Scapegoat: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
: '''“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.”''' ― Dwight D. Eisenhower | : '''“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.”''' ― Dwight D. Eisenhower | ||
[[File:goat.jpg|thumb|250px|right|]] | |||
There are many other words translated ''gone'' such as ךלה halak, אצי yatsa’, ךלי yalak, אוב bow’, רבע ‘abar, בושׁ shuwb, דעצ tsa‘ad, and more. The letters LamedZayinAlef may mean more than simply gone away in reference to a goat. | == A Goat is a Goat == | ||
Sam Harris said that ''a goat is a [[goat]] is a [[goat]]''.<Ref>Sam Harris argues against the existence of God because he claimed in a debate that "[[goat]] means [[goat]]" with [[Jordan Peterson]] and thereby misinterpreting the Bible. https://youtu.be/DWe4NjtCBHI</Ref> This is all to common because many read all or too much of the Bible as literal. | |||
Not only is the Bible full of allegories and [[metaphor]]s the [[Hebrew]] language is full of symbolism because every letter of every word has a meaning. With such a language, the mind of the people will be different and the way they tell stories will be different. | |||
In parables of [[Goats and Sheep]], Jesus is trying to tell us something about the nature of the [[kingdom of God]]. The New Testament talks about ''living stones''. | |||
If [[altars]] are not always piles of dead [[stones]] then a goat may not always be a goat. | |||
If a goat is not always a goat then is a [[scapegoat]] always a [[scapegoat]]?<Ref>[[Leviticus 16]]:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. | |||
: Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. | |||
: Leviticus 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.</Ref> | |||
The word ''scapegoat'' in the Hebrew is ‘aza’zel ^לזאזע^ LamedZayinAlefZayinAyin.<Ref>{{05799}}</Ref> It is formed from two words ^זע^ ZayinAyin ‘ez<Ref>{{05795}}</Ref> meaning ''goat'' and ^לזא^ LamedZayinAlef ‘azal<Ref>{{0235}}</Ref> meaning ''gone'' | |||
There are many other words translated ''gone'' such as ךלה halak, אצי yatsa’, ךלי yalak, אוב bow’, רבע ‘abar, בושׁ shuwb, דעצ tsa‘ad, and more. The letters LamedZayinAlef may mean more than simply ''gone away'' in reference to a goat cast out. | |||
The word goat is composed of the letters ZayinAyin but those letters are not always translated into ''goat''. | The word goat is composed of the letters ZayinAyin but those letters are not always translated into ''goat''. | ||
The word ^זע^ ‘oz appears as ''strength'' or ''strong'' or ''mighty'' almost a hundred times.<Ref>{{05797}}</Ref> Also, the word ^זע^ ‘az <Ref>{{05794}}</Ref> consisting of the same root letters ZayinAyin is translated ''strong'' a dozen times and ''fierce, mighty'' and ''power'' as well as greed. The primitive root ‘azaz AyinZayinZayin from which | The word ^זע^ ‘oz appears as ''strength'' or ''strong'' or ''mighty'' almost a hundred times.<Ref>{{05797}}</Ref> Also, the word ^זע^ ‘az <Ref>{{05794}}</Ref> consisting of the same root letters ZayinAyin is translated ''strong'' a dozen times and ''fierce, mighty'' and ''power'' as well as ''greed''. Is the goat gone or is strength failing as a society when you are jealous and envious? | ||
Can a word | |||
The primitive root ‘azaz AyinZayinZayin from which all these terms are derived is translated as both ''strong'' and ''impudent''.<Ref>{{05810}}</Ref> | |||
Can a word mean ''[[goat]]'', ''strong'' and ''impudent''? | |||
== The Guide == | |||
: '''"Virtue would go far if vanity did not keep it company."''' Francois de La Rochefoucauld | |||
Besides idioms, [[metaphor]]s, and [[sophistry]] the use of allegories and cultural shifts over time to say nothing of hundreds of different sects exercising influence over the thinking and knowledge of the people took their toll on the message of the Bible. Many [[factions]], religious groups, and [[denominations]] like the [[Pharisees]], [[Sadducees]], [[Essenes]], and [[Zealot]]s all had divergent views of the scriptures. The reader, to say nothing of the translator, is faced with a sometimes difficult and profound task of deciphering the meaning intended by the inspired author. Therefore it has become essential that the reader must also be ''inspired'' by the [[tree of life]] rather than be solely dependent upon the [[tree of knowledge]]. | |||
Is the true [[wisdom]] of the Bible hidden in allegory so that the reader must be equally inspired in order to be awakened with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth? | |||
Was this by design? | |||
Are the self-righteous religionists at a disadvantage when it comes to seeing the true many of scripture? | |||
: '''"Truth is an inconvenience of the [[slothful]] but the enemy of the vain."''' | |||
When translating words into English you can heavily influence the perception of the reader by altering a few words here and there. It is very easy to apply a doctrinal prejudice by slightly altering a single or in some cases several words in the text. Explanation of words and phrases like [[Corban]], [[wages of unrighteousness]], [[covetous practices]] or ''[[fathers]] of the earth'' can give us a new understanding of scripture. But without a humble willingness to see the error of our ways those who say they see already may remain bind. | |||
: '''"Vanity can easily overtake wisdom. It usually overtakes common sense."''' Julian Casablancas | |||
=== Emotive conjugation === | |||
According to what is sometimes referred to as ''Emotive conjugation'' or the ''Russell conjugation'' because it was pointed out by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. | |||
Some examples are: | |||
: '' I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.'' | : '' I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.'' | ||
: '' I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.'' | : '' I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.'' | ||
| Line 17: | Line 59: | ||
This ''emotive'' or ''emotional conjugation'' used in rhetoric mimics the form of a grammatical conjugation of an irregular verb to illustrate the human tendency to describe behavior in a way that is more convenient to their ego or desire. | This ''emotive'' or ''emotional conjugation'' used in rhetoric mimics the form of a grammatical conjugation of an irregular verb to illustrate the human tendency to describe behavior in a way that is more convenient to their ego or desire or in some cases convenient for the dogma the translator or the doctrine of their benefactor. | ||
== Allegory of a goat == | |||
