Without blemish referred to, i believe, without scarring on the organs, especially the lungs of the animal. But I am no expert in the laws of kashrut. Of course human sacrifice was shunned by Israel and judaism which is why I assumed any reference to Israel being sacrificed was meant to be taken metaphoricaly, at least to the extent it was compared to the instutiionalized practice of sacrifice in the Temple.
What makes you say that I go for the things that “keep me alive”, and that you go for the things you live for, Ben?While you go for the things that keep you alive, I go for the things I live for. That’s the difference between us.
Ben:
Has there ever been a case in the O.T. where a man would, so to speak, “sacrifice” himself to God for the sins of others? or where he would be unjustly punished instead of other people but would not revolt against God for this? There must be close to none… although one who comes to mind is Joseph, son of Jacob, who after his dark time became a ruler of Egypt, having become the man whom the Pharaoh confided into…
Not that I can think of. There were a few cases where a Jew would dedicate himself to God (i.e. Nazerites) and then not cut his hair, drink wine… but I don’t think I can recall anyone sacrificing themselves to God for the sins of others.
Joseph was unjustly punished by Pharoah and spent time in prison for a crime he didn’t commit (Just saw your reference to this as I am typing).
jlhargus;4923909:
JL:Israel was clean of the sins he died for. Those sins were the sins of Judah. When the Court decides on the method of death over a criminal, let’s say, stoning,
and select a group of people to perform the stoning, it doesn’t matter how sinful is everyone in the group. The execution is based on the crimes of the condemned to death and not on the sins of the executioners.
The death of Israel was not based on his personal sins but on the sins of Judah. Israel was on the role of scapegoat. The concept of unclean offering is too symbolical. The individual sins of a person mean nothing in the “eyes” of God.
Ben:
JL: Israel was a sick puppy, with it’s sins and a sick animal is an unclean offering.jlhargus;4923909:
Israel was clean of the sins he died for. Those sins were the sins of Judah. When the Court decides on the method of death over a criminal, let’s say, stoning,
and select a group of people to perform the stoning, it doesn’t matter how sinful is everyone in the group. The execution is based on the crimes of the condemned to death and not on the sins of the executioners.
The death of Israel was not based on his personal sins but on the sins of Judah. Israel was on the role of scapegoat. The concept of unclean offering is too symbolical. The individual sins of a person mean nothing in the “eyes” of God.Ben:
jlhargus;4923909:
JL: Israel was a sick puppy and a sick animal is unclean and not an acceptable sacrifice.Israel was clean of the sins he died for. Those sins were the sins of Judah. When the Court decides on the method of death over a criminal, let’s say, stoning,
and select a group of people to perform the stoning, it doesn’t matter how sinful is everyone in the group. The execution is based on the crimes of the condemned to death and not on the sins of the executioners.
The death of Israel was not based on his personal sins but on the sins of Judah. Israel was on the role of scapegoat. The concept of unclean offering is too symbolical. The individual sins of a person mean nothing in the “eyes” of God.
Ben:
Jonathan spoke of David to his father, King Saul, several times. At one point, Saul even thought him to side with David against him…
JL: I meant: Judah was judged also for Judah’s sins. Sorry
Because if you were right in what you say, I mean, that God is responsible for our pangs of conscience, it would be terribly unfair of God to grant those pangs of consicence to you and to me and not to every human being. How could the others who miss them be punished for their wrongdoings? Think! We could never say that God is a just God. No Lapell, we are responsible for the evil and good done. Therefore, we must be accountable for whatever we do whether the pangs work in our conscience or not.
Sorry Lapell if that struck you as odd, but one does not have to be too exposed to Philosophy to see how you guys, except for one or two, swimm too much on the surface of applied Wisdom. You guys are too literal and anthropomorphic in TheologyWhat makes you say that I go for the things that “keep me alive”, and that you go for the things you live for, Ben?
You way of putting the individuals or the groups of people into categories such as this one is quite something… How are you so sure that I won’t go for the things I live for, heh?
Judah was judged and sentenced to 70 years of exile in Babylon for his own sins. But the chastisement upon Judah for these sins could be expiated through temporary exile. Then, God would take him back, as He did, according to Daniel 9:24 when the transgression stopped, the guilt had been expiated and Everlasting justice returned to the People. These were different sins from the one that caused the need for a redeemer, which Israel had to become and pay with his death so that Judah survived.
Bingo! Now I agree with you Lapell. Everything you say above is right, and
Take it easy Lapell, you seem to be too upset. Remember, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Let me give you one more chance on this issue about being invited or called. As you said above, I don’t think it will help a lot to give you here some Hebrew, but I’ll try. The word in Hebrew for “to invite” or “to call” is Lehazmin.
Don’t worry, I can take a thing or two from Jews, but in this case I doubt very much that the author of the Gospel according to John was unaware of the distinction in the Greek language. At the age he was when he wrote it, he had plenty of time to learn it, believe me! Therefore, I still don’t believe your theory stick at all with what happened.Take it easy Lapell, you seem to be too upset. Remember, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Let me give you one more chance on this issue about being invited or called. As you said above, I don’t think it will help a lot to give you here some Hebrew, but I’ll try. The word in Hebrew for “to invite” or “to call” is Lehazmin.
One is muzman to a wedding party, and in the course of the ceremony the Groom is muzman to take his Bride. As I said in a previous post, one must be aware of the use to be able to see the difference. That’s the whole problem with the issue of being the disciples invited to the party, and being Jesus invited (called) to take a wife. Lapell, hello! I went through it. Don’t feel embarrassed to take it from me. Sometimes it’s possible to learn a thing or two from the Jews, especially when they are speaking about Jewish things.
Ben:
The prophets certainly were upset about their people’s errors and sinful behaviour. You wouldn’t have in their places?Take it easy Lapell, you seem to be too upset. Remember, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Let me give you one more chance on this issue about being invited or called. As you said above, I don’t think it will help a lot to give you here some Hebrew, but I’ll try. The word in Hebrew for “to invite” or “to call” is Lehazmin.
One is muzman to a wedding party, and in the course of the ceremony the Groom is muzman to take his Bride. As I said in a previous post, one must be aware of the use to be able to see the difference. That’s the whole problem with the issue of being the disciples invited to the party, and being Jesus invited (called) to take a wife. Lapell, hello! I went through it. Don’t feel embarrassed to take it from me. Sometimes it’s possible to learn a thing or two from the Jews, especially when they are speaking about Jewish things.
Ben: