WHO or WHICH is most important?

[bill4long]

You didn't answer the question:

What does God need with a human sacrifice?

The reality is that because everyone sins, everyone is excluded from GOD's presence ---- no matter how seemingly insignificant the sin may seem. This means that everyone must pay the fine of eternal separation from GOD unless one has a perfect SAVIOR to pay the penalty in their place. This is what GOD did on our behalf. The prescribed animal sacrifices were merely illustrations of what Christ would accomplish upon the cross. Those that followed GOD's prescribed sacrificial laws were doing so with an understanding that they were counting on GOD to save them, and it wasn't about works.

Why must the "fine" be a bloody, torturous, extended, deathly human sacrifice?

[Shulem]

Why must the "fine" be a bloody, torturous, deathly human sacrifice?

The writers of the Bible were interested in stoking fear and dread into the hearts and minds of those who subjected themselves to the cult. It's all about fear and getting people to tremble. It's pure evil masquerading as love.

[bill4long]

The reality is that because everyone sins, everyone is excluded from GOD's presence ---- no matter how seemingly insignificant the sin may seem. This means that everyone must pay the fine of eternal separation from GOD unless one has a perfect SAVIOR to pay the penalty in their place. This is what GOD did on our behalf. The prescribed animal sacrifices were merely illustrations of what Christ would accomplish upon the cross. Those that followed GOD's prescribed sacrificial laws were doing so with an understanding that they were counting on GOD to save them, and it wasn't about works.

Sidebar: the yearly Hebrew Yom Kippur event did not require a torture. And it required two goats (or sheep.) One goat was banished to the wilderness after the high priest confessed Israel's sins on its head. The other goat had its blood spinkled on the mercy seat, but it was not tortured. It did not suffer agony for several hours. It was simply killed and separated from its blood (because the blood contained the "life" (Lev 17:11), which we today know is incorrect.) (Lev 16.) The New Testament atonement account of Jesus not comport with these two important details.

[bill4long]

The reality is that because everyone sins, everyone is excluded from GOD's presence ---- no matter how seemingly insignificant the sin may seem. This means that everyone must pay the fine of eternal separation from GOD unless one has a perfect SAVIOR to pay the penalty in their place. This is what GOD did on our behalf. The prescribed animal sacrifices were merely illustrations of what Christ would accomplish upon the cross. Those that followed GOD's prescribed sacrificial laws were doing so with an understanding that they were counting on GOD to save them, and it wasn't about works.

Sidebar continued: moreover, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb did not involve torturing the animal for hours. Nor did any other animal sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. It was the death and blood that mattered since the "life of the soul is in the blood." (Lev 17:11.) If the death and blood is what mattered, why would God feel the need to torture Jesus for hours? Or put conversely, if torture was a necessary element of atonement, why didn't the allegedly typological Hebrew animal sacrifices require torturing the animal for hours?

[Shulem]

...why would God feel the need to torture Jesus for hours?

Torture is evil and has nothing to do with a father’s love for his son. In my view, the doctrine of animal and human sacrifice is Satanic in nature. It could be argued that Moses was an agent of Satan and the writers of the New Testament continued in that same spirit in effort to come up with something more grand and call it the New Covenant, hence the birth of a new cult.

[bill4long]

The reality is that because everyone sins, everyone is excluded from GOD's presence ---- no matter how seemingly insignificant the sin may seem. This means that everyone must pay the fine of eternal separation from GOD unless one has a perfect SAVIOR to pay the penalty in their place. This is what GOD did on our behalf.

Sidebar continued again:

The "penalty" entailing some supernatural entity incarnating into a human body for about thirty years, and then at the end of it, having one very bad weekend. And this very bad weekend somehow satisfies the High God's extreme displeasure regarding all that human misbehaving rampant on planet earth.

Question to you: exactly how does the sacrificial victim's very bad weekend assuage the High God's hurt feelings?

Last time around (Gen 6:6) the High God was so hurt and sorrowful about all that human misbehaving (that he didn't anticipate) that he wiped out all life above sea level except for the lucky eight. I guess torturing and killing an innocent victim for satisfaction is an improvement over that.

[Limnor]

I’d offer the sacrifice required the lamb’s death, while the cruelty and torture came from the humans carrying out the execution.

Therefore the mockery, spitting, and scourging functioned to reveal Jesus as the rejected righteous one of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, while the Levitical type was fulfilled in His sacrificial death.