In the "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Philo of Alexandria suggests that the goat does not take the sins with him into the desert "For the sufferings inflicted on the scapegoat are in real truth the lot of him who is fond of suffering."<Ref>The First Book of the Treatise on | In the "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Philo of Alexandria suggests that the goat does not take the sins with him into the desert "For the sufferings inflicted on the scapegoat are in real truth the lot of him who is fond of suffering."<Ref>The First Book of the Treatise on | ||
| Line 33: | Line 78: | ||
Is the story of the [[scapegoat]] symbolic like the [[altars]] of [[Clay and stone]]? | Is the story of the [[scapegoat]] symbolic like the [[altars]] of [[Clay and stone]]? | ||
There appears to be at least Two Eblaite Text<Ref>Eblaite or Palaeo-Syrian, is an extinct East Semitic language used during the 3rd millennium. </Ref> from a period reaching back to the 24th-century BC make reference to a ritual purification taking place at the king's wedding where the whole community is involved in driving out a she-goat into the "Alini" (wasteland) waring a silver neckless. This ritual was suggesting an "elimination rites" that removed any past objection to the King's bride. | |||
There were also customs which may have resulted from man's primal nature of not accepting personal blame for things that have gone wrong. | |||
When God discovered Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam blamed Eve and God for his sin. Because God gave him Eve, at least Eve became his first scapegoat if not God himself. And of course there was the serpent. Not accepting responsibility for our errors or sins is all too common a practice but putting the blame on others is not only unproductive they are exhausting and even destructive. | |||
== The king of vanity == | |||
In Greece when there was a famine, drought, or plague the natural tendency of fallen man is to blame someone else. Leaders are often the first to be blamed. It actually became the custom to take some poor individuals into the king's house, treat them like royalty, showering them with gifts and the publicly driving them out or even sacrificing them to take the blame for the king. | |||
Evidence of similar rituals in the Andys was suspected when archeologists discovered children whose diet was greatly improved for at least a year before their ritual sacrifice. They were found frozen in caves high in the mountains, dressed in fine garments and evidently drugged and some times bound just before they froze to death. | |||
While evidence of these bazar rituals of transference of guilt and responsibility are found throughout history exactly how the people descended to accept such perception of the function of nature in a cause and effect university remains obscure. But these delusions flourish when common sense becomes less common and [[vanity]] becomes the name of the game. | |||
=== Sanctuary of the myth === | |||
The common interpretation is that the scapegoat stories or rituals assumes Israel's impurities and therefore it had to be removed from the camp with those impurities. Like the sacrifice of the [[Red Heifer]], it had to be removed from the camp as a part of the sacrifice. One problem with this theory is that driving a goat into the desert is a herculean task even for the whole village. | |||
And then there is the [[Red Heifer]] ritual that had nothing to do with a red female cow<Ref>See the [[Red Heifer]]</Ref> the same as the [[Altars]] of piles of [[Clay and Stone]] had nothing to do with dirt and rocks. | |||
== Myths have meaning == | |||
Even ''Myths have meaning'' which may need to be conceal so that the stories may be told by the wise and the fool until the nature of God is revealed in spirit. | |||
[[Exodus 12]] tells us to "shall put away [[leaven]] out of your houses:" but does that [[leaven]] have anything to do with yeast which is in the air all around us? | |||
The Bible tells us in [[Exodus 28]]:42<Ref>[[Exodus 28]]:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy [place]; that they bear not iniquity, and die: [it shall be] a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.</Ref> that the people "shalt make them linen [[breeches]] to cover their [''the [[Levites]]''] nakedness". | |||
But that command had nothing to do with a need for new [[breeches|linen underwear]] much less the problem of going up [[steps]] which did not exist in the desert. | |||
So, the directive has nothing to with an attire anymore than anyone is going to be kicked out of the wedding feast because they do ''"not have a wedding garment"'' which we see in [[Matthew 22]]:12.<Ref>Matthew 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.</Ref> | |||
The bullock and "a censer full of burning coals of [[fire]]" may "cover the mercy seat and blood may be sprinkled with your finger but all these things are symbols of ideas which mask the [[truth]] within the myth for its own protection. | |||
Masking the meaning in a myth keeps the minions of evil from knowing what to destroy. What they would hide is already a mystery hidden in plain sight and passed from generation to generations waiting for the revelation of God in spirit and truth to enter the [[heart and mind]] of the people. | |||
:: '''"When I look for myself I found a bundle of perception."''' David Hume<Ref>Hume, David. “Of Personal Identity.” In A Treatise of Human Nature. Project Gutenberg,</Ref> | |||
David Hume believed that errors in philosophy are "only ridiculous”, but "the errors in religion are dangerous". | |||
If the story of the [[Scapegoat]] is an allegory of misplaced violence or revenge or both. | |||
What is the message and who can hear it? | |||
== Rene Girard and the ''scapegoat mechanism''== | == Rene Girard and the ''scapegoat mechanism''== | ||
René Gerard<Ref>René Noël Théophile Girard was a French historian, literary critic, and anthropological philosopher of social science best known for his “mimetic theory”.</Ref> became concerned with Philosophical Anthropology with his mimetic theory imitation leading to competition for superiority leading to rivalries and violent conflicts. He suggests that those conflicts are partially relieved by a ''scapegoat mechanism''. He concludes that ultimately, Christianity is the best antidote to violence. | René Gerard<Ref>René Noël Théophile Girard was a French historian, literary critic, and anthropological philosopher of social science best known for his “mimetic theory”.</Ref> became concerned with Philosophical Anthropology with his mimetic theory, imitation leading to competition for superiority leading to rivalries and violent conflicts. He suggests that those conflicts are partially relieved by a ''scapegoat mechanism''. He concludes that ultimately, Christianity is the best antidote to violence. | ||
