Does the Old Testament have a remedy for sin? (Index thread)

Sin is a thorny issue because its concept doesn't actually make sense except that its the tool by which the religious qualify their frocks and jobs. In Christianity we are taught Jesus died so our sins would be forgiven. So as he died and they are forgiven its irrelevant what sins we commit. In fact 10 Hail Mary's and a journey round the rosary seems nonsensical as a punishment for so-called confessions after Jesus has already made his sacrifice for us.

Either Jesus's sacrifice worked and we are all forgiven because of it regardless of whatever the religiosity like to say and do as without our sinning they would be out of a very interesting job that qualifies their whole existence, apart from masters of ceremonies at weddings, christenings and funerals.

a reply to: Shiloh7
I don't intend to go into the New Testament aspect of things at this stage.
That would require another series of threads, which I haven't written yet.

My concept of sin was "Insisting on making one's own wrong choices". I think that does make sense.

originally posted by: windword
Strangely enough, your theory seems to me to have been awkwardly shoe horned to fit your contrived theory...

Sounds to me like you are doing exactly what you just accused the OP of doing.

Allegorical interpretation is exactly what you just described above.

Anyone that tells you that all Scripture is allegory is completely out of touch with reality, period.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

The Bible DOES frequently employ allegory, such as in Gal.4:21-24.

But it also makes it perfectly clear when doing so.

Historically when people do not like what a document says or they want to make it fit their philosophical bent they allegorize that document. This is what Philo did with the Jewish Bible in Alexandria, Egypt and, early on, some Christians picked up this habit from him and imported it into the church.

digitalcommons.liberty.edu...

If you don't believe the Bible....fine...don't believe it. But don't suggest that one part should be taken allegory when another part of the Bible CLEARLY indicates that it isn't. I'm guessing you don't do that with other forms of literature, do you?

If you have a history book on George Washington, do you decide to read chapter 3 as an allegory, but the rest of it as fact simply because you don't want to believe the events of chapter 3 took place? If chapter 14 is believed to be historical---and it refers to the events of chapter 3 as historical....why would you believe chapter 3 to be allegory?

Is The Bible Literal Or Allegorical?

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

Those holding to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible point to a variety of scriptures and use them as proof-texts for the claim that God intended for His Word to be interpreted allegorically, and as we shall see, many of these verses have been taken out of context or redefined so as to give the appearance of supporting the false allegorical mode of interpretation. www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
In many dozens, hundreds of cases, THE LITERALISTS WERE ALWAYS PROVEN CORRECT as archeology uncovered more and more confirmation that the Bible was literally true in detail after detail. Some things are literal AND symbolic, both/and. I don't think a great number of things in the Bible are primarily or only symbolic.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Sounds to me like you are doing exactly what you just accused the OP of doing.

Nice catch! Yes, I accused the OP of what he accused me of. I find the person doing the pointing first, is usually guilty of what they're accusing others of.

Allegorical interpretation is exactly what you just described above.

Yeah. That's my point. I disagree with where he's taking the allegory, and that he bases much of his allegory on belief that God actually talked to Noah, Moses, etc. That God actually told them to go and kill, rape and steal and kill animals to atone for sin.

I don't believe that. Nobody has to tell me it's allegory, I intuitively always have known that.

Eden didn't happen. It's an explanation of how we feel about our surroundings, like a newborn, a naked and vulnerable babe that suddenly has to breath and suck. It explains the treachery a child feels from a mother who withholds her breasts while weening. It explains the frustration and angst a man feels toward his son when he reaches adolescence and it's time for him to strike out on his own. It explains the work that the son has to do without the aid of Daddy and his wallet.

All Bible stories are ancient explanations of mankind's journey through life and man's effort to balance the animal and spiritual.

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
no, freedom of choice will always breed a few rotten apples. No matter what the bible says. I am happy with freedom of choice

Your god is an idiot then.

If "god" was truly omnipotent then he/she/it would have built a universe where the rules do not require evil and sin as the options to express "freedom of choice" - the god that does that is unimaginative, or not omnipotent, or just plain nasty.

The OT "remedy" for sin is usually death - at least that's how I read all the cases where that is the punishment!

a reply to: DISRAELI

Isa 6:5 And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
Isa 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.
Isa 6:7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."


Was Isaiah's guilt really taken away by this hot coal? Where was the blood sacrifice?

a reply to: Cinrad
If you check my "Atonement" thread (and the whole second page of this thread), you will see that I don't think the blood sacrifice objectively took away sins. The effect was symbolic. (That's not just my view. It's the explanation found in the epistle to the Hebrews).
If the effect is symbolic, then one symbol is as good as another.
In another part of the laws, the scapegoat ceremony. In the case of Isaiah, hot coals.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm all for that:
Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

But for the record, the coal came from the altar in heaven, an altar is where sacrifices are made, so perhaps God was applying the sacrifice of Jesus to Isaiah, even before it happened (which just goes to show that time in a human construct)?

a reply to: Cinrad
I think "applying the sacrifice in advance" is sound theology.
After all, Hebrews also points out that the OT patriarchs could have Faith even before Jesus was born.
That would explain what the mediaeval church called "the harrowing of Hell", when Jesus was supposed to have collected all those belonging to him who died in the Old Testament period.

