Wild speculation

[juantoo3]

Just throwing a few talking points out there from a quick search. I don't know if I agree with everything, but on the whole it's a lot better than I could do on the fly.

 

[RJM]

The Native American teaching as I understand...life requires life. Always grateful, first to G!d, then to the animal that gave for my sustenance.

You cannot sustain your physical well being on non-living matter. I could quibble with myself on the matter as I believe even the minerals / rocks are alive, but at a much slower rate than we are. But we cannot sustain our bodies on a mineral diet.

You could go frugivore. I recommend you start slowly, particularly if your diet has primarily been processed foods and fast foods. Vegetables, but growing a garden is a challenge, it isn't a simple task, it does require certain knowledge and a good bit of elbow grease. And a lot of repetition dragging a hose. The only way you will be able to guarantee what is on your veggies is if you grow it yourself...can't tell what you might find in the store. As a consumer you trust the persons selling the veggies to the store, but really no way to tell what your food may have been treated with.

That's about as close as you can hope to get, and probably why a good many people are vegan / vegetarian. And there's Eastern and other religious outlooks that encourage vegetarianism. If you're American, get used to Tofurkey come Thanksgiving.

Not to belabor the point, but meat - flesh - is nutrient dense. It is the preferred foodstuff of a considerable part of nature. Lions, Tigers...I think Bears are more omnivore...and others at the top of the food chain consume flesh. And it doesn't come prepacked on white plastic trays covered in cellophane.

That's nature too.

A time to every purpose, under Heaven.

Likewise, there is such as too much of a good thing.

I meant that giving thanks for what we eat, or slaughtering by religious tradition is not the same thing as sacrifice, whereas fasting is, imo

Whatever. I don't believe God wants or is appeased by innocent blood -- as it came to be perceived -- but by the trust of willingness to let go worldly attachments.

And Christ came to fix that corruption of sacrifice -- amongst other things too, of course

Is it a fast that I have chosen,
A day for a man to afflict his soul?
Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush,
And to spread out sackcloth and ashes?
Would you call this a fast,
And an acceptable day to the Lord?

Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke?
(Isiaah 58:5-6)
Read full chapter

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why Sacrifice?​

The sacrificial service was not primarily about the physical act of slaughtering an animal; it was principally a spiritual service. On a basic level, if the sacrifice was being brought to atone for some inadvertent sin, one had to feel remorse over what had happened.21 To assist in reaching true repentance, he would bear in mind that what was being done to the animal essentially should have occurred to him.22

Another way of understanding sacrifices is that the animal one brings as an offering to G‑d is symbolic of our own inner animal, our instincts and primal desires that we must bring into alignment with G‑d’s will. We surrender that part of us to G‑d and make it submissive to Him, so that it too may seek to do His will.23

From the perspective of Kabbalah, the sacrifices were a way of elevating the matter and vitality of this world to a higher plane. In addition to elevating the various layers of the human soul, sacrifices in the Temple also elevated the actual animal being offered, thereby elevating the entire animal kingdom.24
ibid

I see it in a lot more simpler terms..
In times of old, in pre-industrial society, having animals was having wealth .. it still is to some extent.

Sacrificing animals, was a way of purifying one's wealth .. so if an animal was "given to G-d",
it is a form of charity.
Originally, I don't think that the animals were burnt, but given to the poor and needy as meat.
..and G-d knows best.

 

[juantoo3]

...slaughtering by religious tradition is not the same thing as sacrifice,

Agreed, however, the sacrificial animal is not put on the alter to be burned alive. There are religious, Biblical proscriptions of how the animal is to be mercifully dispatched. Gauging by Halal, I would be inclined to think there are similar proscriptions in Islam.

 

[Thomas]

I think everyone has heard that, Christian or not, but study as I might, I can't make sense of it.

All I can offer, knowing it will not suffice, is an idea of 'recapitulation' found in St Paul and unpacked theologically by Irenaeus, among the very early Fathers and for many the source of all later theories of salvation.

That there are theories of salvation is evidence enough to show it's a huge and incomplete topic. Basically the theology of recapitulation is the putting right of what was wrong.

I've seen wiki offer reference to 'A more contemporary expression of the recapitulation view' ... (describing) Paul's view of the atonement not so much as recapitulation, according to Irenaeus, but 'participation'. I would quibble that's what was originally meant, and that's what the doctrine of theosis is all about ... but that's splitting hairs.

 

[Thomas]

Yes.
Why would they not be?