Rene taught that all desire is mimetic and that all conflict originates in a mimetic rivalry. The theory of ''Mimetic Desire'' is “based on the observable tendency of human beings to subconsciously imitate others and the extension of this mimesis<Ref>mimesis "representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature."</Ref> to the realm of desire.” | |||
=== subject, model, and object === | |||
This "mimetic character of desire" | This "mimetic character of desire" is established by a three-party relationship of subject, model, and object. Through the object, one is drawn to the model, identified by Girard as the mediator. | ||
The “model” is made manifest in the ''spirit that dwells in our subconscious''. The personification of the mediator “desires to be” again by reproducing the model, the ''characteristics'' of the model, in a new subject. One of the strongest of Mimetic desires is the desire to reproduce what we have accepted as ourselves. It is written into our physical and [[Spiritual DNA and Gene Expression|spiritual DNA]]. | |||
"All desire is a desire to be". If your desire to be is greater than your desire for your brother to be conflict will occur. This is why we were given the story of [[Cain]] and Abel. | We are to believe today that '''God is no longer pleased with grotesque ritual blood sacrifices upon [[altars]] of [[stone and clay]] because He says “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”.'''<Ref> [[Matthew 9]]:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. | ||
: [[Matthew 12]]:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.</Ref> | |||
=== Sacrifice is the food of mercy === | |||
Since God is the same today as He was yesterday why did He not say He wanted ''mercy'' from the beginning? | |||
Or did He? | |||
: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." [[Hosea 6]]:6 <Ref>1 Samuel 15: 21 "But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams." (See [[Julius Caesar]]) | |||
Psalms 50:7 ¶ Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I [am] God, [even] thy God. 8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, [to have been] continually before me...For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills." | |||
: [[Proverbs 21]]:2 ¶ Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. 3 ¶ To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. | |||
: [[Ecclesiastes 5]]:1 ¶ Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. | |||
: [[Isaiah 1]]:10 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. | |||
11 To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he [[goat]]s. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? | |||
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. | |||
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them]. | |||
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. | |||
16 ¶ Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; | |||
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. | |||
: [[Isaiah 58]]:3...6 "3 Wherefore have we fasted... [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?" | |||
: [[Jeremiah 7]]:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. | |||
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels [and] in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. | |||
: Daniel 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. | |||
: [[Amos 5]]:21 ¶ I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept [them]: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. | |||
23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. | |||
24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. | |||
: [[Micah 6]]:6 ¶ Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with [[burnt offerings]], with calves of a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? | |||
8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? | |||
9 ¶ The LORD’S voice crieth unto the city, and [the man of] wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it. | |||
10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure [that is] abominable?</Ref> | |||
Rene saw the psychology of the scapegoat mechanism as the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and [[religion]]. He believed that it was originally necessary in human evolution to control the violence issuing from mimetic rivalry through the scapegoat mechanism. Rene sees the Bible reveal these ideas and then denounce them in the sacrifice of Christ. But is mankind in a process of evolution or revolution and is he always revolting from the same thing? The ancient story consistently has been that man fell by revolting from a higher order and more enlightened position to a state of degeneration in darkness. | |||
Girard suggests that the scapegoat of [[Leviticus]] was a small ritual form of violence that relieved society of the subliminal emotional pressure that tend to produce conflict which may eventually threaten the existence of the community or even the whole of society. Was the scapegoat meant to deceive the community into transferring the blame for their sins to the victim as the culprit of the communal crisis? | |||
Girard goes on to explain that it is crucial that this process be unconscious. But was man made to function without consciousness? | |||
The "[[tree of knowledge]] of good and evil" did not grant consciousness but opened the way to [[vanity]] which cut us off from the [[tree of life]] and therefore "[[the way]], the [[truth]], and the life".<Ref name="life">John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.</Ref> | |||
From that day on we wondered the earth ''scratching our life from earth and clay'' cut off from life more abundant through vanities of the [[soul]]. | |||
It is likely a [[strong delusion]] that all our desires are ours alone. But if all desire is mimetic were is free will? | |||
Do we have ''[[choice]]''? | |||
Where does it begin and end? | |||
Has mankind been in an identity crisis since he first denied the truth of his own nature and began to decide for himself what was good and what was evil in his own vain imagination? | |||
Does man's desire to find this missing identity push and pull him to imitate those people around him? | |||
Does the delusion that we are what we have call to us to obtain that which belongs to our identity models. | |||
---- | |||
== The ''model'' Mediator == | |||
: '''"Intellectually, now, I believe that it is a complete vanity to say positively there is no God."''' John Rhys-Davies | |||
