"walksalone" <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:1ngdvicg7muvq$.1hqimrr17e1q5$.dlg@40tude.net...

I do comprehend them, but here is the thing, do you. Blood was sacred & it
was not permitted to humans, Only the gods could eat it in the Jewish [&
the majority of other archaic] mythology's. This is but one of the

problems

xianity has with its parent mythology.

No doubt you are aware of the vast differences theologically between
Israelite and non-Israelite sacrifices. Of course I have to speak in general

terms rather than in specific or this reponse would be unacceptably lengthy.
Furthermore there are many primitive references in the OT and NT harking
back to sumerian, canaanite, persian and other ethnic understandings. This
is hardly surprising since Israelite belief appeared within the context of
surrounding religious understandings. But primitive beliefs while colouring
some narratives do not feature in theological reflection.

The principal difference is that Israelite sacrifices were expiatory while
ethnic sacrifices were propitiatory.

The understanding about blood was also different. In Israelite belief blood
represented the life of the animal. You may recall that in the Prologue when

God made man he took clay and moulded it and then breathed life (ruach) into

it. This breath passed into the blood. While breath returns to the air, the
blood must return to the soil. The life of animal was therefore given by God
and remains his "property". While animals are given to man for his use, such
use is stewardship only and not absolute ownership. The animal's life is
holy and must be respected. It is right and fitting it is returned to God at
the time of death. The sacrificial animal was therefore God's property and
the sacrifice was the returning to God of his own. It represented the value
of God's gifts to mankind of which a portion was given back to God in a
sense acknowledging the debt owed to God. As you can see Israelite sacrifice
of this sort cannot be propitiatory.

On the other hand ethnic sacrifices tended to be gifts made to bribe the
gods to give favours. This interpretation is not part of Israelite theology
at all.

There is continuity between OT and NT theology. Since the law continues to

exist (even after the fall of the temple in Jerusalem) those within the
covenant relationship perpetuate the sacrificial element. For Christians it

is the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross which fulfils this requirement.
Again "blood" is prominent in the wine of the eucharist - the seal of the
covenant.
There is nothing exceptional about sacrifice. It is at the heart of
Christian theology.

But, if a high priest were to offer you up, then your blood would be a
sacrifice.

One strand of Jewish theology suggests that the Jewish people are a
sacrifice for the sins of the world. It is possibly in this sense that the
word "holocaust", a sacrificial term, has become associated with the
attrocities of the Nazis.

If you wished to understand these matters, a good starting point is to

ask

what the purpose was of sacrifice in the Old Testament. It is not the

It was to appease the gods, possibly get them on your side. & that is all
it was.

No, that would be propitiatory and that is not a feature of Israelite belief

or sacrifice. Indeed as I have summarised above such a view would contradict
the Israelite understand of life. There is no occurrence of such an idea in
the OT.

Atonement was not possible to the individual, it required the assistance

of

the priest, who just happened to like the same sacrifices Yahweh did,

until

money came into common usage. Even then, blood sacrifice was th poor mans
way.

You are correct if you mean that atonement is not achievable by an
individual. IT requires God's involvement. Furthermore the OT covenant,

No, it depends on which fairy tale you want to believe, the Jewish one, or
the xian one.

If you had read my previous posts you will have understood that I am neither
a believer in the Hebrew or the Christian religion. I therefore believe

niether of what you derogatorily describe as fairy tales. Nevertheless my

non-belief does not exclude study of these important and culture forming
religions. There is, of course, a vast gulf between a religious belief and a
fairy tale.

Not to mention which god, El or Yahweh. Then there was Baal a whole bunch
of other ones. You do know when the Jews went monotheistic don't you? You
do know where the evidence is found don't you. Hint, it is not in any xian
writings.

All of Israelite beliefs, Judaism and Christianity are rigorously

monotheistic in the sense of belief in one superior God. This form of
monotheism makes its first appearance in the Bible at Genesis 1 verse 1. The
use of the plural Elohim is not intended to suggest polytheism but may stem

from the contrast between early Hebrew belief and that of the Sumerian
origins of the prologue narratives. This contrast between the one and the
many is therefore a reflection of the setting in near eastern life.

Nevertheless there was a gradual development until around the 6th century BC
before monotheism was recognised in the stricter sense which denied the

existence of other gods. The earliest biblical references to this stricter
form of monotheism occur in Isaiah chapters 41 to 43.

Baal is the name given to the family of Semitic deities which featured in

agricultural and animal contexts. The Hebrew prophets were continually
remonstrating against those of the Israelites who fused Baalim with the true

Yahweh and allowed themselves to be misled. Baal was never a name for the
Israelite God.

regards
Don