradition). When the first temple arrived it was the only place you could perform these actions legally.

 

You are correct that the scapegoat as a "type" of Christ does not fit perfectly. I don't recall anything in the NT making that claim...but it may...don't rememeber. Maybe it's post-biblical analogy that doesn't fit very well?

It's just scapegoat, being a purely a doctrine, is unsupported biblically. It bugs me when it's used since I (obviously) can refute it. It just seems everyone wants to equate the crucifixion "sacrifice" with any number of sacrifices or rituals from the OT. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. No, he's the scapegoat. No, he's a ransom. No, he's a <fill in the blank>. Argh! It's tiresome. I know I'm on this side of the fence now, but come on. Some of these are in the bible and some aren't. Some show a little though but some are silly. Most, like the scapegoat, want to play both sides and be both the sacrifice and the goat that was released. Since no one reads the actual rituals it all sounds really good...I've just recently taken the time to read many of the rituals is all (with many more to go).

 

Also, your usage of "Christ" is wrong. Another "nit" for me anymore. I realize you mean it in reference to a person. like a name, but it simply means "anointed." I know you must know this but you can see who awkward this is, right? You're almost saying that a scapegoat is a type of anointing and that's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Would you say a scapegoat is like a Messiah? I doubt it since you know a Messiah has a specific mission and a scapegoats mission is not the same as a messiahs (ignoring the differences between all the various messiahs and "the" Messiah of course).

 

So, there, I've been wordy again. Told you that probably wouldn't change.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sorry about the multiple posts. Something went wrong on my end (obviously). Things should be all better now.

 

mwc