Are we "in human evolution" or have we fallen from the foundation of the original divine plan? | |||
Does our personal vanity keep us from seeing that we are still falling short of faith in "[[the way]], the truth, and the life"?<Ref name="life"></Ref> | |||
While the idea of God may be incomprehensible, mysterious and beyond our grasp as a heuristic ''God''; and the idea of God is composed of different elements almost too numerous to list; and by His defined nature being infinite a comprehensive list of ''characteristics'', though always incomplete us, we are regularly tempted by the theologies to pursue the finite with our finite minds. | |||
By denial of the true nature of our divine originator, we are in denial of our own nature. | |||
Or else we are in denial of the truth about ourselves and feel an absence, a lack, an emptiness in our experiential existence which press us into an ever-present quest for the perfect model that will fill, satisfy or relieve the pain of that emptiness. | |||
The ultimate ''model'' must be the unreachable or unknown "personality of God" for we are made in His image. God is courageous and compassionate, just and forgiving. God is the idea of a giving disciplinarian who gives us life and a place to live it but not without creating [[Natural law]] to lead or guide us from destruction to abundance. When we divide God into [[gods]] with the different attribute and subsequent flaws we dilute the model. | |||
The idea that we were not created by an ''Omnipotent Divine Designer Creator Father'' but simply evolved as complex chemical reactions from primordial slime with no intelligent design would be a downer to some but liberating to others who could denounce all moral absolutes and the existence of free will as nothing more than products of deluded [[Dendritic tree|dendritic imagery]]. | |||
In the story of [[Cain]] and Able, Able is the victim of injustice and the murder by [[Cain]] who sinned against the God of life. Without God, there is no sin. So to those who merely evolved over billions of generations Cain, who both dominates and reproduces the next generation becomes the fittest to survive. Cain becomes the hero of the story. | |||
Ultimately if our desire desires “Being” above all else then all of our fellowmen become mere resources. As such, if there is something which the subject “lacks and which some other person seems to possess”<Ref>Violence and the Sacred, René Noël Théophile Girard</Ref> becomes an entitlement for the taking. | |||
"All desire is a desire to be". | |||
If your ''desire to be'' is greater than your desire for your brother to be conflict will occur. | |||
This is why we were given the story of [[Cain]] and Abel. | |||
It is in the nature of God to give us life as it is in the nature of the good Father and Mother to give their life so that their children might live. | |||
It is in the nature of Cain to take what he wants even at the expense of his brother or even his own children. | |||
: John 15:12 '''"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."''' | |||
---- | |||
== What should be removed == | |||
The scapegoat issue occurred after Leviticus 10, when Nadab and Abihu the eldest sons of Aaron offered a sacrifice with 'foreign fire' or 'strange fire' before the LORD, disobeying his instructions, and were immediately consumed by God's fire.<Ref>[[Leviticus 10]]:1 ¶ And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put [[incense]] thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.</Ref> | |||
What was ''[[strange fire]]''? | |||
How did God send his own [[fire]]? | |||
What does the word [[incense]] represent? | |||
Why did it need to be ''ground fine''? | |||
What were the ''censers'' through which the incense will pass and be consumed? | |||
---- | |||
In Exodus 30 specifically verses 7-8 and Leviticus,<Ref>Leviticus 9:6-10, Leviticus 10:1-14, </Ref> God outlines a proper sacrifice to him. Nadab and Abihu ventured unauthorized to perform the incense service—the highest and most solemn of the priestly duties. Their use of ''"strange fire"'' was a presumptuous and unwarranted intrusion into a sacred office. | |||
The deaths of Nadab and Abihu symbolized the death of the ego and warned all of arrogant usurpation of priestly duty in the form of powers that [[exercise authority]]. | |||
---- | |||
"In Hebrew the term "[[burnt offerings]]" translates as "ascend" (they ascended). The Hebrew noun olah (עֹלָה) means "that which goes up [in smoke]".[3] It is formed from the active participle of the Hiphil form of the verb alah (עָלָה), "to cause to ascend." " | |||
---- | |||
In the 18th century, many imagining themselves to be enlightened assumed that communal violence would be reduced with the implementation or acceptance of a ''[[social contract]]''. | In the 18th century, many imagining themselves to be enlightened assumed that communal violence would be reduced with the implementation or acceptance of a ''[[social contract]]''. | ||
Doesn't the same [[Bible]] which gives us the story of the [[scapegoat]] prohibit the making of [[social contract]]s that bind our conscience to anyone other than God? | |||
And what of the prohibition of [[envy]] and [[covetous practices]] in both Old and New Testaments? | |||
Hasn't many modern [[social contract]]s bound nations in a way that made the people little more than [[human resources]]? | |||
To work and [[employ|slave]] and war for the State which instituted world wars and revolutions that wreaked death for millions and devastating destruction upon the whole [[world]] and even now hangs the possibility of mutually assured destruction over the people to rule them with [[fear]]. | |||
Because we cannot imagine an alternative to the modern social contract does not mean it does exist. Could that alternative be hidden before us in the ancient text? What would be the nature of a ''social contract'' that gives life, relieves the dangers of envy and secures the hope of justice and mercy? | Because we cannot imagine an alternative to the modern social contract does not mean it does exist. Could that alternative be hidden before us in the ancient text? What would be the nature of a ''[[social contract]]'' that gives life, relieves the dangers of envy and secures the hope of justice and mercy? | ||
| Line 108: | Line 319: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Articles]] | |||
[[Category:Definitions]] | |||
[[Category:Words]] | |||
Latest revision as of 21:48, 27 November 2023
- “The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower
A Goat is a Goat
Sam Harris said that a goat is a goat is a goat.[1] This is all to common because many read all or too much of the Bible as literal.