I think that's a tad unfair ... not everyone is a theologian.

I'm trying to take a humanitarian rather than intellectual position. Yes we can all point fingers towards what's wrong ... but here's the thing.

My dad's faith was solid as a rock. It shaped who he was, and there's a man who would not discuss his education by the Christian Brothers, other than to hint at their brutality.

My mum's likewise. "I love listening to you talk theology," she said once. "But so long as I get the Eucharist, that's all that matters."

If we're going to undermine someone's faith, then we really need something as rock-solid to replace it with. Otherwise we're being reckless.

And we all need our myths to live by.

 

[Thomas]

There were two mandatory sacrifices in the Old Testament Law. The first was the sin offering. The purpose of the sin offering was to atone for sin and cleanse from defilement.

This the author of Hebrews and St Paul saw Christ as surpassing. Sacrifice in the Old Testament 'covers' the sin, it does not remove it.

Christ's self-sacrifice was a one-time event that does just that. He was not the Lamb which we offer, He is the Lamb of God, "behold him who taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29, quoting John the Baptist.)

Sacrifice is universal. The Biblical record is an example, if not an exemplar of the idea (at least from a monotheist perspective).

At its most brutal and basic, it's a trade-off – I give you this, you leave me alone.

It takes on a spiritual sense in the religious traditions, but I think @juantoo3 touches on something when he offers the view of the Kabbalah, that which is offered in sacrifice is going to a higher place, a higher plane.The violence done is no match for the reward.

The idea of Perseus and Andromeda, of noble Knights and damsels in Distress etc all play on the theme – although the latter is influenced by the Biblical notion of the woman and the serpent ...

It's deep in the human psyche.

 

[wil]

Yikes...learning is wild.

Holocaust (sacrifice) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Animal sacrifice at temple powered ancient Jerusalem's economy

www.nbcnews.com

 

[RJM]

Agreed, however, the sacrificial animal is not put on the alter to be burned alive. There are religious, Biblical proscriptions of how the animal is to be mercifully dispatched. Gauging by Halal, I would be inclined to think there are similar proscriptions in Islam.

There would be no need for gratuitous cruelty or brutality? God didn't demand cruelty to the innocent

The Noahide laws forbid tearing flesh from a living animal.
The 7 Laws of Noah

 

[juantoo3]

Yikes...learning is wild.

It gets better...

"The exact location of the Temple is a contentious issue, as questioning the exact placement of the Temple is often associated with Temple denial. Since the Holy of Holies lay at the center of the complex as a whole, the Temple's location is dependent on the location of the Holy of Holies. The location of the Holy of Holies was even a question less than 150 years after the Second Temple's destruction, as detailed in the Talmud. Chapter 54 of the Tractate Berakhot states that the Holy of Holies was directly aligned with the Golden Gate, which would have placed the Temple slightly to the north of the Dome of the Rock, as Kaufman postulated.[30] However, chapter 54 of the Tractate Yoma and chapter 26 of the Tractate Sanhedrin assert that the Holy of Holies stood directly on the Foundation Stone, which agrees with the traditional view that the Dome of the Rock stands on the Temple's location.[31][32]"
-and-
"The Foundation Stone in the floor of the Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem. The round hole at upper left penetrates to a small cave, known as the Well of Souls, below. The cage-like structure just beyond the hole covers the stairway entrance to the cave (south is towards the top of the image)."

Temple in Jerusalem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[juantoo3]

Well of Souls

Well of Souls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Well of Souls (Arabic: بئر الأرواح, romanized: Biʾr al-Arwaḥ; sometimes translated Pit of Souls, Cave of Spirits, or Well of Spirits), is a partly natural, partly man-made cave located inside the Foundation Stone ("Noble Rock" in Islam) under the Dome of the Rock shrine on the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif) in Jerusalem.[1] During the Crusader period, it was known to Christians as the "Holy of Holies",[2] referring to the inner sanctum of the former Jewish Temple, which according to modern scholarship, was probably located on top of the Foundation Stone.[2]

The name "Well of Souls" derives from a medieval Islamic legend that at this place the spirits of the dead can be heard awaiting Judgment Day,[3] although this is not a mainstream view in Sunni Islam. The name has also been applied to a depression in the floor of this cave and a hypothetical chamber that may exist beneath it.[4]"

---

The Temple itself is said to have been built on the very site that Abraham offered up Isaac.

 

[juantoo3]

This the author of Hebrews and St Paul saw Christ as surpassing. Sacrifice in the Old Testament 'covers' the sin, it does not remove it.

