-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Animals sacrificed do not take the punishment or pay the price for sins
- Thread starter Niatero
- Start date
Niatero
*banned*
Maybe, if you really are sorry and you're doing it to try to repair the damage, and not just trying to get back on her good side.
OK. Upon what is this understanding based and what did you hope to discuss.
Of course.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
The ******** needed annihilating.
Niatero
*banned*
It's based on reading the Old Testament. Does it look to you like the purpose of the laws of sacrifice is for the animals to suffer in the place of their owners, or to cancel a debt that they owe to God for their sins?
There are many they can't eat, some are just flour and oil etc.I guess the way to buy God's favor is to provide the temple priests with a dinner. Can't imagine who thought that one up.
Sometimes they had to eat so much meat they'd become ill and had to have doctors on hand.
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
The sacrifice is from the release of blood (“The Life is in the blood”). God required a temporary substitute for THE ONE SINLESS INNOCENT SACRIFICE… that was through an [sinless] and [innocent] and [pure (not crossbred, injured or miscoloured)] animal.
A Lamb was the animal of choice … which God sanctioned and is inaugurated in the fact that Jesus is seen as that ‘Lamb’ which was depicted in the book of Revelation, ‘Looking as though slaughtered’. Jesus Christ: the perfect, pure, sinless, righteous, and Holy, Sacrifice, giving his blood, poured out for the salvation of mankind from the sin of Adam.
No.
You can choose to smile and post what you seem to think are clever observations, or you can look into the matter and perhaps learn something. See, for example, Scapegoat.
See above :
And, presumably, you can't conceive of why. Oh, well.
Sorry for repeating a Tradition!See above :
Ben Achiyya was appointed to treat those priests who suffered from intestinal disease: Since the priests would walk barefoot on the floor [even when it was cold, as their feet had to be in contact with the stones of the Temple floor,] and since they would eat a lot of meat from the offerings and drink a lot of water, they would contract intestinal disease. And Ben Achiyya knew that which particular type of wine was good for healing the intestines, and which type of wine was would be bad for the bowels.
Shekalim 13a-b ~ The Cohen and his Stomach Problems — Talmudology
On page 13 of Shekalim we read about the fifteen Temple officers and the administrators who held them: שקלים טו, א …אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְמוּנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּינְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת. אֲחִייָה עַל הַנְּסָכִים. מַתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּייָסוֹת…בֶּן אֲחִייָה עַל חוֹלֵי מ
www.talmudology.com
I doubt it.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
The Talmud ought be used in these discussions as a relevant historical document.
Traditions are valid sources of information.
True. It is also true that the Talmud is an enormous compendium of wide-ranging and often disparate commentary. Casually quote-mining this resource is disrespectful at best. But if you are seriously claiming the intent to focus of Talmudic tradition, I'll take you at your word.
I hardly quote mined.
I remembered Tumah had said it so I located the source. It seemed relevant to the discussion and was an interesting titbit.
I don't really see the problem. I used it in defence against the notion of sacrifices as means for priests to gorge themselves.