Not only is the Bible full of allegories and metaphors the Hebrew language is full of symbolism because every letter of every word has a meaning. With such a language, the mind of the people will be different and the way they tell stories will be different.
In parables of Goats and Sheep, Jesus is trying to tell us something about the nature of the kingdom of God. The New Testament talks about living stones.
If altars are not always piles of dead stones then a goat may not always be a goat.
If a goat is not always a goat then is a scapegoat always a scapegoat?[2]
The word scapegoat in the Hebrew is ‘aza’zel ^לזאזע^ LamedZayinAlefZayinAyin.[3] It is formed from two words ^זע^ ZayinAyin ‘ez[4] meaning goat and ^לזא^ LamedZayinAlef ‘azal[5] meaning gone
There are many other words translated gone such as ךלה halak, אצי yatsa’, ךלי yalak, אוב bow’, רבע ‘abar, בושׁ shuwb, דעצ tsa‘ad, and more. The letters LamedZayinAlef may mean more than simply gone away in reference to a goat cast out.
The word goat is composed of the letters ZayinAyin but those letters are not always translated into goat.
The word ^זע^ ‘oz appears as strength or strong or mighty almost a hundred times.[6] Also, the word ^זע^ ‘az [7] consisting of the same root letters ZayinAyin is translated strong a dozen times and fierce, mighty and power as well as greed. Is the goat gone or is strength failing as a society when you are jealous and envious?
The primitive root ‘azaz AyinZayinZayin from which all these terms are derived is translated as both strong and impudent.[8]
Can a word mean goat, strong and impudent?
The Guide
- "Virtue would go far if vanity did not keep it company." Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Besides idioms, metaphors, and sophistry the use of allegories and cultural shifts over time to say nothing of hundreds of different sects exercising influence over the thinking and knowledge of the people took their toll on the message of the Bible. Many factions, religious groups, and denominations like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots all had divergent views of the scriptures. The reader, to say nothing of the translator, is faced with a sometimes difficult and profound task of deciphering the meaning intended by the inspired author. Therefore it has become essential that the reader must also be inspired by the tree of life rather than be solely dependent upon the tree of knowledge.
Is the true wisdom of the Bible hidden in allegory so that the reader must be equally inspired in order to be awakened with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth?
Was this by design?
Are the self-righteous religionists at a disadvantage when it comes to seeing the true many of scripture?
- "Truth is an inconvenience of the slothful but the enemy of the vain."
When translating words into English you can heavily influence the perception of the reader by altering a few words here and there. It is very easy to apply a doctrinal prejudice by slightly altering a single or in some cases several words in the text. Explanation of words and phrases like Corban, wages of unrighteousness, covetous practices or fathers of the earth can give us a new understanding of scripture. But without a humble willingness to see the error of our ways those who say they see already may remain bind.
- "Vanity can easily overtake wisdom. It usually overtakes common sense." Julian Casablancas
Emotive conjugation
According to what is sometimes referred to as Emotive conjugation or the Russell conjugation because it was pointed out by the philosopher Bertrand Russell.
Some examples are:
- I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.
- I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
- I am sparkling; you are unusually talkative; he is drunk.
- My beliefs do not require that you believe them, you always think you are right. He is overconfident.
This emotive or emotional conjugation used in rhetoric mimics the form of a grammatical conjugation of an irregular verb to illustrate the human tendency to describe behavior in a way that is more convenient to their ego or desire or in some cases convenient for the dogma the translator or the doctrine of their benefactor.
Allegory of a goat
In the "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Philo of Alexandria suggests that the goat does not take the sins with him into the desert "For the sufferings inflicted on the scapegoat are in real truth the lot of him who is fond of suffering."[9]
Who are those "fond of suffering"?
Are they the ones who are fond of coveting their neighbors' goods through their elected Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other?
Are those "fond of suffering" also slow to forgive and therefore to give?
Are they also fond of the wages of unrighteousness who consent to having One purse?
Is the imagined calling for the macabre ritual of the Scapegoat the result of pharisaical Sophistry?
Is the story of the scapegoat symbolic like the altars of Clay and stone?
There appears to be at least Two Eblaite Text[10] from a period reaching back to the 24th-century BC make reference to a ritual purification taking place at the king's wedding where the whole community is involved in driving out a she-goat into the "Alini" (wasteland) waring a silver neckless. This ritual was suggesting an "elimination rites" that removed any past objection to the King's bride.
