Posts by peacefulpete

20

Child Sacrifice and Exodus 22:29

by joey jojo in

im not a bible scholar - lets just get that out the way first.

i recently came across exodus 22:29, which is an interesting scripture that seems to require israelites to sacrifice their firstborn to god.. i searched this forum and cant seem to find any topic about it so i thought id start one and see what you guys think.

im sure it probably has been discussed here already, but i cant find it.. anyway, exodus 22:29 says:.

peacefulpete

87

Does Jehovah accept human sacrafice or not?

To be honest many of the comments I made and even some by Leolaia years ago show how are our own learning has progressed.

The core of the issue is understanding the way the OT was produced. It is a collection compiled by a 5th century BCE scribal committee (likely). Some of the collection reflects earlier religious practice, some of it is idealizations of a mythic past. Trying to divine which is which has occupied scholars for over a century. Generally, the 'argument from embarrassment' prevails, that is, material that would be embarrassing to a later redactor is assumed more ancient. That might not always be true, because author's do sometimes use archaizing language and scenes to give a work the look of antiquity. Also, if the author had a polemicizing agenda, he might well create a fictional storyline to make his point.

However, the general consensus is that isolated legends involving human sacrifice reflect a historical cult practice, given the archeological evidence of such practice (especially east of Jerusalem). It has been suggested the Abraham/Isaac story (Akedah) originally had Abraham successful in killing his son, but the change to the story with a substitution of a lamb/ram itself serves as an origin story of allowing substitution in some circumstances. This rite of child sacrifice continued in some parts of Canaan until Roman times. (they made it illegal)

The "Law" that forbid such sacrifice was a product of religious reformers of the 5th century, (though it is reasonable that at least elements of it predate that). They incorporated at least two earlier efforts at a code that differed rather extensively.

So....The present OT includes a number of stories involving human sacrifice (not just child). These at times appear to have been modified with awkward additions, (such as Jeptha) or edited (as with the Akedah) but other times shockingly left unchanged. (e.g. 2 Kings 3, King of Moab offers his son up and it works to repel the Israelite/Judahite coalition).

20

Child Sacrifice and Exodus 22:29

by joey jojo in

im not a bible scholar - lets just get that out the way first.

i recently came across exodus 22:29, which is an interesting scripture that seems to require israelites to sacrifice their firstborn to god.. i searched this forum and cant seem to find any topic about it so i thought id start one and see what you guys think.

im sure it probably has been discussed here already, but i cant find it.. anyway, exodus 22:29 says:.

peacefulpete

Yes the search is poor. This topic has been discussed in depth. Being short of time, I'll just say the textual and archeological evidence points to human sacrifice being a part of Yahweh worship and not an aberration done by apostates. The OT texts as we have them today often betray a change in this regard. Some stories such as Abraham sacrificing his son and Jeptha doing the same had some clumsy efforts to modify the conclusions. Also, one of the origin stories for the Levites was as an alternative to offering up firstborn after the exodus. The idea of 'redeeming' a child with money is another example of history revisionism. Ezekiel 20 seems to offer another approach to the past; it was all a test or a drama to prove God's moral superiority.

BTW from an earlier comment I made:

"Something interesting is that in 7 of the 8 "Molech" mentions, the definite article precedes Molech, IOW, it likely refers to a particular sacrifice method not a god. The one instance where there is no definite article is 1Kings 11:7 and there the LXX has Milcom, suggesting the Masoretic is a scribal error. Many etymologies have been proposed but a new and persuasive one is simply a ProtoSemitic word for 'sacrifice'. In light of this "the Moloch" references were likely a child sacrifice to Yahweh, which later scribes deny was officially prescribed."

In the end the stories were collected with respect but harmonized somewhat to reflect 5th century BCE ideals.

60

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

by aqwsed12345 in

1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.

peacefulpete

Not that it is a terribly important matter but I wish to clarify what I meant in my last comment.

Daniel and it's companion text 1 Macc (5:54) describe Antiochus' setting up an idol in the Temple. This triggers a successful rebellion under the Maccabees. The idol is removed.

While Caligula intended to do the same his order is resisted by the Jews and delayed by Petronius, Caligula's death ends the matter. (Some have suggested this is the source of the 2 Thess Man of Lawlessness, which may be a snippet of confused Pauline material included in 2 Thess).

After another rebellion, 66-70 sees the destruction of much of the city including the Temple, Jews are banished from the city until 118CE.

