If Jesus was a sacrifice...

[Kolibri]

Can you cite Scripture that we were conceived condemned?

Look! I was born guilty of error,
And my mother conceived me in sin. (or "And sinful from the moment my mother conceived me.")
- Psalms 51:5

 

[Eileen]

if we did not inherent the sin then any one of us should have been able to remain sinless.

You got it! but so far no one has remained sinless past the time he/she became accountable. and yes - in a society where rebellion against HaShem is the norm- it is nigh impossible. But I should say that I am speaking of intentional sin here. Not unintentional. I do believe it is quite possible and even most probable that Yeshua committed no intentional sin once he knew what it was.

 

[Eileen]

Look! I was born guilty of error,
And my mother conceived me in sin. (or "And sinful from the moment my mother conceived me.")
- Psalms 51:5

The sin was his parents not his. He was conceived in a sinful act of his parent not sin was in him.

 

[Kolibri]

there was more to it in Jesus' case, his alignment to the blueprint would not have been off. He would have inherited a perfect conscience and the ability to resist from his Father. Besides all the time Mary was pregnant. Holy Spirit overshadowed her so what was born was truly sinless not just free from the stain of Adam's deliberate sin. (Luke 1:35)

 

[Eileen]

The sin was his parents not his. He was conceived in a sinful act of his parent not sin was in him.

Psa 19:13
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent (naqiy) from the great transgression.

Psa 24:3
Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Psa 24:4
He that hath clean (naqiy) hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

 

[Eileen]

there was more to it in Jesus' case, his alignment to the blueprint would not have been off. He would have inherited a perfect conscience and the ability to resist from his Father. Besides all the time Mary was pregnant. Holy Spirit overshadowed her so what was born was truly sinless not just free from the stain of Adam's deliberate sin. (Luke 1:35)

You believe HaShem a Spirit impregnated Miriam- I believe her husband, Yosef, did. He did not inherit sin because sin is not inherited. One must sin in order to be a sinner or guilty of sin.

 

[Kolibri]

I believe both Philipians 2:5-7 and Matthew 1:25

"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human. (Lit., "came to be in the likeness of men.") - Philippians 2:5-7

"But [Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus." - Mt 1:25

 

[Eileen]

I believe both Philipians 2:5-7 and Matthew 1:25

"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human. (Lit., "came to be in the likeness of men.") - Philippians 2:5-7

"But [Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus." - Mt 1:25

The verse Mt 1:25 says after he brought her into his house he did not have sex with until after Yeshua was born. Once Yosef and Miriam were betrothed they could have sexual relations with out breaking Torah. It was only the custom of the day to wait until the wedding feast.

It is late here and I need to get to bed, I will get back to you on the Philipian verse.

 

[Kolibri]

The verse Mt 1:25 says after he brought her into his house he did not have sex with until after Yeshua was born. Once Yosef and Miriam were betrothed they could have sexual relations with out breaking Torah. It was only the custom of the day to wait until the wedding feast.

It is late here and I need to get to bed, I will get back to you on the Philipian verse.

I realize you have not gotten to the other passage. However, thought to point out Mt1:18 specifically mentions what Mary was pregnant by holy spirit before they were united. Mt 1:19 says Joseph wanted to divorce her privately because he knew the child was not his. And Mt 1:20 relates how he received a dream confirming that Mary was not guilty of sleeping around, but what had been conceived(begotten) was by holy spirit.

From this it seems evident that Jesus' life as human did not begin thru two people having sex.

 

[tkdrocks]

Christian thought is that the Temple sacrifices, after "the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom" by miraculous means, were no longer being accepted as valid by God. (Mt:27:51).

I hadn't thought of this verse in a long time, but, where would have this information come from since only the high priest was allowed in the holiest part of the temple. There just isn't any corroborating evidence, just as is the case of the sky going dark for 3 hours and the dead prophets walking around. ... Just a thought.

 

[Kolibri]

Doubting scripture because of lacking support in secular histories is nothing new.

As the religious leaders were seeking to destroy Lazarus because he was living proof that Jesus performed a resurrection of one dead for 4 days, it would make sense that some things may have had limited written documentation. Or the records could have been destroyed along with Jerusalem 47 years later.

When we consider that Matthew was supposed to be written in about 41 C.E. it would be a rather big flub on Matthew's part to include something that was not verifiable by eyewitnesses or via written documentation available at the time. It would have been too easy for opposers to make a fuss over such a blatant lie.

 

[Kolibri]

*** w90 9/1 p. 7 ‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up’ ***
‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up’
“THE earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split. And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.” (Matthew 27:51-53) Catholic scholar Karl Staab calls this event that occurred at Jesus’ death “most mysterious.” What happened?

Epiphanius and other early Church Fathers taught that the holy ones literally came to life and went with the resurrected Jesus to heaven. Augustine, Theophylactus, and Zigabenus believed that these dead ones received a temporary resurrection but later returned to their tombs. The latter opinion, however, “did not gain wide recognition,” comments scholar Erich Fascher. When rendering Matthew 27:52, 53, many modern Bible translations give the impression that a resurrection took place. Not so the New World Translation, which points to the effects of an earthquake. Why?