[bill4long]

I’d offer the sacrifice required the lamb’s death, while the cruelty and torture came from the humans carrying out the execution.

Therefore the mockery, spitting, and scourging functioned to reveal Jesus as the rejected righteous one of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, while the Levitical type was fulfilled in His sacrificial death.

Just to be clear: you're saying the torture was not essential to the atonement? So if the Romans would have just struck his head off, or the Jews just stoned him to death, that would have been sufficient to calm the High God down about all the human misbehaving? Hmm, well, when Jesus was in the Garden "sweating, as it were great drops of blood", why didn't the High God just say, "okay, sonny boy, I'll arrange it so you just have to deal with a quick death. No gruesome ordeal." Or, how about, Jesus just pretends like he was suffering all those hours, if an indentification with Isaiah 53 was required, but actually wasn't required for the actual atonement. (Interestingly, a lot of very early Christians believed exactly that. Muslims believe it today.)

At any rate, what you seem to be claiming is that the Horrific Gruesome Ordeal added nothing to the actual "payment for human sin" but was merely a sign to link him to Isaiah 53 etc for identification purposes? Do I have that right?

If so, there is a problem, if we assume Isaiah is actually describing Jesus the way Christians claim, because the text says, "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed." This seems to indicate a lot more than mere death - contrary to the Hebrew sacrificial typology - was involved. (You did not comment on the fact that the Yom Kippur event entailed two goats, not one.)

Another sidebar: of course, Orthodox Jews reject any identification of Jesus in Isaiah 52/53 and generally see the Servant Song #4 as referring to a "servant" who is a righteous branch of Israelites. (The four Servant Songs start in Isaiah 40:1.) Moreover, while Christians generally apply Song #4 to Jesus - even though the first three Servant Songs obviously cannot be Jesus - and take this as a literal description of his alledged sufferings, the Christian apologetics applied to 53:10 I find rather interesting. It says that this servant - whoever or whatever it is - will "see his descendents", that is, his zara. Literally, his semen, which the Hebrew Bible uses to describe literal semen, and lineal descendents. It is never used metaphorically. Christian apologists commonly claim this is a mere metaphor that refers to the followers of Jesus or some such. However, no other verse in Isaiah 53 is taken metaphorically by Christian apologists. This is blantant apologetic inconsistency. If Isaiah intended this isolated verse be about the servant's followers, why didn't he just say so? Why would he use a metaphor just for that?

Another sidebar: with regard to Psalm 22, which is cited by Christian apologists: as with so many apologetic citations, there are some snags. For example, verse 20: "deliver my soul from the sword." Why would Jesus say this whilst hanging on the cross? He may have been having a rough time of it, but the threat of a sword was not an issue. And what of, "O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest." What? Did Jesus cry into the night during his crucifixion? The devil is in the details, and this doesn't fit the New Testament narrative.

Interestingly, all of the proof texts that New Testament writers used to "prove" Jesus was a sinbearer, when context is considered, every last one of them fall apart. It's shameful.

Which reminds me of a old joke about Christian apologists: why did God create Mormons? So that Christians would know how Jews feel.

[Shulem]

I’d offer the sacrifice required the lamb’s death, while the cruelty and torture came from the humans carrying out the execution.

Therefore the mockery, spitting, and scourging functioned to reveal Jesus as the rejected righteous one of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, while the Levitical type was fulfilled in His sacrificial death.

It’s true that animal sacrifice didn’t require acts of brutality and torture that go above and beyond the customary slaughtering of animals for food sources. However, in comparison, crucifixion was a form of punishment that is simply unspeakable and is beyond the pale in which no mother or father would tolerate or allow that kind of brutality on their own offspring without putting up a fight. However, false gods (including Jehovah) delighted in suffering and the spilling of blood, moreover the smell of burning flesh for ritual purposes! That is pure evil!

The Mosaic law of sacrifice involved rituals that wasted the lives of different kinds of animals, not to be eaten, but slaughtered for rituals purposes only. Burnt offerings were given solely to the air so evil minded Jehovah could smell it for his own abominable pleasure.

Sick, sick, sick!

Jehovah. Was. Evil.

[Shulem]

Just to be clear: ....

Excellent observations and you made several great points in exposing the Old Testament cult and false interpretations of early Christians in trying to supersede the old with something new and more exciting. Christians today are trapped within a religion that tells everyone else they will burn in hell unless they bow their knees to the imaginary god in whom they have faith.

Thank God I am not a Christian! My eyes are so, so, open.

Amen.