There were also customs which may have resulted from man's primal nature of not accepting personal blame for things that have gone wrong.
When God discovered Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam blamed Eve and God for his sin. Because God gave him Eve, at least Eve became his first scapegoat if not God himself. And of course there was the serpent. Not accepting responsibility for our errors or sins is all too common a practice but putting the blame on others is not only unproductive they are exhausting and even destructive.
The king of vanity
In Greece when there was a famine, drought, or plague the natural tendency of fallen man is to blame someone else. Leaders are often the first to be blamed. It actually became the custom to take some poor individuals into the king's house, treat them like royalty, showering them with gifts and the publicly driving them out or even sacrificing them to take the blame for the king.
Evidence of similar rituals in the Andys was suspected when archeologists discovered children whose diet was greatly improved for at least a year before their ritual sacrifice. They were found frozen in caves high in the mountains, dressed in fine garments and evidently drugged and some times bound just before they froze to death.
While evidence of these bazar rituals of transference of guilt and responsibility are found throughout history exactly how the people descended to accept such perception of the function of nature in a cause and effect university remains obscure. But these delusions flourish when common sense becomes less common and vanity becomes the name of the game.
Sanctuary of the myth
The common interpretation is that the scapegoat stories or rituals assumes Israel's impurities and therefore it had to be removed from the camp with those impurities. Like the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, it had to be removed from the camp as a part of the sacrifice. One problem with this theory is that driving a goat into the desert is a herculean task even for the whole village.
And then there is the Red Heifer ritual that had nothing to do with a red female cow[11] the same as the Altars of piles of Clay and Stone had nothing to do with dirt and rocks.
Myths have meaning
Even Myths have meaning which may need to be conceal so that the stories may be told by the wise and the fool until the nature of God is revealed in spirit.
Exodus 12 tells us to "shall put away leaven out of your houses:" but does that leaven have anything to do with yeast which is in the air all around us?
The Bible tells us in Exodus 28:42[12] that the people "shalt make them linen breeches to cover their [the Levites] nakedness".
But that command had nothing to do with a need for new linen underwear much less the problem of going up steps which did not exist in the desert.
So, the directive has nothing to with an attire anymore than anyone is going to be kicked out of the wedding feast because they do "not have a wedding garment" which we see in Matthew 22:12.[13]
The bullock and "a censer full of burning coals of fire" may "cover the mercy seat and blood may be sprinkled with your finger but all these things are symbols of ideas which mask the truth within the myth for its own protection.
Masking the meaning in a myth keeps the minions of evil from knowing what to destroy. What they would hide is already a mystery hidden in plain sight and passed from generation to generations waiting for the revelation of God in spirit and truth to enter the heart and mind of the people.
- "When I look for myself I found a bundle of perception." David Hume[14]
David Hume believed that errors in philosophy are "only ridiculous”, but "the errors in religion are dangerous".
If the story of the Scapegoat is an allegory of misplaced violence or revenge or both.
What is the message and who can hear it?
Rene Girard and the scapegoat mechanism
René Gerard[15] became concerned with Philosophical Anthropology with his mimetic theory, imitation leading to competition for superiority leading to rivalries and violent conflicts. He suggests that those conflicts are partially relieved by a scapegoat mechanism. He concludes that ultimately, Christianity is the best antidote to violence.
Rene taught that all desire is mimetic and that all conflict originates in a mimetic rivalry. The theory of Mimetic Desire is “based on the observable tendency of human beings to subconsciously imitate others and the extension of this mimesis[16] to the realm of desire.”
subject, model, and object
This "mimetic character of desire" is established by a three-party relationship of subject, model, and object. Through the object, one is drawn to the model, identified by Girard as the mediator.
The “model” is made manifest in the spirit that dwells in our subconscious. The personification of the mediator “desires to be” again by reproducing the model, the characteristics of the model, in a new subject. One of the strongest of Mimetic desires is the desire to reproduce what we have accepted as ourselves. It is written into our physical and spiritual DNA.
We are to believe today that God is no longer pleased with grotesque ritual blood sacrifices upon altars of stone and clay because He says “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”.[17]
Sacrifice is the food of mercy
Since God is the same today as He was yesterday why did He not say He wanted mercy from the beginning?
Or did He?
- "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6 [18]
Rene saw the psychology of the scapegoat mechanism as the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion. He believed that it was originally necessary in human evolution to control the violence issuing from mimetic rivalry through the scapegoat mechanism. Rene sees the Bible reveal these ideas and then denounce them in the sacrifice of Christ. But is mankind in a process of evolution or revolution and is he always revolting from the same thing? The ancient story consistently has been that man fell by revolting from a higher order and more enlightened position to a state of degeneration in darkness.
Girard suggests that the scapegoat of Leviticus was a small ritual form of violence that relieved society of the subliminal emotional pressure that tend to produce conflict which may eventually threaten the existence of the community or even the whole of society. Was the scapegoat meant to deceive the community into transferring the blame for their sins to the victim as the culprit of the communal crisis?
Girard goes on to explain that it is crucial that this process be unconscious. But was man made to function without consciousness?
The "tree of knowledge of good and evil" did not grant consciousness but opened the way to vanity which cut us off from the tree of life and therefore "the way, the truth, and the life".[19]
From that day on we wondered the earth scratching our life from earth and clay cut off from life more abundant through vanities of the soul.
