Skip to main content
18 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 17, 2020 at 9:51 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Jan 2, 2017 at 20:55 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=862 by developer User.Id=35
Dec 18, 2016 at 10:37 comment added user10231 @enegue I left my up-vote because this post most certainly adds to the discussion but the more I look at the question and the answer the less I feel confident as to whether it was this or the annual rituals which are in view. Some elements of the sentence point in one direction and others in the other. The question is surprisingly difficult for me to answer with any real assurance. I would still accept this as an answer, as well as its opposite!
Dec 16, 2016 at 21:58 comment added enegue @Dɑvïd Related to this, and of interest to me in regard to how you might judge such things, "Who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"
Dec 16, 2016 at 21:10 comment added Dɑvïd @enegue I've got no argument with that!
Dec 16, 2016 at 21:09 comment added enegue @Dɑvïd There is a reason why I have written what I have written. It's all about sharing perspectives, so that nothing that can be said, is left unsaid.
Dec 16, 2016 at 21:03 comment added Dɑvïd @enegue I appreciate your effort to clarify, and follow your reasoning. Your answer still strikes me as rhetorically constructed and baseless. That is, posing a series of rhetorical questions, accompanied by surmise, and in the absence of any evidence, does not add up to a convincing case. You gave it a good shot. There is a reason why Delitzsch wrote what he did.
Dec 16, 2016 at 20:09 history edited enegue CC BY-SA 3.0
added 156 characters in body
Dec 16, 2016 at 19:57 history edited enegue CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1779 characters in body
Dec 16, 2016 at 15:07 comment added Dɑvïd P.s. for those unable to see the "split", the votes as I type are +2/-3.
Dec 16, 2016 at 14:19 comment added Dɑvïd (-1) While this answer nicely sets out some background for the daily round of sacrifices (which is well known and attested, and not the problematic part of OP's question), it sheds no light whatsoever on the conundrum which is central to the question, and on which Delitzsch is aptly quoted. viz., the high priestly invovlement in such activity. I'm afraid enegue has not at a stroke solved the "difficulty which has from the first severely exercised the ingenuity of interpreters". // Signed, yrs most sincerely, A. Twerp.
Dec 16, 2016 at 12:52 comment added user10231 (+1) I learned something new today, thanks. Sorry about the twerps that dv'ed this excellent post with no explanation. Maybe I should kill my dog to atone for them.
Dec 16, 2016 at 6:04 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=862 by developer User.Id=35
Dec 16, 2016 at 22:09
Dec 16, 2016 at 4:32 comment added enegue @SimplyaChristian Do you know what sanctified means? I'm sure you do. You can't be holy if your sins are not remitted. The daily sacrifice was clearly for the daily maintenance of the holiness of the tabernacle and the priests (including the high priest). I am gobsmacked that you can't see this.
Dec 16, 2016 at 4:22 comment added user862 And, again, “These verses say nothing about sacrifices being for the sins of the High Priest and for those of the people.” Where is the part about the sins?
Dec 16, 2016 at 4:03 comment added enegue You are not reading it @SimplyaChristian, verses 42-44 -- specifically "And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office" I'm pretty sure Aaron was the high priest. This was to be a daily happening.
Dec 16, 2016 at 3:52 history edited enegue CC BY-SA 3.0
added 126 characters in body
Dec 16, 2016 at 3:43 history answered enegue CC BY-SA 3.0