Christ's self-sacrifice was a one-time event that does just that. He was not the Lamb which we offer, He is the Lamb of God, "behold him who taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29, quoting John the Baptist.)

Sacrifice is universal. The Biblical record is an example, if not an exemplar of the idea (at least from a monotheist perspective).

At its most brutal and basic, it's a trade-off – I give you this, you leave me alone.

It takes on a spiritual sense in the religious traditions, but I think juantoo3 touches on something when he offers the view of the Kabbalah, that which is offered in sacrifice is going to a higher place, a higher plane. The violence done is no match for the reward.

The idea of Perseus and Andromeda, of noble Knights and damsels in Distress etc all play on the theme – although the latter is influenced by the Biblical notion of the woman and the serpent ...

It's deep in the human psyche.

So does Christ pull double duty?

This thread began with the general, if vague, agreement that Jesus was the "Paschal Lamb." The Paschal sacrifice was once a year.

The Sin Offering was as needed.

Then too, all Offerings were discontinued with the destruction of the Temple, so perhaps Christ now covers all of the various sacrificial functions...although I don't recall any Christian focus on sacrifice for a firstborn child.

 

[Thomas]

So does Christ pull double duty?

Maybe He recasts the whole notion of Sacrifice?

This thread began with the general, if vague, agreement that Jesus was the "Paschal Lamb." The Paschal sacrifice was once a year.

He is Paschal Lamb, He is also High Priest ... He encompasses the entirety of the offering within Himself, and He institutes the continuance of it in the Eucharist.

The Sin Offering was as needed.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation, or as we used to say, Confession?

Then too, all Offerings were discontinued with the destruction of the Temple, so perhaps Christ now covers all of the various sacrificial functions...

That's one of my readings of the Rending of the Veil.

although I don't recall any Christian focus on sacrifice for a firstborn child.

There was baptism? At what point paedobaptism became the norm is uncertain. Some believe very early, reading baptism of the "household" as mentioned in Scripture to include children. Certainly the custom by the late 2nd century.

Probably a custom continued in JudeoChristian families, but not required of Gentiles.

 

[juantoo3]

Passover sacrifice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In the Torah, the blood of this sacrifice painted on the door-posts of the Israelites was to be a sign to God, when passing through the land to slay the first-born of the Egyptians that night, that he should pass by the houses of the Israelites (Exodus 12:1–28). In the Mishnah this is called the "Passover of Egypt" (Pesaḥ Miẓrayim in M.Pesach ix. 5). It was further ordained (Exodus 12:24-27) that this observance should be repeated annually for all time once the Israelites entered into their promised land. Exodus 12:25 "It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service (NKJV). This so-called "Pesaḥ Dorot," the Passover of succeeding generations (Mishnah Pesach l.c.), differs in many respects from the Passover of Egypt (Pesaḥ Miẓrayim). In the pre-exilic period, however, Passover was rarely sacrificed in accordance with the legal prescriptions (comp. II Chron. xxxv. 18).

The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, on the first new moon of the second year following the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying: Let the Israelite people offer the passover sacrifice at its set time: you shall offer it on the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, at its set time; you shall offer it in accordance with all its rites and rules
— Num. 9:1–3, JPS translation"

-and-

"Even if the eve of the Passover fell on a Sabbath, the Passover lamb was killed in the manner described above, the blood was sprinkled on the altar, the entrails removed and cleansed, and the fat offered on the altar; these four ceremonies in the case of the Passover lamb were alone exempt from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. This regulation, that the Sabbath yielded the precedence to the Passover, was not definitely determined until the time of Hillel (died 10 a.d.), who established it as a law and was in return elevated to the dignity of nasi by Judah ben Bathyra.(B.Pesachim 68a)." -emphasis mine, jt3

 

[Thomas]

From The End of Sacrifice, Religious Mutations of Late Antiquity by Guy G. Stroumsa:

"Some dramatic consequences followed from the destruction of the Temple. The first one was the birth of two new religions, rather than one. Side by side with the birth of Christianity, the appearance of Rabbinic Judaism after 70CE, and its growth in the following centuries represents a real mutation of the religion of Israel: indeed, a religion now without sacrifices, a religion whose priests were out of business, in which religious specialists had been replaced by the intellectual elite. In a way, early Christianity, a religion centred upon a sacrificial ritual celebrated by priests, represents a more obvious continuity with the religion of Israel than the religion of the Rabbis.