First, whoever “the holy ones” were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e·gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69) The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.

This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became “the firstborn from the dead.” (Colossians 1:18) Anointed Christians, also called “holy ones,” were promised a share in the first resurrection during Christ’s presence, not in the first century.—1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-17.

Most Bible commentators have difficulty explaining verse 53, although several of them suggest that verse 52 describes the opening of tombs by the earthquake and the exposing of newly buried corpses. For example, German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: “And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up.”
Who were those that “entered into the holy city” a considerable time later, namely after Jesus had been resurrected? As seen above, the exposed bodies remained lifeless, so Matthew must refer to persons who visited the tombs and brought news of the event into Jerusalem. Thus, the rendering of the New World Translation deepens Bible understanding and does not confuse readers concerning the resurrection.

"And look! the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. And the tombs (or "memorial tombs.") were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered the holy city), and they became visible to many people." - New World Translation (2013 Revision)

 

[tkdrocks]

Doubting scripture because of lacking support in secular histories is nothing new.

As the religious leaders were seeking to destroy Lazarus because he was living proof that Jesus performed a resurrection of one dead for 4 days, it would make sense that some things may have had limited written documentation. Or the records could have been destroyed along with Jerusalem 47 years later.

When we consider that Matthew was supposed to be in about 41 C.E. it would be a rather big flub on Matthew's part to include something that was not verifiable by eyewitnesses or via written documentation available at the time. It would have been too easy for opposers to make a fuss over such a blatant lie.

That fact that it is not new, does not make the point invalid. The larger point is that: Major claims require significant evidence. This whole event is supposed to be the one event where Good conquers Evil. The sky darkens, Moses and Elijah are raised from the ground along with a great earthquake. Even with records being destroyed in Jerusalem, these major events are not recorded anywhere else.

41 C.E. Says who? If it were written that early (before the epistles) Paul would have been able to reference it, at least once, in his writings. I do not claim to be any sort of expert, but it is my understanding that there are many flubs in the gospels about geography and events as if they were written by non-eyewitness, much after the fact. This is really outside of the "Jesus Sacrifice" topic. Perhaps, we should start a new thread.

 

[tkdrocks]

*** w90 9/1 p. 7 ‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up’ ***
‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up’
“THE earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split. And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.” (Matthew 27:51-53) Catholic scholar Karl Staab calls this event that occurred at Jesus’ death “most mysterious.” What happened?

Epiphanius and other early Church Fathers taught that the holy ones literally came to life and went with the resurrected Jesus to heaven. Augustine, Theophylactus, and Zigabenus believed that these dead ones received a temporary resurrection but later returned to their tombs. The latter opinion, however, “did not gain wide recognition,” comments scholar Erich Fascher. When rendering Matthew 27:52, 53, many modern Bible translations give the impression that a resurrection took place. Not so the New World Translation, which points to the effects of an earthquake. Why?

First, whoever “the holy ones” were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e·gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69) The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.

This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became “the firstborn from the dead.” (Colossians 1:18) Anointed Christians, also called “holy ones,” were promised a share in the first resurrection during Christ’s presence, not in the first century.—1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-17.

Most Bible commentators have difficulty explaining verse 53, although several of them suggest that verse 52 describes the opening of tombs by the earthquake and the exposing of newly buried corpses. For example, German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: “And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up.”
Who were those that “entered into the holy city” a considerable time later, namely after Jesus had been resurrected? As seen above, the exposed bodies remained lifeless, so Matthew must refer to persons who visited the tombs and brought news of the event into Jerusalem. Thus, the rendering of the New World Translation deepens Bible understanding and does not confuse readers concerning the resurrection.

"And look! the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. And the tombs (or "memorial tombs.") were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered the holy city), and they became visible to many people." - New World Translation (2013 Revision)

Where to start? So some 2nd century (a hundred years later) people give an opinion on what they think happened? Hardly eyewitness. Bodies from shallow graves being unearthed in an earthquake? Sure, very possible, but not exactly miraculous. Most importantly, no earthquake or darkness is referenced by anyone. If it looks and smells like legend, well, I think you get my point.

 

[Kolibri]

Where to start? So some 2nd century (a hundred years later) people give an opinion on what they think happened? Hardly eyewitness. Bodies from shallow graves being unearthed in an earthquake? Sure, very possible, but not exactly miraculous. Most importantly, no earthquake or darkness is referenced by anyone. If it looks and smells like legend, well, I think you get my point.

you are right. this is a topic for a fresh thread. I am not sure how committed I am to going back and forth this week though. I lost too much sleep last week to being here But I will reply back more than I should most like

 

[Yes]

your hypocrisy is showing.

Your father's character is showing. The accuser of the brethren is the devil, and that is all you have.