It is likely a strong delusion that all our desires are ours alone. But if all desire is mimetic were is free will?
Do we have choice?
Where does it begin and end?
Has mankind been in an identity crisis since he first denied the truth of his own nature and began to decide for himself what was good and what was evil in his own vain imagination?
Does man's desire to find this missing identity push and pull him to imitate those people around him?
Does the delusion that we are what we have call to us to obtain that which belongs to our identity models.
The model Mediator
- "Intellectually, now, I believe that it is a complete vanity to say positively there is no God." John Rhys-Davies
Are we "in human evolution" or have we fallen from the foundation of the original divine plan?
Does our personal vanity keep us from seeing that we are still falling short of faith in "the way, the truth, and the life"?[19]
While the idea of God may be incomprehensible, mysterious and beyond our grasp as a heuristic God; and the idea of God is composed of different elements almost too numerous to list; and by His defined nature being infinite a comprehensive list of characteristics, though always incomplete us, we are regularly tempted by the theologies to pursue the finite with our finite minds.
By denial of the true nature of our divine originator, we are in denial of our own nature.
Or else we are in denial of the truth about ourselves and feel an absence, a lack, an emptiness in our experiential existence which press us into an ever-present quest for the perfect model that will fill, satisfy or relieve the pain of that emptiness.
The ultimate model must be the unreachable or unknown "personality of God" for we are made in His image. God is courageous and compassionate, just and forgiving. God is the idea of a giving disciplinarian who gives us life and a place to live it but not without creating Natural law to lead or guide us from destruction to abundance. When we divide God into gods with the different attribute and subsequent flaws we dilute the model.
The idea that we were not created by an Omnipotent Divine Designer Creator Father but simply evolved as complex chemical reactions from primordial slime with no intelligent design would be a downer to some but liberating to others who could denounce all moral absolutes and the existence of free will as nothing more than products of deluded dendritic imagery.
In the story of Cain and Able, Able is the victim of injustice and the murder by Cain who sinned against the God of life. Without God, there is no sin. So to those who merely evolved over billions of generations Cain, who both dominates and reproduces the next generation becomes the fittest to survive. Cain becomes the hero of the story.
Ultimately if our desire desires “Being” above all else then all of our fellowmen become mere resources. As such, if there is something which the subject “lacks and which some other person seems to possess”[20] becomes an entitlement for the taking.
"All desire is a desire to be".
If your desire to be is greater than your desire for your brother to be conflict will occur.
This is why we were given the story of Cain and Abel.
It is in the nature of God to give us life as it is in the nature of the good Father and Mother to give their life so that their children might live.
It is in the nature of Cain to take what he wants even at the expense of his brother or even his own children.
- John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
What should be removed
The scapegoat issue occurred after Leviticus 10, when Nadab and Abihu the eldest sons of Aaron offered a sacrifice with 'foreign fire' or 'strange fire' before the LORD, disobeying his instructions, and were immediately consumed by God's fire.[21]
What was strange fire?
How did God send his own fire?
What does the word incense represent?
Why did it need to be ground fine?
What were the censers through which the incense will pass and be consumed?
In Exodus 30 specifically verses 7-8 and Leviticus,[22] God outlines a proper sacrifice to him. Nadab and Abihu ventured unauthorized to perform the incense service—the highest and most solemn of the priestly duties. Their use of "strange fire" was a presumptuous and unwarranted intrusion into a sacred office.
The deaths of Nadab and Abihu symbolized the death of the ego and warned all of arrogant usurpation of priestly duty in the form of powers that exercise authority.
"In Hebrew the term "burnt offerings" translates as "ascend" (they ascended). The Hebrew noun olah (עֹלָה) means "that which goes up [in smoke]".[3] It is formed from the active participle of the Hiphil form of the verb alah (עָלָה), "to cause to ascend." "
In the 18th century, many imagining themselves to be enlightened assumed that communal violence would be reduced with the implementation or acceptance of a social contract.
Doesn't the same Bible which gives us the story of the scapegoat prohibit the making of social contracts that bind our conscience to anyone other than God?
And what of the prohibition of envy and covetous practices in both Old and New Testaments?
Hasn't many modern social contracts bound nations in a way that made the people little more than human resources?
To work and slave and war for the State which instituted world wars and revolutions that wreaked death for millions and devastating destruction upon the whole world and even now hangs the possibility of mutually assured destruction over the people to rule them with fear.
Because we cannot imagine an alternative to the modern social contract does not mean it does exist. Could that alternative be hidden before us in the ancient text? What would be the nature of a social contract that gives life, relieves the dangers of envy and secures the hope of justice and mercy?
Scapegoat the remover
- azazel: entire removal
- Original Word: עֲזָאזֵל
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Transliteration: azazel
- Phonetic Spelling: (az-aw-zale')
- Definition: "entire removal"
The term only appears in Leviticus:
Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
- HEB: וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָ֖ד לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃
- NAS: and the other lot for the scapegoat.
- KJV: and the other lot for the scapegoat.
- INT: lot and the other the scapegoat
Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
- HEB: עָלָ֤יו הַגּוֹרָל֙ לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל יָֽעֳמַד־ חַ֛י
- NAS: the lot for the scapegoat fell
- KJV: fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented
- INT: and the lot the scapegoat shall be presented alive
Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
- HEB: לְשַׁלַּ֥ח אֹת֛וֹ לַעֲזָאזֵ֖ל הַמִּדְבָּֽרָה׃
- NAS: it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.