"The Temple’s fall, and the impossibility to offer sacrifice, brought about a transformation of the ritual: daily sacrifices were now replaced by prayers recalling the sacrifices of old. The absence of a Temple and the neutralisation of priests, in turn, simultaneously led to a spatial explosion of Jewish ritual and to its democratisation. There was no omphalos anymore, no obvious place that God could call His own house.

"In strong opposition to post-Yavneh Rabbinic Judaism, early Christianity unabashedly presented itself as a sacrificial religion, although one of a new kind, in which the central ritual was called anamnēsis, a re-actualisation, or even re-activation – rather than our weaker term ‘memory’ - of Jesus’ sacrifice. It was a religion without temples, in which the same sacrifice was offered perpetually, on a daily basis. It was offered by priests, organized in a hierarchy (in contradistinction to the basic equality of rank between the Rabbis). The very metaphorisation of biblical traditions by Christian thinkers permitted the preservation of the terms of Israelite religion.

"One also finds in early Christian literature, as in Rabbinic texts, a metaphorical use of sacrifice: Clement of Rome, already, refers to ‘a contrite heart’ as the true sacrifice, whereas the fourth-century Euchites, or Messalians, developed, as was done in Qumran, a theory and practice of continual prayer in order to keep Satan away in terms alluding to the ‘perpetual sacrifice’ in the Jerusalem Temple.

"... one should perhaps point out once more the deep ambiguity of sacrifice. Transformed, reinterpreted, metaphorised, memorised, it seems never to have died out completely. Late antiquity experienced the end of public sacrifice as the core of religious praxis, but that did not mean the end of the very idea of sacrifice."

(Guy Gedalyah Stroumsa is an Israeli scholar of religion. He is Martin Buber Professor Emeritus of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Emeritus Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions at the University of Oxford)

 

[wil]

It gets better...

"The exact location of the Temple is a contentious

But the fact that they built a tower to the sky pretty much tells us where they thought G!d was eh? And how to gain and control access?

Telescopes and space travel were big disappointments and a new paradigm was required....like the magician...not here, look over there.

 

[juantoo3]

But the fact that they built a tower to the sky pretty much tells us where they thought G!d was eh? And how to gain and control access?

Telescopes and space travel were big disappointments and a new paradigm was required....like the magician...not here, look over there.

I think you are mixing metaphors...the Temple in no way whatsoever equated with the Tower of Babel

And "the smoke" carrying the prayers of the faithful to "god" was a pretty universal concept among all of the ancient religions practicing burnt offerings, and I might add even among Native Americans as they burned sage or sweetgrass and others using various incense. Might even call it "Jungian."

 

[TheLightWithin]

I think that's a tad unfair ... not everyone is a theologian.

I think I was responding to your having said "can they be blamed for not questioning it?"
And I would argue yes, because even the average kid questions EVERYTHING. Why do I have to go to bed, why can't I have candy, why is the sky blue, why did my friend stop talking to me, why did grandma have to die.
I wonder what theology would look like if EVERYONE used that same curiosity and gumption to ask WHY?

 

[TheLightWithin]

All I can offer, knowing it will not suffice, is an idea of 'recapitulation' found in St Paul and unpacked theologically by Irenaeus, among the very early Fathers and for many the source of all later theories of salvation.

The source of the ransom theory, the Christus Victor, Penal Substitution etc?
(This page https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/ explains the theories pretty well in a good clear summaries.

But why God or the Devil or anybody else would NEED this and what in the world it could DO FOR HUMANS remains baffling to me.
I find Christianity fascinating, but I don't understand it.

Even the heterodox version I was quasi raised with (Grandpa) which didn't preach the Trinity or eternal torment -- it lacked those baffling clauses but the theology still held to the idea that Christ's death on the cross did something for everyone.
Based on what I picked up from my grandpa and his church's magazines
How that all tied into the Cold War news of the time
What I picked up from Christmas carols (which my grandpa's denomination called pagan)
Age mates who tried to evangelize me,
Later a brief stint in a Methodist youth group
and
Reading the bible through myself -- I thought I had theology pretty well worked out and I was WAY off.
I truly was shocked, baffled and disappointed when I found out what Christian theology really was.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Noahide laws forbid tearing flesh from a living animal.
The 7 Laws of Noah

I appreciate the Noahide movement.
Though I am not formally in a Noahide group, its existence gives me something to orient towards
Believing in the Jewish G-d without being Jewish
(I have some bit of Jewish ancestry but can't prove it's straight matrilineal descent, so not Jewish)