I like the idea that Sin is actually, like you said an unalignement with God, a Sinus wave.

Our frequency of life as been disconnected from God and the universe of "no time". It's time that makes everything consume, change and born again. In Eden and the after(between)life, there is no linear time like we have here. Our living universe is mostly based of frequencies where every matter is based on a frequency, every sound, every energy. Frequencies always do a Sinus wave, so in a sense, everything in our current universe lives in Sin.

So to be born in Sin might not mean to be born "evil" but born in a universe built on Sinus waves.

The snake is also in the form of Sinus so is DNA. The snake, satan is suppose to be the one that tempted Eve and Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To know good, one must first know evil. To know days, on must first know nights. Notice the duality...the duality of the Sinus wave going from positive to negative.

We are told Jesus died for our Sins and that he is the way to God, back to the source...Is Jesus really a way back to God, back to where we come from, back to the universe out of time...out of Sin(us)? I think I'm really on to something here...I'm starting to convince even myself that Sin might mean exactly what I'm refering to and not an act of evil...just the act of existing in this universe.

a reply to: theMediator

I like the idea that Sin is actually, like you said an unalignement with God, a Sinus wave.

But the whole wave pattern is part of "God's" creation, right? I mean, that's like saying that the poles of our earthly globe our out of alignment with "God's" will because they represent extremes, and only the equator represents the "straight and narrow" of "God's" will.

Either the whole of creation is "God's" will or non of the created universe is.

Where does the word Sin come from?

We can trace the word from Hebrew... Hatta' t in hebrew means "missing the target".
From hatta' t came Hamartia in greek.

Hamartia

In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist’s error or flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from their good fortune to bad. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or sin.

From good to bad, duality, Sinus wave...

Other words that decended from hatta' t :
Also in Hebrew, Peshac which means rebellion
Hebrew again, Cawôn which means twisted
Latin, Peccatum which means error or falling while walking
German, Sünde which means barrier

originally posted by: windword
But the whole wave pattern is part of "God's" creation, right? I mean, that's like saying that the poles of our earthly globe our out of alignment with "God's" will because they represent extremes, and only the equator represents the "straight and narrow" of "God's" will.

Either the whole of creation is "God's" will or non of the created universe is.

This direct universe might not be directly the creation of God. "Satan" or Yahweh is the lord here. He isn't the source but he's the lord of this world. The wave pattern would not be God's idea but a transgression of his ideal.

a reply to: theMediator

Well, that's the way I kinda see it too. All matter, all of solid creation is and belongs to "Satan". Chaos, entropy, death, decay etc. are all methods of sacrifice. We temporarily suspended our divinity and submitted to the physical for "The Great Work", what ever that is. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience. The "matter" of our vehicle is only on loan to us for our temporary use. Use it well!

One way to cleanse your sins is to perform ekadashi (fasting). It's a very old practice rooted in ancient India.

a reply to: peppycat

I should add that the temple has been destroyed twice so far.

The first time they burnt it, the second they burnt it, knocked down its remaining walls, dug up its foundations (looking for melted gold) and then, having nowhere else to put all the wreckage, they tossed the wreckage down into an adjacent valley.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

and you are assuming idiot were in any of my posts did I say anything about believing in a god. I took a break from site for awhile you were one of few that i didnt miss. lets dance.

a reply to: DISRAELI

i have read some of your other threads this aint my first rodeh-o

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Cinrad
If you check my "Atonement" thread (and the whole second page of this thread), you will see that I don't think the blood sacrifice objectively took away sins. The effect was symbolic. (That's not just my view. It's the explanation found in the epistle to the Hebrews).
If the effect is symbolic, then one symbol is as good as another.
In another part of the laws, the scapegoat ceremony. In the case of Isaiah, hot coals.

This is a really old thread, I know. I've been digging deep into all the threads related to sin, Yahweh, etc.
I had to comment on what Disraeli said......are you SERIOUSLY saying that the unmerciful slaughter of thousands of innocent animals would be used by a "good and loving" god in order to prove a point??? So, to kill another sentient being, who would be terrified and had nothing to do with "said person's sin", is somehow a good symbolic way to show sin being removed??? That's some horse**** there if I ever heard it. That's actually, downright evil.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
a) The custom of animal sacrifice was not invented specifically for the Israelites.
It was the normal practice over the whole cultural world of the Middle East. All that is happening in these laws is that what everybody was doing anyway has been adapted and given an addiitional meaning.

b) These were all food animals, by definition (animals which were unclean for eating were also unclean for sacrifice).
The historical origin of sacrifice, as we discover in one of the other laws, is that every animal being killed for a meal would be partially offered back to God as a kind of thanksgiving.
And we find in the details of the laws that the animals in these sacrifices, with very rare exceptions, were eaten afterwards, with only a token portion of the body being burned.
This means that all these animals WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED ANYWAY.

That is why the "slaughter of innocent animals" line is such over-hyped nonsense. This is the normal human custom of killing animals for food, with a few spoken rituals being added. The animals were no worse off than they would have been if they had passed through a modern butchering-process instead.