Then around 130CE:

” At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.”
– Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.12.

Note, this again triggers a revolt. The Bar Kokhba revolt is successful and begins the reestablishment of an independent Jewish state for about 3 years. Temple rebuilding was started during this time. Simon bar Koseva the leader of the revolt was given the title Kokhba (star) as he was hailed the Messiah by prominent religious leaders including Rabbi Akiva. Coins were minted with a picture of an imagined rebuilt Temple with a star above.

The parallel to the Maccabean revolt is hard to miss. The triggers in both cases was the placement of foreign idols on the Temple mount. The rebellion/war creates the 'great tribulation'.

When the writer of the Markan version explicitly says, 'let the reader use discernment' he is indicating parallels with the past.

Those that insist the 'abomination' refers to Roman army standards on the Temple mount after the conquering of Jerusalem in 70CE, must ask how after the destruction would it make sense to flee? It makes sense narratively to suggest the A of D was a prelude to the horrors needing to be escaped.

Also, the political situation of the years between 70 and 135, where empire wide Jewish rebellion and war called the 2nd Revolt, fits the "wars and rumors of wars' descriptor better. A prominent earthquake in 114 as well as the beginning of organized State oppression of Christians etc. best describe events well after 70CE.

This naturally complicates a simple reconstruction of Synoptic order. It might suggest as Hermann Detering suggests Luke preserves an older form by not including the Ab. of Des. phrase but only a reference to Roman armies. Then again, the author may have had his own reasons for amending what he saw in Matt and Mark

Is Mark 13 an abridgement of Matt 24 and an addition to the original Markan text? Maybe, some think so.

In the end, the basic hypothesis of Markan priority holds, with recognition that there were harmonization efforts for centuries. Some of these may be as large as the majority of Mark 13.

In the end we have to leave open the possibility that Mark, in essentially final form, may date later than most reference works suppose.

60

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

by aqwsed12345 in

1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.

peacefulpete

Nothing superstitious. My research has led me to the opinion that Mark in it's final form could be that late. The min-apocalypse shows signs of being reworked/updated to include events of the 3rd war. Matt followed soon, Luke a decade or so later. I'm being brief typing on my phone. This dates Luke roughly contemporary with 2 thess.

60

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

by aqwsed12345 in

1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.

peacefulpete

There is good reason to include the events of 135-136CE in the context of Mark 13 and related texts. There were many would be Messiah's in those decades, (including and culminating in Simon Bar Kokhba) to inspire those words of 'false prophets and Christs'.

Deutero-Paulines like 2 Thess were also 2nd century works addressing then current issues such as doubts due to long delay, a reinterpretation toward a realized eschatology, and continuing rejection of efforts to establish an orthodoxy.

In both cases we have efforts to explain and manage the realities surrounding them.

60

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

by aqwsed12345 in

1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.

peacefulpete

This claim is supported by passages in the New Testament, such as in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:17), which attest to Peter’s presence in Rome.

No it doesn't.

"17 Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this,” he said, and then he left for another place."

It's actually the type of lack of specificity that identifies fiction writing. Acts was written by a proto-Orthodox church around 150-170CE with the intention of justifying its doctrinal primacy over the many rival sects that existed by then. The Roman Catholic Church many years later continued this ruse of continuity with extensive history revisionism and mythmaking.

36

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

by jwundubbed in

i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.

i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.

then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.

peacefulpete

What she actually said.

VP HARRIS: "PASSAGE OF TIME. When you think about it there is great significance to passage of time" - YouTube

36

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

by jwundubbed in

i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.

i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.

then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.

peacefulpete

Sure as eggs.

36

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

by jwundubbed in

i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.

i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.

then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.

peacefulpete

Jeffro...I did say semantic paradox. You can't have a 'chicken' egg prior to the word chicken having meaning. But I agree with you, it's a word puzzle only if you accept certain premises. It's like asking can an all-powerful God make a stone so big he can't move it?

If you accept a chicken could come from something very chicken-like, the paradox disappears.

36

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

by jwundubbed in

i found out recently that michelangelo's painting of adam on the sistine chapel depicts him without a belly button.

i had never noticed this before and it makes sense that neither adam nor eve would have belly buttons, not having been born in the usual way.

then i realized all the first animals were created rather than born, according to the religious views of the origin of life.

peacefulpete

Jeffro, ......go fry an egg! lol