 

[tkdrocks]

So, back to the original question: Was Jesus sacrificed? For such an important doctrinal position of believers, there is sure a wide range of opinions/beliefs. There is the crowd that follows the literal Adam/Eve Original Sin model that requires a blood sacrifice to appease God. Another subset falls into the metaphorical original sin and, I guess, metaphorical sacrifice. There is a division between what Jesus actually sacrificed, especially if he was resurrected (since ultimately he didn't stay dead). Some would argue that the very act of separation from the godhead (assuming a Trinitarian point of view) was so traumatic that it was the sacrifice. Still others view the sacrifice as loss of fulfilled humanity.

I will preface my next statements as, I am not a biblical scholar. I do not declare myself to be smarter than anyone else. However, I do feel as qualified as any other rational human to make assumptions and form opinions based on a pool of knowledge and observations.

First of all, I believe that it is absurd to consider the Old Testament and New Testament as a unified, flowing document. It is more reasonable to consider the writings as a patchwork collection of writings that reflect the scribes and priests that copied the texts. In just a few decades, we have seen theology evolve with a static set of documents. Can you imagine how much would change based on rival sects controlling the holy texts with an illiterate base? It is very normal to use hindsight when looking at (what may be) unrelated passages and try to find a connection. For example, force fitting a part of an Old Testament verse into a prophecy about Jesus, when it was clearly speaking of something else. That is a classic example of confirmation bias.

Secondly, the Levites did not seem to make any connection to a sacrificial Messiah. Either they were too close to the forest to see the trees or that just wasn't a viable doctrinal path. I do understand that it was Saul/Paul that made this connection, but even he lived several hundred years after the glory days of the Levitical period.

Finally, to many, the sacrifice of Jesus is the most important event in the history of time and whether you believe it or not may determine if you spend eternity in paradise or in hell. Wouldn't you think that this point would be a little more fleshed out? The very fact that there is such an array of opinions/beliefs about the sacrifice and even if one was required, gives me pause. This does not even include the morality of passing on an eternal sentence from parent to child over millennia over an ancient fruit rebellion.

So, I conclude my ramble with a hope that we all test our beliefs and make adaptations when the evidence leads you in a new direction. The book of Genesis, once I really read it, was what eventually made me question my Christian beliefs. But, I was taught that it was literal history. When it became clear to me that it was unreasonable and that even early Jews considered it metaphorical, my opinion began to change.

 

[Kolibri]

First of all, I believe that it is absurd to consider the Old Testament and New Testament as a unified, flowing document.

This is a true statement, if this collection of books is merely a product of man. If it is a product of holy spirit and actually "God-breathed" - then by such a definition, it would have to be considered a single book for the purpose of keeping to a theme and highlighting with accuracy the steps God took to fulfill his purpose for mankind and the earth.

Taken as a unified collection of inspired writings the first prophesy at Genesis 3:15 sets the theme.

"And I will put enmity (or "hostility.") between you and the woman and between your offspring (or "seed.") and her offspring. He will crush (or "bruise; strike.") your head, and you will strike (or "bruise; crush.") him in the heel."

There are four parties mentioned here (along with their identifications from the Bible as a whole):

• The serpent - Satan (Re 12:9; 20:2)
  
• The woman - Jerusalem above (Ga 4:26; Re 12:1,2)
  Jehovah’s universal organization of spirit creatures that acts as his wife, both in serving him and in producing offspring.
• The serpent's offspring - those that constitute an ongoing threat to the physical and spiritual well-being of God's people. (John 8:44; 1Jo 3:10)
  
• The woman's offspring - Jesus primarily and secondarily the Lamb's Bride, New Jerusalem, Jesus' "little flock" of anointed brothers that die faithfully. (Ga 3:16,29)

Satan struck the heel by temporally killing Jesus. (Mt 27:50; Ac 3:15)
Jesus will crush Satan by means of a figurative head wound when Satan is utterly destroyed. (Re 20:2,10)

I am unaware of any breakdown of this prophesy as set forth by Judaism alone, though my lack of knowing does not preclude their having one to offer.

 

[tkdrocks]

This is a true statement, if this collection of books is merely a product of man. If it is a product of holy spirit and actually "God-breathed" - then by such a definition, it would have to be considered a single book for the purpose of keeping to a theme and highlighting with accuracy the steps God took to fulfill his purpose for mankind and the earth.

Interesting, in order to maintain a position that the Bible is "God-breathed" means that you have to use a laser scalpel to slice through the misogynistic, murderous, less flattering portions of the texts to pick out the verses that resonate with your particular religious bias. It is much like ignoring the actions of a serial killer to pick out nuggets of wisdom.

My friend, there is too much credit being allotted to bronze age legends and the superstitions that follow. Sadly, it has shackled generations of people into mentally struggling over an ancient curse rather than live life to their full potential. All of this in purely an invention of the priestly class (who claim to know the unknowable) who benefited from the offerings given by parishioners and that is still true to this day.

All I would ask is that you hold these writings to the same standard that you would any other information presented to you.

 

[BUTSeriously]

Explain more what you are trying to say.

Its a law that is enshrined in all judiciary institutions and it comes from the Hebrew laws. If one says Jesus was killed, and someone is nominated as the killer, it has to be proven or given with some imprints of substance. The Gospels is a 4th century document, and the charge of murder cannot be made based on faith.