- KJV: with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
- INT: upon to send as the scapegoat the wilderness
Leviticus 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
- HEB: אֶת־ הַשָּׂעִיר֙ לַֽעֲזָאזֵ֔ל יְכַבֵּ֣ס בְּגָדָ֔יו
- NAS: the goat as the scapegoat shall wash
- KJV: the goat for the scapegoat shall wash
- INT: released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes
If you need help:
- Or want to help others:
Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network |
Join Local group |
About |
Purpose |
Guidelines |
Network Removal
Contact Minister |
Fractal Network |
Audacity of Hope |
Network Links
Footnotes
- ↑ Sam Harris argues against the existence of God because he claimed in a debate that "goat means goat" with Jordan Peterson and thereby misinterpreting the Bible. https://youtu.be/DWe4NjtCBHI
- ↑ Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
- Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
- Leviticus 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
- ↑ 05799 ^לזאזע^ ‘aza’zel \@az-aw-zale’\@ LamedZayinAlefZayinAyin from 05795 goat and 0235 gone; n m; {See TWOT on 1593} AV-scapegoat 4; 4
- 1) entire removal, scapegoat
- : 1a) refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people
- 1b) meaning dubious
- ↑ 05795 (זע) ‘ez \@aze\@ from 05810 עָזַז ‘azaz "to be strong"; n f; {See TWOT on 1654 @@ "1654a"} AV-goat 63, kid + 01423 5, kid 4, he 1, kids + 01121 1; 74
- 1) female goat, she-goat, goat, kid
- 05794 'az (זע) strong; 05795 'ez (זע) she goat; 05796 'ez (זע)Aramaic, she goat; 05797 'oz (זע) strength; Many other words and names contain the letters AyinZayin(זע) and include the idea of strength.
- ע Ayin also U Divine Providence Eye or Well of five states of kindness or severity. [eye, watch] 70
- ז Zayin The Service and Valor, cut and bread, war and nourish. [weapon.... Cut to cut off manacle] 7
- ↑ 0235 ^לזא^ ‘azal \@aw-zal’\@ a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 56} AV-gone 2, fail 1, gaddest about 1, to and fro 1, spent 1; 6
- 1) to go, to go away, to go about
- 1a) (Qal)
- 1a1) to go away
- 1a2) to go about
- 1a3) to be used up, be exhausted, be gone, evaporated
- 1b) (Pual) to go to and fro
- 1a) (Qal)
- 1) to go, to go away, to go about
- ↑ 05797 ^זע^ ‘oz \@oze\@ or (fully) ^זוע^ ‘owz \@oze\@ from 05810; n m; {See TWOT on 1596 @@ "1596b"} AV-strength 60, strong 17, power 11, might 2, boldness 1, loud 1, mighty 1; 93
- 1) might, strength
- 1a) material or physical
- 1b) personal or social or political
- 1) might, strength
- ↑ 05794 עַז ‘az [az] from 05810 to be strong; adj; [BDB-738b] [{See TWOT on 1596 @@ "1596a" }]
AV-strong 12, fierce 4, mighty 3, power 1, greedy 1, roughly 1, stronger 1; 23
- 1) strong, mighty, fierce
- ↑ 05810 ^זזע^ ‘azaz \@aw-zaz’\@ a primitive root AyinZayinZayin ; v; {See TWOT on 1596} AV-strengthen 6, prevail 3, strong 1, impudent 1, hardeneth 1; 12
- 1) to be strong
- 1a) (Qal) to be strong, prevail
- 1b) (Hiphil) to make firm, strengthen
- ע Ayin also U Divine Providence Eye or Well of five states of kindness or severity. [eye, watch] 70
- ז Zayin The Service and Valor, cut and bread, war and nourish. [weapon.... Cut to cut off manacle] 7
- 1) to be strong
- ↑ The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, After the Work of the Six Days of Creation. XIV. Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria).
- ↑ Eblaite or Palaeo-Syrian, is an extinct East Semitic language used during the 3rd millennium.
- ↑ See the Red Heifer
- ↑ Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy [place]; that they bear not iniquity, and die: [it shall be] a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
- ↑ Matthew 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
- ↑ Hume, David. “Of Personal Identity.” In A Treatise of Human Nature. Project Gutenberg,
- ↑ René Noël Théophile Girard was a French historian, literary critic, and anthropological philosopher of social science best known for his “mimetic theory”.
- ↑ mimesis "representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature."
- ↑ Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
- Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
- ↑ 1 Samuel 15: 21 "But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams." (See Julius Caesar)
Psalms 50:7 ¶ Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I [am] God, [even] thy God. 8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, [to have been] continually before me...For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills."
- Proverbs 21:2 ¶ Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. 3 ¶ To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
- Ecclesiastes 5:1 ¶ Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
- Isaiah 1:10 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
- Isaiah 58:3...6 "3 Wherefore have we fasted... [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?"
- Jeremiah 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
- Daniel 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.
- Amos 5:21 ¶ I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept [them]: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
- Micah 6:6 ¶ Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
- ↑ Violence and the Sacred, René Noël Théophile Girard
- ↑ Leviticus 10:1 ¶ And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
- ↑ Leviticus 9:6-10, Leviticus 10:1-14,