OK Lets talk about "communal" sin, and atonement and "individual" sin, and atonement. In the daily sacrifice for sin, that you contend flour is equivalent to a blood sacrifice. If that were the case one would think that all the sacrifices would be of flour since that would save money and valuable livestock.
"Save money"? Wow, you really don't understand the point of a sacrifice then. The goal is to GIVE UP what you have. Sadly, some have less that they can afford to give up, so they give up something that has value to them. There is no purpose to being thrifty when it comes to sacrificing.
Could it be that the God prefers a blood sacrifice but in mercy for poor people, for this sacrifice, he allows them the flour sacrifice ?
"Prefers"? Well, I try not to attribute human notions of preference to God but let's say that God does "prefer" blood. The fact that he doesn't REQUIRE blood means that blood, though preferred cannot be a sine qua non of atonement. QED.
Now, to "communal sin", I haven't found that term in the texts, it may be there, I haven't seen it.
You should brush up on your Hebrew. I quoted it.
I assume you agree that sin is the transgression of the law, the entire law.
The entire law? Actually, there are categories of what in English is labeled "sin" and there are different types of actions which are called different things. Which category are you talking about?
For illustration let's just use the big ten.
What "big ten"?
So tell me, how does a community collectively commit adultery, or murder, or steal, or break the sabbath ? How does the collective population commit sin?
Well, there is actually an entire corpus of law dealing with just this question. Just as an example, if the priest issues a ruling about something's being permissible on the sabbath and the nation follows his teaching, and then he learns that he was wrong, the entire nation has "sinned" and there needs to be some sacrifice. Check out the talmud, tractate Horiyot.
The scripture says "the sins of the people" not the sins of the community, or nation, the individual sins of the people.
Actually, it says "of the Children of Israel" as opposed to, say, 5:17 which specifies the act of an individual. And, of course, there is the end of 16:17 and 16:24.
Now to the scapegoat, or goat. The verses say the sins of the people are placed upon it's head. You contend that this is symbolic, perhaps, but that is not what the verse says.
Actually, what it says is the goat carries only the avonot, not the chata'im and pesha'im. And since the goat is not killed, it might wander back in carrying all those nasty iniquities because that's a real thing. Like throwing them into the sea, as I referenced and you ignored...
Yes, I reject the oral law, or tradition. It say's what it says, I don't need someone telling me what it means.
Um, should I now start listing all the things you can't possibly understand just from the text? And this also calls forth the fact that you can't even read what it says and are relying on other people translating it for you (telling you what they think it means).
Yeah, you really dazzle with the Jewish terms and script, and you must continue the snide little remarks, a sign your argument is not nearly as strong in your mind as you contend it is.I will leave this childishness to you. So please, continue with the snide remarks and the smoke and mirrors of alleged superior knowledge and tradition.
No problem. Using the language the text is written in and the terms the actual text uses, and pointing out how you don't have a clue is pretty easy and it (repeatedly) brings out your absolute lack of knowledge, forcing you to shift focus and change what you discuss. I like watching you dance.
I will stay with what the text literally says, as it is written.
OK, so God has an arm, you know intuitively what a kemitzah is and "frontlets" makes sense to you. And, of course, when the text references absent laws, you know those laws. Great.
You have yet to use the text as written to prove it says something it doesn't say,
Well, I proved what it DOES say and you ignored it. Repeatedly. That's your choice.
I want to point out the very first passover.
Oh look -- a new topic.
The blood of innocent creatures was used to protect those of God, from Gods wrath.
As opposed to the blood of guilty creatures used every other time?
So, from the first, the Jews were protected by blood, as the very first and foundation act of protection from God, innocent blood was instrumental
Well, they were sacrificing the local deity so it was actually the act of faith that protected them and the blood was simply a sign of obedience and belief. You might as well say that what protected the people was the required use of hyssop. Either way, the fact that in that situation, a sacrifice was important does not mean that the entire of the religion owes its existence to blood. It is owed to God.
