It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rabbis Call for Return of Animal Sacrifice

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Most religious rites are still performed today. The only ones that were stopped at the destruction of the Jewish temple were those that relied upon the temple itself to be performed.

The lighting of the great menorah for example. Yes, Jews still light Menorahs on Hanukah of course, but the great menorah was of a different design and was lit every day. That commandment can no longer be kept due to the lack of a temple. Another example would be the burning of incense. That was something that had to be prepared in a very specific manner at the temple only. That incense can no longer be offered because it was dependent upon being done in the temple. Those practices, even when the temple stood, were completely forbidden to be done at any other location.

Sacrifices fall under that same category.

Other practices like praying daily, reading from the Torah scrolls etc. were also performed in the temple, however, the difference was that those practices were performed elsewhere as well. Not all Jews lived in Jerusalem, so there were of course small synagogues in other cities, and those practices were done there. Only very specific practices like the menorah, incense, sacrifices and some others were so location dependent.

That's why I'm not able to understand how anyone can advocate the restoration of a practice that is explicitly forbidden to be done anywhere other than a temple that is not currently standing. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

EDIT: Just a note... since the establishment of the Tabernacle in Shiloh and later on the Temple in Jerusalem, the Old Testament records only two sacrifices that were offered "off-site". One by Gideon and one by Elijah, in both cases under specific commandments of God. Gideon to show authority over the gods of Midian and Elijah to disprove the false prophets. That's it... two... I think this fringe group of "Rabbis" needs to hone their skills a bit more before proposing something like that.

[edit on 3/1/2007 by Djarums]




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
I asked myself why the creator of the Universe would require animal sacrifices to be happy?
Why was god so into BBQ's, and why did these blind shepherds fall for this so hard that they gave up their best animal? (it would be better for the integrity of the flock quality to sacrifice the worst animal actually)
[edit on 1-3-2007 by Toadmund]


I'm no expert, but I believe that people back then sacrificed their best animals and crops to show how much they love God. To sacrifice the worst animal would be a great offense, and show how un-generous a person was. If you remember the story of Cain and Abel, God did not accept Cain's sacrifice, because although Cain sacrificed to God, in his heart he did not want to give up his best stuff. Abel however gave God only his best, so God loved Abel more than Cain. That's when Cain became jealous of Abel and killed him.

I'm against animal sacrifice, but if the animal is consumed afterward, I guess I can't complain too much. It's not much different than going to the grocery store and picking up a few steaks from all those already-butchered animals on the shelves.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

The 71 members of the "Re-established Sanhedrin" say they want to begin sacrificing animals again, despite the absence of the Temple, the ritual altar and all the required implements listed in the Bible.


As a followup to my previous post... the bolded part is pure heresy according to devout Jews.

The "Sanhedrin", by the way, was in fact a judicial body that would interperet and set religious law. A Sanhedrin can not be established unless it will be recognized by the majority of Jews in the world. Being that this "Sanhedrin" is basing their most public opinion on pure heresy, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that the title is anything but self appointed.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
It is my understanding that without the temple that animal sacrifice cannot be resumed. the temple institute has already made all new artifacts decribed in the Torah as essential for the temple. However, the Torah has very specific rules about the way a sacrifice is to be done, no temple, no ashed of the red heffer, no sacrifice . Plus the Israeli govenment will never allow this. Jews are not even allowed to pray on the actual temple mount much less sacrifice and animal there.


Animal sacrifice is a very touchy subject to some i understand but I would like to point out that we in America kill more animals in one day than ancient Israel sacrificed in a whole year. Also, the method of the actual death is far more humane that what goes on in your average American beef or chicken plant.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I don't really mind animal sacrifice but I think if they are going to do it they should do it right, you know following all the ritual rules... Doing it without these would be more like a theater/play than a proper ritual, I mean, that's not even a Jewish sacred place, its Muslim, even rabbis don't allow praying in there...

But to think that animal sacrifices aren't practiced nowadays is really naive, many religions practice it to this day, and not all eat the corpse after it, but at least most don't torture the animal like what they do to make our dear steaks.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Just to clear things up according to the old testament it was G-d himself that told Abraham to sacrifice a goat instead of Isaac on the altar. If you recall G-d tested Abraham's faith by ordering him to sacrifice his only son (or rather favorite son). When he was just about to slit his throat G-d told him 'don't send your hand on the child' and told him to sacrifice a goat instead.

I heard something funny on television the other night when a comedian pointed out that the only thing King Solomon proved is that a real mother wouldn't want her baby to be cut in half. Which brings us to the question: what kind of father would kill his own son? And what kind of God would demand such an act? Can such a God be called benevolent or even humane? Does God truly require his followers to be prepared to perform on the of the most evil acts imaginable (murdering your own child) in order to prove their faith?

That sounds more like the Devil than God to me.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Rahul Buttar]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rahul Buttar

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Just to clear things up according to the old testament it was G-d himself that told Abraham to sacrifice a goat instead of Isaac on the altar. If you recall G-d tested Abraham's faith by ordering him to sacrifice his only son (or rather favorite son). When he was just about to slit his throat G-d told him 'don't send your hand on the child' and told him to sacrifice a goat instead.

I heard something funny on television the other night when a comedian pointed out that the only thing King Solomon proved is that a real mother wouldn't want her baby to be cut in half. Which brings us to the question: what kind of father would kill his own son? And what kind of God would demand such an act? Can such a God be called benevolent or even humane? Does God truly require his followers to be prepared to perform on the of the most evil acts imaginable (murdering your own child) in order to prove their faith?

That sounds more like the Devil than God to me.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Rahul Buttar]


That is exactly the whole point of the episode of Abraham and Isaac. G-d stopped him from doing it to show him that human sacrifice is not what HE requires. Keep in mind that this was at a time when human sacrifice in pagan religion was common. so by taking him through all the steps and then stopping him at the critical time G-d was saying this is not the way I will interact with you, unlike all the other G-ds who others have worshiped and did not appear on behalf of a human sacrifice victim.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rahul Buttar
Which brings us to the question: what kind of father would kill his own son? And what kind of God would demand such an act? Can such a God be called benevolent or even humane? Does God truly require his followers to be prepared to perform on the of the most evil acts imaginable (murdering your own child) in order to prove their faith?

That sounds more like the Devil than God to me.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Rahul Buttar]


Well, God gave his son on the cross for the sake of the human race. Maybe it shows that personal sacrifice that benefits the majority, though painful, is a true sign of love?

It gets very deep and it takes many years of devout religous studies to really understand the complete picture of God's interaction with mankind.

As someone else said earlier, christians are nto required to make animal sacrifices because Christ sacrificed himself for our sake. In other words, He made that sacrifice so you didnt have to. Think about that.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
The Holy Temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices will resume.

It's all prophesized. Whether it happens sooner or later, is still unknown.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join